Ignatieff proves impossible to pin down

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 18/01/2010 (5831 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

MICHAEL Ignatieff likes to bill himself as a man of ideas. Unfortunately, at his talk at the University of Manitoba Thursday morning, he demonstrated that he forgets those ideas when asked about them. In particular, Ignatieff’s position on the role of the federal government in higher education is a moving target, impossible to pin down.

In 2006, when Ignatieff was campaigning (unsuccessfully) for the Liberal leadership, he distributed a direct mail pamphlet to party members, titled Agenda for Nation Building. The document outlined Ignatieff’s major policy proposals, including a radical rethinking of post-secondary education and federalism.

He wrote of federal post-secondary transfers, that Ottawa should “calculate some portion of the education transfer on a per-student basis to reward those provinces’ institutions that attract the best and brightest from across the country and around the world.”

The radicalism of this idea appears to have escaped the then-Liberal leadership hopeful, as he only devoted half a sentence to it.

Presently, transfers to the provinces for education are calculated according to population, rather then the number post-secondary students a province actually educates.

This means provinces like Nova Scotia, which take in a disproportionate number of out-of-province students, ultimately end up with less federal money per student than a province like Manitoba.

Understandably, the present funding formula creates tensions between provinces, but to distribute funding on a per-student basis in order to reward “provinces’ institutions” should immediately raise the question: Why not give the money directly to universities, rather than to the provinces? After all, most provinces, other than Manitoba, distribute funds to institutions on a per-student basis. Why not just cut out the middleman?

Although such a reshaping of federal-provincial relations pertaining to post-secondary education would be radical, it wouldn’t be new. During the 1950s, Ottawa transferred money directly to universities. It was tolerated largely because provincial education systems were only beginning to develop. Still, it was not exactly uncontroversial. Quebec protested, and the provincial government prevented institutions from accepting federal grants. By the 1960s it was all over, and federal money was folded into a direct, mostly unconditional, transfer to the provinces.

Funding for education now comes as part of the Canada Social Transfer, which also includes funding for social assistance and other social programs.

In any event, when Ignatieff spoke at Dalhousie University on Monday, Metro News in Halifax reported that he restated his desire to implement a per-student formula into federal transfers, although he quickly reneged. “When I think about it, I still like the idea of creating this market so we reward success. I just don’t want to punish failure so that we have a lot of other institutions drying up,” he said.

At the University of Manitoba Thursday, Ignatieff backed away even further from his initial proposal. When asked by a reporter after the talk to clarify his federal per-student formula, and how it would be implemented with the provinces, he immediately shot the idea down, saying, “You’re taking me further than I think the Liberal party is prepared to go… we respect provincial jurisdictions.”

Ignatieff noted that it would be a “big change.”

No kidding.

What Ignatieff did advocate was a “dedicated transfer” for education intended to ensure money transferred to the provinces would actually be spent on education, rather than fall into “general revenue.” It is an idea he also discussed in his Agenda for Nation Building pamphlet. Presumably ensuring education transfers are spent on education would require the legislating of a post-secondary education act, similar to the Canada Health Act.

A PSEA that sets out a national standards and requirements for financial reporting would no doubt alter federal-provincial relations in the area of higher education, but it would not fundamentally change provincial responsibilities. It would be a more collaborative effort between the two levels of government, rather than an usurpation of educational responsibility by Ottawa, as Ignatieff’s earlier proposal would do.

The idea of a PSEA is also quite mainstream. The New Democratic Party has been calling for this sort of legislation for years. Even the Tory government promised to impose educational conditions on provinces in their 2007 budget, but they have, so far, failed to follow up.

No doubt Ignatieff is a deep-thinking man, but his changing position on higher education should raise questions as to whether his policy positions are dictated by what is easy, rather than by what he thinks would be best for the country.

Carson Jerema has an MA in politics and is a former editor of The Manitoban.

carsonjerema@gmail.com