University sector concerned about Houston government's 'short-sighted' education bill
As the Nova Scotia government positions itself to take greater control over the province's 10 universities, some within the university community say the potential changes are "short-sighted" and part of "anti-democratic," "Trump-style politics" in the province.
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."
Peter McInnis is the president of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. He's also a professor at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, N.S. (Canadian Association of University Teachers)
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?"
Cathy Conrad is a professor of geography and environmental studies, and the president of the Saint Mary's University Faculty Union. (Andrew Lam/CBC)
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.
Advanced Education Minister Brendan Maguire told CBC News on Thursday said he has no desire to merge universities. (CBC)
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.
MORE TOP STORIES
Hashtags

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

31 minutes ago
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. Brehm's attorney, Bradley Girard with Democracy Forward, expressed disappointment with the judge's decision. 'But in our parallel case, Rural Development Innovations v. Marocco, a grantee and two USADF employees have also challenged Marocco's unlawful appointment," Girard wrote in an email. "We are hopeful that the Court will reject the defendants' attempt to ignore the constitutional and statutory requirements for appointing board members to federal agencies.' That lawsuit is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required.

Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Washington AG exploring potential challenge to new federal travel restrictions
Jun. 10—Washington is "taking a careful look" at where it has standing to challenge President Donald Trump's recent proclamation restricting travel from 12 countries, Attorney General Nick Brown said during a news conference Tuesday. "The president says his travel ban is about national security, but this racist order will not make anyone safer," Brown said. The restrictions, Brown said, have stalled medical care, "struck fear" into Afghan refugees who previously aided the United States military and could hinder international students looking to study at American universities. "We are actively looking at ways to challenge this ban, but it will be difficult," Brown said, adding that the Supreme Court has upheld other travel bans in recent years. Trump last Wednesday announced that citizens from 12 countries — Afghanistan, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — would be barred from entering the United States. The president also partially banned citizens from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. In a video posted on social media, Trump said the "strength of the restrictions we're applying depends on the threat posed" and said countries could be added or removed from the list. "But we will not allow people who enter our country who wish to do us harm," Trump said. "And nothing will stop us from keeping America safe." The restrictions continue a trend by Trump, who issued several bans on international travel during his first administration. The first, which barred travel from seven majority-Muslim countries, faced swift backlash and was challenged within days by then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "I'll always be proud that Washington state was indeed the first state to take on that first travel ban, the first state to take on Donald Trump, and the first state to defeat Donald Trump in court," Ferguson said. "It is a little difficult to wrap my mind around the fact that we are back here again on another travel ban." Ferguson said that Washington will lead other states on standing up against Trump's orders. "And I want all Washingtonians to know that," Ferguson said. "We have a new attorney general, but guess what? The good news is he is as deeply connected to this issue, and as resolved to stand up against it, as we were eight years ago." Among those feeling the impact of the travel ban is Katia Jasmin, founder and executive director of Creole Resources in Spokane. During an interview Tuesday, Jasmin said the inclusion of Haiti caught her by surprise. Jasmin said the ban could have wide-ranging effects on Spokane's Haitian community, including deepening the existing trauma that many have experienced. Jasmin said the ban could also result in family separation, as many permanent residents or citizens still have family abroad — something she knows firsthand. "I have my brother that lives in Haiti, and he comes to see us, and now he won't be able to come and see us," Jasmin said. Katia's brother, Jay, was set to serve as the best man in an upcoming wedding — plans that seem to be in doubt. "My brother won't be able to see us, so I don't know how long we'll have to wait to be able to see him," Jasmin said. The restrictions, Jasmin said, will ultimately have minimal impact on safety. "If you people are scared of gang members coming to the States, I don't know how we are scared of the gang members; they don't have visas, they don't have anything. I don't think a gang member from Haiti will come here to the United States to do anything," Jasmin said. "So whatever they try to say that it's for, the security or stuff, it's not true."
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Critics Expose The Massive Constitutional Flaw In Donald Trump's Latest Threat
Donald Trump's threat to use 'very heavy force' on anyone who dares to protest his administration during the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary celebrations in Washington, D.C., on Saturday — which coincides with the president's 79th birthday — drew fierce blowback on social media. 'If there's any protester wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' Trump told reporters on Tuesday. 'For those people, that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force,' he reiterated. Trump claimed he hadn't 'even heard about a protest' being planned on the day. But he deployed his usual rhetoric against his critics, claiming they are just 'people who hate our country.' And he added again, 'They will be met with very heavy force.' Trump says anybody who protests the military parade on Sunday will be met with 'very heavy force' — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 10, 2025 Critics reminded Trump of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' Former Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci, who is now a vocal critic of his onetime boss, slammed Trump for 'threatening state sponsored violence on citizens exercising their first amendment right' and called Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to 'grow a backbone' and speak out to 'reject fascism.' Others agreed: Threatening state sponsored violence on citizens exercising their first amendment right. But @LeaderJohnThune is silent. Grow a backbone John and reject fascism. — Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) June 11, 2025 So much for the First Amendment — Sarah Longwell (@SarahLongwell25) June 10, 2025 The First Amendment specifically prohibits the government from using heavy force on citizens who protest the government. — Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) June 10, 2025 But, hear me out here, what if the protesters attack the Capitol? Would we be cool with that? — Stephen Shewmaker (@sbshew) June 10, 2025 Ah yes, such a great confident leader he can't even handle peaceful protest — studio_dad (@studio_daddy) June 10, 2025 I've already said this but the people will stand up for what's right and they will be protesting there Saturday. It will be peaceful until they decide to use 'heavy force' - what a psycho. The president of the United States constantly threatening the American people. I've never… — Jenna (@jennaxkc) June 10, 2025 Surprise Departure Deals Blow To Slim GOP House Majority Rachel Maddow Reveals Sure Sign Trump Is 'Absolutely Panicking' Right Now Trump Reveals What's Next For That Tesla He Bought From Elon Musk