University sector concerned about Houston government's 'short-sighted' education bill
Last week, the Progressive Conservatives introduced a bill that would link the university's funding decisions to the government's social and economic priorities. Bill 12 would allow the minister of advanced education to appoint up to half of the members of the university's board of governors, and force a university into a revitalization plan. The legislation also would allow the Nova Scotia Community College to grant degrees.
CBC News contacted all 10 universities in Nova Scotia requesting an interview, but none put someone forward. Spokespeople for some schools said they are still assessing the bill and it is too soon to comment, while others did not respond.
The president of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, Peter McInnis, said the tabling of the legislation blindsided administrators, including presidents, who were not warned of or consulted on the bill.
"It's a little bit of a, you know, unexpected surprise and not a pleasant one," he said in an interview with CBC News. "This seems to be picking up some of the more unsavoury trends across the country.… It seems to be part of a certain amount of anti-democratic legislation."
On Thursday, Advanced Education Minister Brendan Maguire said the province isn't asking universities to eliminate programs.
"One of the things that we said in the last bilateral agreement was we wanted more seats for health-care professions because we are in desperate need for health-care workers and we wanted them filled at 97 per cent and they were incentivized to do it," Maguire said.
"But in no circumstances will we be asking them to eliminate programs. Listen, they're their own entity. What we want to do is just work with them to make sure that they're filling what we need here in Nova Scotia."
Linking funding to government priorities
McInnis, who teaches in the history department at St. Francis Xavier University, said tying funding to government interests is "a short-sighted approach" because "political priorities may shift with the wind."
He gave the example of the University of Calgary, which at one time increased its focus on the oil and gas sector, but when that declined, enrolment dropped.
"So it was very difficult to forecast what's going to be valuable."
Cathy Conrad, the president of the Saint Mary's University Faculty Union, is a professor in the geography and environmental studies department.
She said she has worked for 25 years to oversee the development of climate change programs at SMU, and worries about the impact of the legislation on her field of study, and others that may not align with government priorities.
"If environmental stewardship is not a priority of this government … then what does that mean for programs that are based on evidence and need and social justice? Does that mean that these programs will no longer have funding and instead we should be focusing our priorities on extractive economic priorities related to mining and fracking?"
Conrad and McInnis worry that if the government wants universities to focus on applied research or studies that help fill labour market needs and have a more immediate return on investment, that could affect funding for the arts and humanities.
Conrad said humanities are not always appreciated, but she said a well-rounded, expansive understanding of our world is crucial to respond to, for instance, U.S. President Donald Trump's threats related to Canada becoming a 51st state.
"If we don't understand our history and the philosophy and the psychology and the sociology of how it is historically — and actually relatively recent history — we don't know how to move and navigate ourselves into this new world that we're finding ourselves in very quickly."
Conrad said the bill itself "feels and reads very much like Trump-style politics, which is really troubling."
Board of governors appointees
Both McInnis and Conrad said they are also concerned about the possibility of the government appointing up to half the members of university boards of governors.
Boards are responsible for making decisions about budgets, capital projects, new faculties or faculty reductions, and are also effectively the boss of the university president. If 50 per cent of members were appointed by the government, it would "tip the balance" to approving what politicians want, McInnis said.
Maguire said he won't be picking board members. He said the province will collaborate with universities to find the right people for the job.
McInnis said while administrators and board members at universities come and go, it's the faculty members who are in their profession for decades, and who bring their expertise to benefit the university boards.
"[Boards] need to be advised and how best to do that from the people that are on the ground actually teaching the courses and doing the research."
McInnis added that if it's accountability the government wants, that already exists through a peer-review system for funding decisions at universities.
Merger worries
As part of the bill, universities deemed to be in financial trouble could be mandated to undergo a "revitalization plan." The government could withhold funding from those institutions until they've created an acceptable plan charting a way forward.
McInnis said he worries it could mean the government is considering merging universities, which he said would detract from how schools serve their communities.
David Westwood, president-elect of the Dalhousie Faculty Association, expressed alarm over the bill, writing in a statement that universities are "already crumbling" as the result of inadequate public funding.
"Increasingly, public funds to PSE [post-secondary education] come with strings attached, as provincial governments attempt to steer institutions to meet their own mandate and priorities through threats to withhold or even reduce core funding," wrote Westwood, a professor of kinesiology.
"Public institutions are being gutted or eliminated in real time, and democratic values are under threat as power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few."
Provincial funding for Dalhousie, he noted, has fallen to below 50 per cent of the university's operating budget, with the rest coming mainly from tuition fees.
"One can scarcely consider Dalhousie to be a public institution any longer," he said.
Maguire said he has no desire to merge universities in Nova Scotia.
"What we want to do is make sure that they are viable and sustainable for the long term … And one of the things that we want to put in place is just, you know, like warnings. So we know in advance if they're going down a path of insolvency," Maguire said.
Maguire said there are some universities that are facing financial troubles and the province wants to ensure there are "stopgaps" before it gets worse.
"If they're going down a path of potential insolvency or they're going down a path of great debt, we can work with them
with the tools they need to make sure that they're sustainable. This is all it's about. We don't want any of our universities to go away. In fact, we want them to grow," he said.
Auditor general's report coming soon
The province's auditor general's office is finalizing its report on whether the Department of Advanced Education is effectively monitoring and holding universities to account for public funds.
That report is scheduled to be released on March 4.
Universities in the province receive $380 million a year in operational funding, plus $43 million for specific programming.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Global News
44 minutes ago
- Global News
U.S., China extend tariff deadline for 90 days just hours before expiration
U.S. President Donald Trump extended a trade truce with China for another 90 days Monday, at least delaying once again a dangerous showdown between the world's two biggest economies. Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he signed the executive order for the extension, and that 'all other elements of the Agreement will remain the same.' Beijing at the same time also announced the extension of the tariff pause, according to the Ministry of Commerce. The previous deadline was set to expire at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday. Had that happened the U.S. could have ratcheted up taxes on Chinese imports from an already high 30 per cent, and Beijing could have responded by raising retaliatory levies on U.S. exports to China. The pause buys time for the two countries to work out some of their differences, perhaps clearing the way for a summit later this year between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, and it has been welcomed by the U.S. companies doing business with China. Story continues below advertisement Sean Stein, president of the U.S.-China Business Council, said the extension is 'critical' to give the two governments time to negotiate a trade agreement that U.S. businesses hope would improve their market access in China and provide the certainty needed for companies to make medium- and long-term plans. 'Securing an agreement on fentanyl that leads to a reduction in U.S. tariffs and a rollback of China's retaliatory measures is acutely needed to restart U.S. agriculture and energy exports,' Stein said. China said Tuesday it would extend relief to American companies who were placed on an export control list and an unreliable entities list. After Trump initially announced tariffs in April, China restricted exports of dual-use goods to some American companies, while banning others from trading or investing in China. The Ministry of Commerce said it would stop those restrictions for some companies, while giving others another 90-day extension. Reaching a pact with China remains unfinished business for Trump, who has already upended the global trading system by slapping double-digit taxes – tariffs – on almost every country on earth. 3:20 Canada targets China with higher tariffs as part of steel industry measures The European Union, Japan and other trading partners agreed to lopsided trade deals with Trump, accepting once unthinkably U.S. high tariffs (15 per cent on Japanese and EU imports, for instance) to ward off something worse. Story continues below advertisement Trump's trade policies have turned the United States from one of the most open economies in the world into a protectionist fortress. The average U.S. tariff has gone from around 2.5 per cent at the start of the year to 18.6 per cent, highest since 1933, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy But China tested the limits of a U.S. trade policy built around using tariffs as a cudgel to beat concessions out of trading partners. Beijing had a cudgel of its own: cutting off or slowing access to its rare earths minerals and magnets – used in everything from electric vehicles to jet engines. In June, the two countries reached an agreement to ease tensions. The United States said it would pull back export restrictions on computer chip technology and ethane, a feedstock in petrochemical production. And China agreed to make it easier for U.S. firms to get access to rare earths. 'The U.S. has realized it does not have the upper hand,'' said Claire Reade, senior counsel at Arnold & Porter and former assistant U.S. trade representative for China affairs. In May, the U.S. and China had averted an economic catastrophe by reducing massive tariffs they'd slapped on each other's products, which had reached as high as 145 per cent against China and 125 per cent against the U.S. 2:11 Business Matters: Global stock markets surge as U.S. and China reach 90-day 'breakthrough' trade truce Those triple-digit tariffs threatened to effectively end trade between the United States and China and caused a frightening sell-off in financial markets. In a May meeting in Geneva they agreed to back off and keep talking: America's tariffs went back down to a still-high 30 per cent and China's to 10 per cent. Story continues below advertisement Having demonstrated their ability to hurt each other, they've been talking ever since. 'By overestimating the ability of steep tariffs to induce economic concessions from China, the Trump administration has not only underscored the limits of unilateral U.S. leverage, but also given Beijing grounds for believing that it can indefinitely enjoy the upper hand in subsequent talks with Washington by threatening to curtail rare earth exports,' said Ali Wyne, a specialist in U.S.-China relations at the International Crisis Group. 'The administration's desire for a trade détente stems from the self-inflicted consequences of its earlier hubris.' It's unclear whether Washington and Beijing can reach a grand bargain over America's biggest grievances. Among these are lax Chinese protection of intellectual property rights and Beijing's subsidies and other industrial policies that, the Americans say, give Chinese firms an unfair advantage in world markets and have contributed to a massive U.S. trade deficit with China of $262 billion last year. Reade doesn't expect much beyond limited agreements such as the Chinese saying they will buy more American soybeans and promising to do more to stop the flow of chemicals used to make fentanyl and to allow the continued flow of rare-earth magnets. But the tougher issues will likely linger, and 'the trade war will continue grinding ahead for years into the future,'' said Jeff Moon, a former U.S. diplomat and trade official who now runs the China Moon Strategies consultancy. Story continues below advertisement —Associated Press Staff Writers Josh Boak and Huizhong Wu contributed to this story.

CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
Polls now open in 2 provincial byelections in Prince Edward Island
Polls have now opened in two Prince Edward Island districts as voters head to the polls for byelections to fill vacant seats in the provincial legislature. The byelections are happening in District 9, Charlottetown–Hillsborough Park, and District 15, Brackley–Hunter River. Polls are open from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., and voters can find their polling locations on the Elections P.E.I. website . Brackley–Hunter River was represented by former premier Dennis King until he resigned as Progressive Conservative in February. He'd served as the district's MLA since 2019. In alphabetical order, the District 15 candidates are: Kent Dollar for the Progressive Conservatives. Nicole Ford for the Liberals. Philip Hamming for the Green Party. Michelle Neill for the New Democratic Party. Charlottetown–Hillsborough Park was left vacant by the resignation of Natalie Jameson, the district's MLA since 2019, who later ran federally for the Conservatives. In alphabetical order, the District 9 candidates are: Dennis Jameson for the Progressive Conservatives. Dr. Janine Karpakis for the Green Party. Carolyn Simpson for the Liberals. Simone Webster for the New Democratic Party. Elections P.E.I. said more than 1,000 voters in each district cast ballots during advance polling, representing about a quarter of eligible electors.


Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Land swaps with Russia are not only unpopular in Ukraine. They're also illegal
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A peace deal that requires Kyiv to accept swapping Ukrainian territory with Russia would not only be deeply unpopular. It also would be illegal under its constitution. That's why President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has categorically rejected any deal with Moscow that could involve ceding land after U.S. President Donald Trump suggested such a concession would be beneficial to both sides, ahead of his meeting Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Zelenskyy said over the weekend that Kyiv 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done,' and that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' The remarks came after Trump said a peace deal would involve swapping of Ukrainian territories by both sides 'to the betterment of both.' For Zelenskyy, such a deal would be disaster for his presidency and spark public outcry after more than three years of bloodshed and sacrifice by Ukrainians. Moreover, he doesn't have the authority to sign off on it, because changing Ukraine's 1991 borders runs counter to the country's constitution. For now, freezing the front line appears to be an outcome the Ukrainian people are willing to accept. A look at the challenges such proposals entail: Russia occupies about a fifth of Ukraine Russia occupies about a fifth of Ukraine, from the country's northeast to the Crimean Peninsula, which was annexed illegally in 2014. The front line is vast and cuts across six regions — the active front stretches for at least 1,000 kilometers (680 miles) — but if measured from along the border with Russia, it reaches as far as 2,300 kilometers (1,430 miles). Russia controls almost all of the Luhansk region and almost two-thirds of Donetsk region, which together comprise the Donbas, as the strategic industrial heartland of Ukraine is called. Russia has long coveted the area and illegally annexed it in the first year of the full-scale invasion, even though it didn't control much of it at the time. Russia also partially controls more than half of the Kherson region, which is critical to maintain logistical flows of supplies coming in from the land corridor in neighboring Crimea, and also parts of the Zaporizhzhia region, where the Kremlin seized Europe's largest nuclear power plant. Russian forces also hold pockets of territory in Kharkiv and Sumy regions in northeastern Ukraine, far less strategically valuable for Moscow. Russian troops are gaining a foothold in the Dnipropetrovsk region. These could be what Moscow is willing to exchange for land it deems more important in Donetsk, where the Russian army has concentrated most of its effort. 'There'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody. To the good, for the good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff. Also, some bad stuff for both,' Trump said Monday. Ukrainian forces are still active in the Kursk region inside Russia, but they barely hold any territory there, making it not as potent a bargaining chip as Kyiv's leaders had probably hoped when they launched the daring incursion across the border last year. Swapping Ukrainian controlled territory in Russia, however minuscule, will likely be the only palatable option for Kyiv in any land swapping scenario. Conceding land risks another invasion Surrendering territory would see those unwilling to live under Russian rule to pack up and leave. Many civilians have endured so much suffering and bloodshed since pro-Moscow forces began battling the Ukrainian military in the east in 2014 and since the full-scale invasion in 2022. From a military standpoint, abandoning the Donetsk region in particular would vastly improve Russia's ability to invade Ukraine again, according to the Washington-based think tank Institute for the Study of War. Bowing to such a demand would force Ukraine to abandon its 'fortress belt,' the main defensive line in Donetsk since 2014, 'with no guarantee that fighting will not resume,' the institute said in a recent report. The regional defensive line has prevented Russia's efforts to seize the region and continues to impede Russia's efforts to take the rest of the area, ISW said. Ukraine's constitution poses a major challenge to any deal involving a land swap because it requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders, said Ihor Reiterovych, a politics professor in the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. 'Changes in territorial integrity can be done only by the decision of the people — not the president, the cabinet of ministers or the parliament can change it,' he said. 'In the constitution it is written that only by referendum can changes to Ukraine's territory be conducted.' If during negotiations Zelenskyy agrees to swap territory with Russia, 'in the same minute he will be a criminal because he would be abandoning the main law that governs Ukraine,' Reiterovych said. Trump said he was 'a little bothered' by Zelenskyy's assertion over the weekend that he needed constitutional approval to cede to Russia the territory that it captured in its unprovoked invasion. 'I mean, he's got approval to go into a war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap?' Trump added. 'Because there'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody.' Zelenskyy is still trying to regain the people's trust that was damaged when he reversed course on a law that would have diminished the independence of Ukraine's anti-corruption watchdogs. The move was a red line for those citizens who are protective of the country's institutions and are suspicious of certain members of Zelenskyy's inner circle. Freezing the conflict seems a lesser evil for Ukraine Analysts like Reiterovych dismiss a land swap as a distraction. Freezing the conflict along the current front line is the only option Ukrainians are willing to accept, he said, citing recent polls. This option would also buy time for both sides to consolidate manpower and build up their domestic weapons industries. Ukraine would require strong security guarantees from its Western partners to deter future Russian aggression, which Kyiv believes is inevitable. Still, freezing the conflict will also be difficult for Ukrainians to accept. Along with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the partial occupation of Luhansk and Donetsk after that, it would require accepting that the Ukrainian military is not able to retake lost territories militarily. Kyiv accepted its inability to retake these territories but never formally recognized them as Russian. A similar scenario could unfold in the new regions taken by Russian forces. It also is not a viable long-term solution. 'It is the lesser evil option for everyone and it will not provoke protests or rallies on the streets,' Reiterovych said. —- Associated Press journalist Volodymyr Yurchuk contributed.