Proposed increase in government oversight neglects underfunding concerns
Ontario’s Bill 33, the Supporting Children and Students Act, has faced widespread opposition by numerous student associations in recent months. The wide-ranging impacts of the Bill include amendments to four acts and the expansion of government control over educational institutions and organizations pertaining to children and youth.
Bill 33’s proposed changes to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act are expected to reduce the autonomy of post-secondary institutions and expand the role of the province. These changes would give the government authority to enforce admissions’ criteria, which are required to be merit-based. As several critics have pointed out, the Bill does not clearly define the term ‘merit.’ This suggests that the province would play a major role in determining acceptable criteria when prescribing changes. This has been interpreted by many to be a threat to equitable admissions policies that support marginalized communities who have historically been systemically excluded from post-secondary education. A /National Post/ article in support of the Bill has lauded it as being a “truly conservative” move by Doug Ford and triumphantly labelled it “an attack on DEI.” A statement by a spokesperson for the Ministry of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security assured that “there will always be pathways for those with disabilities and other underrepresented groups.” However, the ambiguity of the proposed changes has left many groups concerned. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) published a recommendation regarding Bill 33 that called for clearer language and emphasized that “the legislative meaning of merit must be clearly defined to align with the right to substantive equality.” The recommendation discussed how “systemic discriminatory barriers in education” impact academic performance, and that the Bill should avoid reinforcing existing power structures through a “limited understanding or narrow definition of ‘merit.’”
The Bill would also increase government oversight of student fees, potentially mandating cuts to ancillary fees. As several student unions and advocacy groups have pointed out, these fees are essential for colleges and universities to fund campus clubs, run student events, and provide a range of services, including support for students experiences, mental health concerns, sexual violence, and food insecurity. According to the CFSO, the Ontario chapter of the Canadian Federation of Students, these fees “are not what makes education expensive.” Rather, it is high tuition costs due to provincial underfunding that is the real issue. The Federation, which is made up of student union members throughout Canada, has previously brought the province to court over attempts to remove mandatory ancillary fees. CFSO’s statement suggests that their successful legal challenges reflect the voice of Ontario students, which Bill 33 dismisses. CFSO has also pointed out that these fees are already democratically determined through postsecondary institutions’ own student unions. Attempts at expanding provincial oversight thus directly undermine the capacity and legitimacy of elected student associations and the student voices they represent. This applies beyond just post-secondary student governance, as Bill 33’s changes to the Education Act will disempower school boards, a move that suggests there is a larger trend of expanding government control over public education.
Government press releases claim that increased oversight of fees is aimed at improving transparency and ensuring that student fees are truly essential. While greater transparency has been an objective of several groups advocating for students in Ontario, the accompanying powers to government to step in and influence these fees has been heavily criticized. Ontario Student Voices (OSV), an advocacy group representing the province’s college students, expressed concerns over Bill 33’s threat to the financial autonomy of student associations. OSV believes the Bill “represents a concerning shift in the provincial government’s approach to post-secondary education” that avoids consultation with students when making policy decisions that directly affect them, while completely ignoring the issue of “chronic underfunding.”
The CFSO supports this view, arguing that Bill 33 is a “distraction” from the real issues Ontario’s higher education institutions face. Ontario remains the Canadian province with the lowest level funding for its post-secondary sector. This has “been heightened and accelerated by the Ford government since they were first elected in 2018.” The effects of underfunding have become increasingly evident as international student admissions have decreased in response to federal policy changes. The dependence on international student tuition to generate revenue and sustain Canada’s post secondary sector has been directly influenced by provincial policy. A 2019 policy froze provincial funding to the post-secondary sector, cut domestic tuition by 10%, and directed institutions to expand international student recruitment. While tuition reductions may be appealing to students, a report by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) argues that this “effectively closed off domestic student fees as a source of revenue growth” while cementing reliance on international tuition. Now, international student caps are exacerbating the effects of this already unsustainable policy.
The CPA has suggested that these policies are part of a “manufactured higher education funding crisis,” a perspective shared by labour unions such as OPSEU and CUPE. They suggest that the Ford government’s approach of withholding public funds sets the stage for privatization and reflects a preference towards corporate actors over public services. This is underscored by the fact that funding cuts to the post-secondary sector occurred at the same time as billions were channeled to Ford’s Skills Development Fund (SDF), which has been criticized for funding corporate “applicants with close ties to the governing PC party.” OPSEU pointed out that colleges experiencing “massive layoffs, program cuts, and an ongoing strike” would have benefited from receiving some of this public funding, but have been sidelined in favour of private actors. In a recent report, the union argues that the SDF is part of a “government-led agenda to systematically defund Ontario colleges.”
Bill 33 is expected to contribute to this and further financially constrain post-secondary institutions through potential fee cuts and overall reduced autonomy and decision-making capacity. The Bill’s proponents have justified this erosion of autonomy by arguing that the Bill promotes accountability and supports students. Yet, criticism by students impacted by the Bill has not been taken into consideration. The lack of student consultation, the undermining of student-led governance, and the larger policy approach to higher education by the current provincial government calls into question the Bill’s intended consequences and casts doubt on the claim that its outcomes will in any way promote students’ rights and well-being.