Canada’s latest budget offers
another chance for conservatives to demonstrate that they can do more than cut
taxes and act as Keynesians when there’s an economic emergency.
Both the Canadian and the US
economies and their deficits are moving off "red" and on to "amber." Sentient
conservatives have stopped screaming about averting the next decade’s
catastrophe. For moderates in office,
however, it’s also time to start being creative—to pick new fights, to replace
failed ideas with new ideas—or be thrown out as old bores.
Canada’s new $15,000 training
grants for eligible workers and unemployed Canadians should meet that test.
Employers, the federal and
provincial governments must pay $5,000 each. Everyone should have sufficient
skin in the game to make sure that it leads to profitable and sustainable work
as well as handsome graduating statistics at community colleges.
John
Ivison, who has been writing about
this rumored initiative for weeks, got officials to reveal the program’s stark
rationale: it responds to the needs of employers; it will be “demand driven."
In other words, the colleagues will no longer be deploying the federal
government’s $500-million annual expenditures on worker training, effectively, at
their discretion.
In fact, as designed, they
won’t be paid any of the $15,000 unless an employer and a prospective trainee
determine that the college course(s) is in their mutual interest. This will be
controversial, hopefully.
(Full disclosure: In the late 80s, I helped design and implement a $5,000 voucher-training program for
older workers in Ontario. It was also "demand-driven." An unemployed older
worker (over 45) and a prospective employer would develop a training plan and
spend the money at their discretion. Learning institutions loathed the idea,
convinced the other two would waste the $5,000. It never "got out of hand," nor was
it properly evaluated. It was quickly killed in a government re-organization and
has never been tried again.)
Constitutionally, the federal
plan is impeccable.
Despite immediate objections
by Quebec and Ontario governments and Liberals and New Democrats in Ottawa, it doesn’t
intrude on provincial jurisdiction and it doesn’t centralize power in Ottawa.
It simply and boldly proposes re-assigning decision-making over federal monies
away from provincial learning institutions to employers and individuals.
It is completely consistent
with Harper’s determination to reduce federal interference and accountability
in education as well as health. It’s entirely about building a competitive
economy that employs more high-skilled workers as well as up-to-date capital.
Institution spokespersons and
their unions will complain that the Canada Jobs Grant is philistine and suggest
that it’s part of Paul Ryan’s heartless agenda leaking north.
If you believe working to
produce what other people want is inferior to studying indefinitely in a publicly funded
classroom, than, yes, this program is anti-intellectual.
However, it’s no more
anti-intellectual than building new public transit or subsidizing the renewable
energy industry.
This plan would be philistine
if Stephen Harper were cutting aid to education and creating vouchers for basic
education, as Republicans propose. However, worker training is, above all,
about securing rewarding work for adults.
Let’s hope the Conservatives
care enough about this initiative to defend it vigorously. Certainly, those it challenges are far better
organized and equipped to fight than those who may benefit.
Grants like these are a great to have, the government is also doing the same in education by providing us RRSP, British Columbia Training and Education Savings Grant and more.
ReplyDelete