OTTAWA (CUP) — The recent show of provincial and federal government co-operation aimed at propping up Canada’s ailing healthcare system should serve as an example for how to repair the current “crisis” in post-secondary education, student leaders say.
The healthcare conference saw the premiers descend on Ottawa to hash out provincial and federal responsibilities in the cost-shared program. The highly publicized summit saw premiers walk away with $41.2 billion over 10 years, a figure somewhere between provincial demands and federal offerings.
“It is a good example of how the federal and provincial government can collaborate on something that both governments acknowledge they have responsibility for,” said George Soule, national chair of the Canadian Federation of Students, a lobby group. “We hope they do the same thing with post-secondary education.”
Soule is calling for both levels of government to bring the same cooperation to education funding issues. He said he hopes the much-needed cash Prime Minister Paul Martin shelled out for healthcare will not be used as an excuse to avoid addressing the financial needs of the post-secondary education system.
“There was obviously a need within health care. No one is going to deny that,” he said.
“You would hope that rather than trying to use that as an excuse, they’d use that as an example.”
Currently the provinces receive money for post-secondary education from the federal government through general social transfer payments. They are then free to divvy the money up according to different social needs within each province. There federal government does not say how much of that money needs to be earmarked for post-secondary education.
But having funding for education hidden within a larger transfer means the provinces are not held accountable for where that money is spent, said James Kusie, national director of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, another lobby group.
Kusie and Soule are calling on the federal government to create a dedicated transfer of funds that would have to be used by the provinces solely for education, making the provinces accountable for how much federal money they put towards post-secondary.
Kusie also said he is concerned that healthcare has gotten so much attention recently that the needs of other social sectors, like education, have been glossed over. Without a vibrant post-secondary system, he said, Canada will not be able to educate enough people to work in the improved healthcare system.
“One way to have a healthy health care system is to have a post-secondary education system that supports that,” said Kusie. “We are not going to have doctors in 10 years to fix health care for our generation.”
But an increase in federal control over education spending, like what Kusie and Soule are advocating for, is not likely, said Michael Behiels, a University of Ottawa professor who specializes in Canadian politics.
Behiels suggested Martin is moving towards giving the provinces even more freedom to do what they see fit with federal funds. He said the healthcare conference was a “watershed moment” in Canadian federalism because it showed Martin is looking to withdraw control over the finances of the provinces.
Martin’s message at the conference was, “Take the money. Go away. Don’t come back,” Behiels said, adding he thinks Martin would like to do the same with post-secondary education funding.
“The provinces are going to be allowed to go their separate ways, especially in areas of their jurisdiction like education,” he said. The federal government “will not try to, in a sense, impose any kind of agenda on the provinces in terms of education.”
