Concerns Emerge Over Proposed Policy and Its Effect on Campus Independence in Ontario

 Ontario’s proposed Bill 33 threatens the academic freedom of the province’s colleges and publicly funded universities, says the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), student groups and education policy specialists – some of whom see in the innocuously titled Supporting Children and Students Act, 2025 echoes of US President Donald J Trump’s attacks on higher education.

The omnibus bill, brought in by Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party government, strengthens oversight of the Children’s Aid Society and expands the powers of local school boards.

But for the first time in Canadian history, it gives a provincial government the power to set what the bill refers to as “the criteria and process” that the province’s post-secondary institutions use to determine entrance into a programme.

The bill also gives the government the power to set fees that students are required to pay, which gets around a November 2019 Ontario Divisional Court decision that ruled that the government’s attempt to ban student council and club fees exceeded its statutory authority. At the time, Premier Doug Ford, himself a college dropout, criticised student unions and some clubs for promoting “crazy Marxist nonsense”.

In a statement recently released to the Globe and Mail, Bianca Giacoboni, a summer intern working for Nolan Quinn, Minister of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security, said: “Our government believes students applying to our post-secondary institutions deserve to know the criteria directly related to their academic achievements and potential for success at an institution.”

Giacoboni attempted to head off criticisms that the bill’s requirement that admission “be based on the merit of the individual applicant” equates to a stepping back from equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) programmes designed to help students from under-represented groups enter post-secondary studies.

“To be clear, there will always be pathways for those with disabilities and other under-represented groups, and the consultations [with colleges and universities, as the bill’s regulations are written] will help ensure we are increasing transparencies around these [admissions] policies to make it easier for students to apply,” she stated.

Student services

Like other critics, Marc Spooner, a professor in the University of Regina’s Faculty of Education, noted that the bill “is a distraction from the real issues facing Ontario’s post-secondary system: the scandalous underfunding resulting from decades of substandard provincial grants and tuition, which the Ford government froze a number of years ago as a populist move. Ontario, the province with by far the largest economy, is last in post-secondary education spending”.

For its part, Ontario Student Voices (OSV), a province-wide advocacy group that represents 100,000 students at the province’s colleges and polytechnic institutions, said: “Bill 33 represents a concerning shift in the provincial government’s approach to post-secondary education. Rather than addressing the chronic underfunding facing colleges and polytechnics, the bill introduces top-down regulatory changes that could sideline students and institutions from key decisions.”

According to OSV, the bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

“While framed as enhancing oversight, the bill would grant the government sweeping regulatory powers to dictate which ancillary fees institutions can charge. Ancillary fees directly fund vital student services such as mental health care, food banks, and peer support programmes.

Regulating these fees at a time when demand for services is at an all-time high and institutional funding remains severely constrained is deeply troubling,” OSV said in a statement on its website.

After noting that the government had lost the 2019 case, the statement continued: “We strongly reiterate that student associations must retain the ability to govern and fund their own organisations. Undermining this autonomy would compromise the very services students rely on to succeed.”

OSV’s executive director, Lynn Courville said: “Ancillary fees aren’t optional add-ons; they’re lifelines … these fees fund the essential services that help students stay in school, stay healthy, and succeed in contributing to a better Ontario.”

Attack on diversity?

The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, Spooner and David Robinson, executive director of CAUT, have questioned the government’s soothing words about merit-based admissions.

“We have no idea what the government means by ‘merit’,” said Spooner. “If it’s simply high school grades, which is how admissions are largely decided, that’s inherently unfair.

“Students in poorer areas of the province or who don’t come from families with cultural capital cannot be ‘equal’ in the so-called ‘merit-based’ system. Parents’ graduating from college or university is still the strongest predictor of success in post-secondary institutions,” he said.

Spooner continued: “But how can it [a merit-based system] take into account a student who had good, but not great grades but was working part-time to support her family or take care of younger siblings?

“How can it take into account the hundreds of thousands of new Canadians who came here relatively recently and whose education in their countries of origin was badly disrupted?

“What the government is proposing is uncomfortably close to the attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion in the United States.”

For his part, Robinson said: “Merit is often a code word for you can’t recognise historical disadvantage. So, someone with a disability, for instance, would have to be judged at the same level as someone without a disability; this is contrary to the entire human rights framework in Canada.

“It would be open to a challenge under Ontario’s Human Rights Act, not to mention the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution.

“I’ve heard the government say, well, that's not what we mean. We just mean we just want more transparency. We want institutions to publish how they select and what the criteria is for selection of students.

“I think where it also runs into some constitutional challenges is we have a lot of federal programs and incentives for Indigenous students, again, recognising historical injustices there and providing pathways for Indigenous students.

“Is that something that the bill would make more difficult or would impede? If it does, then I think you're into a constitutional and jurisdictional issue.”

A dire need for funding

Critics charge that Bill 33 threatens university autonomy by giving the government the power to override a key element of academic freedom.

“Universities in Canada have long held the authority to determine admission decisions. They, staffed by experts, should be the ones determining what the criteria are to enter a programme,” said Spooner.

Robinson agreed. “One of the key elements of university autonomy is the right of institutions to set their own admissions criteria free of government or outside interests.

“So, this is a pretty dangerous one, and again, we have to see what the actual regulations of the legislation are, but it really sets a dangerous precedent,” he stated.

At the end of our interview, Robinson stepped back and said that “one of the really ironic things that we see across the country, but also arguably around the world, is that as governments defund institutions, they’re also demanding more control over the institutions”.

“You would think that as they give more funding, they would want more control, but actually, the opposite seems to be true.

“Right now in Ontario, we have a terrible situation where, rather than focusing on the real issue, which is a system that is in utter crisis right now in terms of funding, we’re seeing programme closures, layoffs and suspensions of enrolments.

“They want to have transparent criteria around how you get into a system that’s falling apart.

“I think they should really focus their attention on what the core issue is, and that is: we need to find a sustainable funding model for our post-secondary education system because, right now, we have a system that is in dire need of some funding,” said Robinson.