On Nov. 21, the Ontario Divisional Court struck down the Student Choice Initiative, a controversial directive introduced by the provincial government which required universities and colleges to allow students to opt-out of student fees deemed “non-essential.” Three judges unanimously ruled that the government did not have the legal authority to interfere with the autonomous and democratic decision-making process between universities and student unions.
On Jan. 17, 2019, Ontario’s Ministry of Colleges and Universities publicly announced the SCI alongside a series of changes to post secondary funding, including cuts to the Ontario Student Assistance Program. When students were given the opportunity to opt-out in September 2019, services deemed non-essential such as food banks, student societies and campus media became vulnerable to funding cuts.
On May 24, the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario and the York Federation of Students launched a joint legal challenge against the provincial government’s SCI directive, claiming that the SCI was unlawful, proposed in bad faith and carried out in a way that was procedurally unfair. On the basis of the legality of the SCI, the Divisional Court of Ontario ruled in favour of CFS-O and YFS on Nov. 21.
The legal document explaining the judges’ decision cites previous Supreme Court rulings, which concluded that, while universities are regulated and funded by the government, “it by no means follows, however, that universities are organs of government … The fact is that each of the universities has its own governing body … The government thus has no legal power to control the universities even if it wished to do so.”
"Student unions can confidently budget again ... For students to access the services of their student unions" - CFSO Rep https://t.co/c3XO2R6LOZ
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) November 22, 2019
The Ontario government attempted to defend themselves by arguing that the SCI was a “core policy decision” not subject to judicial review, and that they were exercising their prerogative power over spending decisions. However, the Court’s legal documents state that, “with the exception of narrowly defined powers in the MTCU [Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities] Act, policy-making and governance authority over a university is vested in its [university’s] Boards of Governors and Senates.”
THE DECISION
The Divisional Court found that by interfering with the agreement between student unions and universities, the SCI posed a threat to universities’ autonomy from the government.
Louis Century, an associate at Goldblatt Partners and lawyer for the CFS-O, sees the decision as proof of the importance of student unions.
“I would hope that student unions would read this decision as an affirmation of the central role that they play on campuses. That was a core part of the Court’s decision, is recognizing that . . . they’re actually core to what happens on campuses at universities, so much so that the government overriding their affairs is overriding the autonomy of the university generally,” he said.
“I would hope that student unions would read this decision as an affirmation of the central role that they play on campuses. That was a core part of the Court’s decision, is recognizing that . . . they’re actually core to what happens on campuses at universities, so much so that the government overriding their affairs is overriding the autonomy of the university generally,” said Louis Century, an associate at Goldblatt Partners and lawyer for the CFS-O.
The YFS and CFS-O also argued that the government had implemented the SCI in bad faith, on the basis of a politically-motivated attack on student unions. While the Court heard this evidence, it did not end up being a factor in determining the legality of the SCI.
In a fundraising email sent to the Conservative party in February, Premier Doug Ford wrote, “Students were forced into unions and forced to pay for those unions. I think we all know what kind of crazy Marxist nonsense student unions get up to. So, we fixed that. Student union fees are now opt-in.”
Kayla Weiler, the National Executive Representative of the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario, believes that the SCI was about silencing the organizations critical of the Ford government that advocate on behalf of students.
“This was never about choice. It was always about the Ford government trying to silence the exact bodies that hold them accountable and challenge them to do better,” Weiler stated during a press conference on Nov. 22.
“This was never about choice. It was always about the Ford government trying to silence the exact bodies that hold them accountable and challenge them to do better,” Weiler stated during a press conference on Nov. 22.
Since its introduction, the SCI has been widely criticized. Student union representatives have argued that, while the purpose of the SCI was to allow students to decide where their money would go, student unions already have democratic procedures in place that allow students to decide which services to fund. At McMaster, for example, undergraduate students have the opportunity to vote on fees during annual general meetings, referenda and other processes.
Weiler believes that the implementation of the SCI was to question the validity of student unions as valid democracies and valid organizations.
“It’s about time for the government to recognize us as autonomous organizations. . .What we want is to be recognized as autonomous organizations that fight for student rights, and we don’t want to have government interference into our budgets or the work that we do and we don’t want the Premier to comment on the fact that we are crazy Marxists. What we want is legislation that protects us and not hurt us,” said Weiler.
“It’s important for these conversations to be held in a particular campus because Doug Ford is not a student in 2019. The Minister of Colleges and Universities is not a student in 2019 at Algoma University or the University of Windsor or George Brown College, so why are they making decisions for the students on these campuses?”
WHAT HAPPENS NOW?
Unless the decision is successfully appealed, the fee structure for student unions will return to normal.
“Any legal requirements that existed before this case was brought are now restored,” said Century.
The MSU, however, will not implement the results of the Court’s decision until the appeal period closes.
“Until we have the appeal period, and until we have that final decision, we do need to operate in the most financially stable way, which is assuming that those agreements are still in place,” said MSU president Josh Marando.
“Until we have the appeal period, and until we have that final decision, we do need to operate in the most financially stable way, which is assuming that those agreements are still in place,” said MSU president Josh Marando.
If the decision is upheld in Court, the results of the SCI will still be felt at universities and colleges across the province. Some Ontario student unions had to cut entire jobs and services this year as a result of SCI.
MSU general manager John McGowan pointed out that McMaster was lucky to be able to rely on reserve funds this year. However, student services have still felt the impact. With their budgets uncertain, services have had to hold off on hiring and long-term planning.
Furthermore, the MSU dedicated resources towards implementing the SCI and educating students about the process.
“There has been quite a bit of time and energy put into creating the fees, educating students on what those fees look like, as well as making sure that we're compliant with the framework and the new tuition and ancillary fee framework,” said Marando.
If the SCI decision is upheld in court, it will mean that an unlawful directive caused harm to campus services and student unions. Chris Glover, the MPP for Spadina–Fort York and the Ontario New Democratic Party’s postsecondary critic, noted that many campus services are currently struggling financially as a result of the SCI. Glover called on Ford to reimburse student services for the losses they incurred under SCI.
“I really think that the government should step up … Their actions were unlawful and now students are suffering, campus services are suffering, and the government should make up for this shortfall, Doug Ford should make up for this shortfall,” said Glover during a press conference.
If the student fee structure that existed before the SCI is restored, it is unclear how services and clubs whose funds have been negatively impacted may be compensated, if at all. Both CFS-O and YFS representatives emphasized that, at the very least, the Court’s decision should be a lesson as to the importance of engaging with and protecting the democratic processes at all universities and colleges.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
CORRECTION: In a previous version of this article, there was a graphic that indicated that Josh Marando answered that he "strongly agreed" with the police presence on campus. However, in our survey, Marando answered that he "strongly disagreed" with the police presence on campus. We apologize for this misconstruction and have changed the graphic since.
The Silhouette recently surveyed the four McMaster Students’ Union 2019 presidential candidates on their opinions on where the MSU and the university are doing well and where they can improve.
The survey consisted of seven statements. Candidates were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a scale from “strongly agree” to “disagree.”
[Best_Wordpress_Gallery id="197" gal_title="2019 Presidentials Survey Results 1"]
The first question asked candidates about their opinions on the statement that “The MSU is committed to equality and inclusiveness.”
The candidates all agreed on the MSU’s commitment to equality and inclusiveness. Jeffrey Campana and Madison Wesley indicated they “strongly agreed” with the statements, whereas Justin Lee and Josh Marando said they “agreed.”
The second question asked candidates whether or not “Increased police presence will promote increased safety of students on and around campus.”
There were a range of opinions on the relationship between McMaster students and the police.
Lee was the only candidate to agree that police presence will promote safety. Campana was neutral, while Wesley disagreed. Marando was the only candidate to strongly disagree.
In September, a string of break-ins in Westdale prompted a greater police presence in the area. During the same month, a video depicting a woman being run over a McMaster police horse was widely shared on social media.
The candidates were mostly in agreement with the statement that the MSU should oppose the provincial government’s free speech mandate requiring Ontario universities to implement a free-speech policy.
Wesley was the only candidate not to agree with the statement, choosing a “neutral” response instead. Campana indicated he agreed, while both Lee and Marando chose “strongly agree.”
In October, the Student Representative Assembly unanimously passed a motion opposing the government mandate.
[Best_Wordpress_Gallery id="201" gal_title="2019 Presidentials Survey Results 2"]
The next question asked candidates whether or not the MSU should lobby against the government’s changes to tuition, student fees and the Ontario Student Assistance Program.
The survey showed that all the candidates were in stark opposition to the provincial government’s changes to tuition, student fees and OSAP announced on Jan. 17.
Lee, Marando and Wesley all strongly agreed with the statement, while Campana selected the “agree” response.
Regarding McMaster’s accessibility, Wesley and Campana indicated there was room for improvement, as they strongly disagreed and disagreed with the statement that the school is “fairly accessible” for students with various disabilities.
Lee and Marando were neutral on the issue.
[Best_Wordpress_Gallery id="202" gal_title="2019 Presidentials Survey Results 3"]
The results also show that none of the candidates are satisfied with McMaster’s current efforts to prevent and address sexual violence. When asked if McMaster does a “sufficient job” in this area, Campana and Wesley strongly disagreed, while Lee and Marando disagreed with the statement.
McMaster’s sexual violence policy is up for review this year.
Overall, it appears that while there is a high degree of agreement amongst candidates on topics such as the Ontario government’s recently announced tuition and OSAP changes, candidates differ in their views on issues like the relationship between students and the Hamilton police and McMaster’s response to sexual violence.
The voting period for this year’s MSU presidential election is taking place from Jan. 22 to 5 p.m on Jan. 24. To vote, students can fill out the ballot sent to their McMaster email or login and vote at www.msumcmaster.ca/vote.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
On Jan. 17, the McMaster Students’ Union hosted a debate featuring the 2019 MSU presidentials candidates four candidates. Here are some of the highlights.
The first question of the debate concerned whether the candidates are more focused on advocacy or student life.
Josh Marando said he would be more focused on advocacy.
Jeffery Campana explained that the limited one-year term of a president would mean smaller initiatives are more important to him.
A1: Campana: Platform aims to engage students to get them more involved; focuses on both advocacy points and student engagement. "I am more out for student engagement, but I don't sacrifice advocacy"
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 17, 2019
The debate quickly turned to Ontario government’s decision to restrict Ontario Student Assistance Program grants and make some student fees optional, a move that was announced the morning of the debate.
Madison Wesley pointed to the announcement as proof of why advocacy is central to the MSU president’s role. Justin Lee and the other candidates were also quick to condemn the new changes.
Q10: Campana - "The PC government is not for students like us". The option to opt out of student fees will cause a reduction of funding to services that the MSU needs in order to thrive.
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 17, 2019
When the topic reasserted itself later in the debate, Marando noted the need for students to be “prepared to mobilize.”
When candidates were asked to outline their main platform priority areas, Wesley pointed to the need for improved mental and physical health support systems, while Lee chose his “HSR Drivers Accountability” platform point.
Marando said he is focused on making students feel welcome, and Campana spoke about his plan to place free menstrual products in all-gender bathrooms.
On the subject of off-campus housing, all the candidates said they were in favour of the new MSU landlord rating system.
Marando pushed the need to continue supporting landlord licensing, while Wesley and Lee talked about continuing housing education programs for students.
The discussion became more heated when candidates were asked to critique an opponent’s platform point.
Marando pointed to the logistics of Campana’s on-campus ice rink proposal.
Campana, Lee and Wesley criticized Marando’s proposed increase of the maintenance budget and various advocacy goals.
A6: Wesley - Most critical of Marando's point on lobbying to freeze tuition. Previously, OSAP is a provincial legislation issue, problem is that there are entire groups of lobbyists that dedicate time to this and they haven't gotten very far.
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 17, 2019
One audience member asked how the candidates would increase campus safety.
Ideas ranged from Wesley’s call for improved police response to the need to upgrade lighting and fix emergency poles on campus, put forth by Campana and Lee, respectively.
A7: Wesley - Student safety big concern. Main issue is that Hamilton police have not been involved, advocating for students to Hamilton police important. If we have concrete advocacy coming from the school, we may be able to change a lot for the better.
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 17, 2019
When asked about sexual violence on campus, all of the candidates agreed that training for students, Welcome Week reps and staff needs improvement.
Marando pointed out that none of the other candidates’ platforms addressed sexual violence.
Campana countered by saying that the issue could not be fixed in a one-year term.
A11 Rebuttal: Campana - Didn't address the issue in his platform because it is not a problem that one president can fix. Several different groups across campus must be involved; it is not enough to put a "bandaid solution" on a platform
— The Silhouette (@theSilhouette) January 17, 2019
The candidates were also given the opportunity to explain what made them unique.
Marando cited his comprehensive MSU experience. Campana did the same while stressing his experiences outside the MSU.
While acknowledging their relative inexperience, Lee and Wesley stressed the creativity of their platform and noted that they represent the only ethnic minority candidate and only female candidate, respectively.
The full debate can be found on the MSU Facebook page.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Disclaimer: This piece was written prior to the changes made on Jan. 17 by the Ford provincial government regarding tuition for postsecondary education. Changes to the Ontario Student Assistance Program include increasing the length of time students must have graduated high school to qualify as an independent student from four to six years, removal of the grace period for repayment of loans upon graduation, and removal of many grants for lower-income students. Read the provincial government's statement here: https://news.ontario.ca/maesd/en/2019/01/affordability-of-postsecondary-education-in-ontario.html
The Ontario Student Assistance Program, a financial aid program offered through the provincial government, has helped many Ontario students get through university. OSAP offers funding through grants and student loans, and can be used to help offset the cost of tuition and school-related expenses.
Almost all Ontario residents may apply for OSAP but the amount of aid offered to each individual is dependent on the individual’s education expenses, course load, and personal financial situation. This last factor essentially boils down to your family’s income. If your family makes enough money deemed by the government to sufficiently cover educational expenses, then this renders you ineligible to collect OSAP.
While this appears to favour students from low-income households, as it should, it neglects the possibility of students from high-income households where parents do not or cannot pay for tuition. There are many reasons why this occurs ranging from the parents’ genuine inability to allocate funds for their children’s education to refusing on the grounds of principle. Though these students truly demonstrate financial need, their concerns often go unrecognized.
As these students are not able to collect OSAP, they typically have to work several part-time jobs to pay for tuition, or try their luck at applying for private loans that do not carry the benefits of student loans like interest relief during schooling and grace periods after graduation.
As of now, the only way to receive OSAP if you are from a high-income family is to be considered an independent student with an income below what the government deems as excessive or to declare a family breakdown. To be considered an independent student, one must meet several criteria. For example, both your parents must be deceased, you’ve worked full-time for at least 24 months in a row, or you’ve been out of high school for four or more years.
These provisions show the assumption of the provincial government that parents will support their children for four years of postsecondary education. This often false assumption also has no rational grounds; why the decision for a seemingly arbitrary four years? What occurs only after four years from high school that makes someone financially independent?
The alternative, to declare a family breakdown, is also insufficient. To declare a family breakdown renders you an independent student but you must show proof of estrangement from your parents “due to documented mental, physical, sexual, and/or emotional abuse or drug or alcohol addiction in your family”. This provision is too narrowed and does not reflect the many other reasons that parents may be unwilling or unable to support their children’s postsecondary education expenses. Your parents could very well be supporting you, just not financially.
Rather than requiring students to jump through hoops to receive aid, there should be an honour system for students applying for OSAP. If students claim that they are financially independent from their parents, they should be believed at face-value. Perhaps the stipulation can be a restriction for these applicants to receive student loans only, so that grants can be reserved for students from lower-income families.
There will undoubtedly be individuals that misuse such an honour system. But is the potential for misuse strong enough cause to warrant not supporting individuals who could legitimately benefit from such an option? That’s subject to debate.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
