The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada recently reported that international student enrolment at Canadian universities was up 12 per cent this past fall over last year, adding that “In the globally competitive international education sector, (Canada) is an enviable place to be.” By comparison, increases for the same period in the enrolments of Canadian students at our institutions were 3.4 per cent in graduate programs and two per cent in undergraduate programs.

The OECD’s 2012 annual review “Education at a Glance” found that about four million students studied outside their home countries in 2010. This number has doubled since 2000 at an average annual rate of about seven per cent. Some estimates put this number at about seven million by 2025.

The Canadian Bureau for International Education — a group to which most Canadian universities and colleges belong — reports that, in 2011, Canada was the world’s sixth most popular destination country for international students. Last year, we hosted about 240,000 students from 173 different countries.

While this is a small share of the total global students seeking an international education, Canada’s share did grow about 70 per cent over the past decade. International students now represent about 6.5 per cent of the total student population on our campuses.

With plenty of room to increase its share of the global market and with many of our institutions already pursuing their own strategies, Canada is currently renewing its approach to international education. In August 2012 the federal Advisory Panel on Canada’s International Education Strategy released its final report entitled “International Education: A Key Driver of Canada’s Future Prosperity.”

The report cites innovation, trade, human capital development and the labour market as the four key areas most poised to benefit from this prosperity. There is little mention of post-secondary education itself as a beneficiary.

But, hold on, the education portfolio rests with the provinces, right? Well, perhaps it does but the provision of education to non-Canadians who then spend on Canadian soil in return is so much more about trade and export than it is about education.

It should come as no surprise then to learn that the work of the federal advisory panel was commissioned by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In fact, going forward, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has overall responsibility for management of Canada’s international education strategy.

Foreign Affair’s interest here is made abundantly clear in a May 2012 report it commissioned to assess the economic impact of international education in Canada. In 2010, it is estimated international students spent almost $8 billion in Canada on tuition, accommodation and other spending — almost seven per cent of the GDP contributed by our overall education sector. Additionally, the report shows that over 81,000 jobs were created and more than $445 million in direct government revenue was generated as a result.

When viewed as an exported commodity, international education is worth more than Canada’s export of unwrought aluminum and its export of helicopters, airplanes and spacecraft. The economic impact to Canada is already undeniably significant. So, when you consider potential future growth of Canada’s share of the international student market not much more needs to be said about Foreign Affair’s interest here.

The federal advisory panel recommended a number of goals that, in its vision, would make Canada the leader in international education. Over the next 10 years, it wants to double the number of international students we attract and increase the number of Canadians studying abroad to 50,000 students. The panel is also pushing for increased investment in selling Canada’s brand to a limited number of targeted markets with the most potential for growth. Canada’s brand, according to the panel, is “consistently high quality at a reasonable cost,” citing that tuition fees and living costs in Canada are affordable.

A key recommendation of the panel is that the objectives of our international education strategy must be aligned and integrated with Canada’s Economic Action Plan, its international trade and innovation strategies, and its immigration and foreign policies.

This would seem to mean, for instance, that any future trade negotiations would seek to remove barriers to international markets for Canadian education exports, and that greater student mobility would be facilitated through improved immigration services and revised policies.

Sadly, in all of this, the notion that post-secondary education is a human right and a public good seems to fall by the wayside.

CAUT’s policy on international students notes recruitment should be driven by a need to foster the international exchange and development of knowledge, to promote cultural diversity and understanding, to enrich the educational experience of students and academic staff, and to facilitate international cooperation and development.

It should not be motivated by financial gain and should seek to ensure access and support for all qualified students. None of these principles seems to be fundamental to the federal government’s motives at play here.

Canadian universities and colleges prosper when there is a significant international student presence on campus. International perspectives in our teaching, research and scholarship, and our service activities benefit everyone. However, what are the trade-offs for the academy in return for the government’s pursuit of international students solely to bolster the country’s future prosperity. There are many questions which need to be considered.

What sorts of quality-assurance guidelines and frameworks are being considered? What will happen to academic standards when economics take precedence over academic quality? What are the implications for the academic job? What resources will be made available on our campuses to support a more diverse international student population? What does this mean for access to programs for Canadian students? How will this improve the diversity on our campuses among academic and other staff? Does this appropriately recognize Canada’s inherent diversity which already exists on our campuses? And, where is the academic voice in all of this?

Pursuing the international student is a worthy venture but we should ensure it is being done for the right reasons.