At the April 10th, 2025, Audit and Finance committee, the University Administration presented the MCU Efficiency and Accountability Fund Final Report, which was prepared by third-party accounting firm KMPG. KMPG was retained by Ontario Tech to perform a review financed by the Efficiency and Accountability Fund as established by the Ford Government. This fund was created to support reviews of individual post-secondary institutions to identify opportunities to find efficiencies and maximize resources and the scope was set by the Ministry. Please contact the UOITFA at [email protected] if you’d like more information on this report.
MCU Efficiency and Accountability Fund Final Report: Academic Programming Efficiencies
Although there are findings specific to Academic Programming in KPMG’s report, Faculty were not consulted in any meaningful way, and these findings are especially concerning to UOITFA members, given their potential impact on our member’s Collective Agreement rights. Potentially problematic findings include:
- For most programs, core courses are only offered once per year. KMPG suggests offering greater flexibility in course requirements and timing via the removal of “unnecessary” prerequisites
- KPMG finds that approximately 16% of lecture-type courses at the undergraduate level have fewer than 20 students enrolled and suggests consolidating sections to decrease costs and creating a minimum threshold to cancel or adjust the timing/frequency of courses.
- KMPG indicates that in the 2023-24 academic year, almost 80% of sections are covered by full-time faculty members and suggests increasing student-to-faculty ratios, leveraging the use of part-time Faculty, and using non-unionized skilled professionals from industry as contract instructors to alleviate costs.
- KPMG also indicates that an increased number of programs are no longer profitable due to the domestic tuition freeze and cap on international students. While they recognize that not all academic programs must be profitable, it was noted that several programs (both graduate and undergraduate) had a negative contribution margin. A proposed solution was to implement a program annual review process to determine either: cancellation, conversion of a program into another program major/minor or continuing the program for strategic purposes.
Efficiencies Already at Play: Program Cuts and Mode of Delivery Flexibility
UOITFA members have expressed concerns that we are already experiencing the negative impact of these findings through several recent initiatives undertaken by the University’s Senior Leadership. One initiative is the suspension of programs where enrolment is less than 15, without following the proper collegial policies and procedures. In some instances, programs directorships have been combined to avoid the implementation of enrolment pauses, leading to changes to the terms and conditions of employment for these administrative appointments.
Another initiative is the roll out of the Mode of Delivery Flexibility motion which is being brought to Faculty Councils. This proposed change to how mode of delivery is determined could be an attempt to undermine IQAP Curriculum Change Procedures that allow for changes through proper collegial channels. The proposed change gives the Dean or the Provost, as the motion seems to have come from the provost’s office, the ultimate decision-making power over how a course is offered. Giving the Dean or provost decision-making power could lead to the erosion of workload protections as established in Article 16.03 e) and 16.08 c) of the Collective Agreement.
As well, KMPG recommended that “additional learning offerings and associated revenues exist through greater use of licensing, selling of simulations or ready-made micro-credentials” which could open the door to very serious violations of our members intellectual property rights. If our teaching materials are accessible online through university-owned platforms such as Canvas, what protections exist to stop the University from using them to create AI-delivered courses?
Additional Findings: Alternate Streams of Revenue and Ontario Tech Talent
Another area KPMG touched on was revenue generating opportunities, which included a recommendation to grow alternative learning offerings through expanding continuous learning opportunities at Ontario Tech. We want to remind our senior leaders that expanding these alternative learning offerings cannot come at the cost of delivering our core academic programming, which seems to be what happened with Ontario Tech Talent. The University funded it’s for-profit subsidiary Ontario Tech Talent from our main operating budget over the course of several budget years, including a $1.8M loss reported in last year’s auditor’s report and an additional $1.7M unbudgeted estimated loss in this current budget year, with little to no return on investment.
Conclusions: It’s Time to Invest in our University Community
While we appreciate the need to work as efficiently as possible in Ontario’s current post-secondary climate, capitalizing on efficiencies cannot result in the further erosion of Faculty workload protections and collegial governance structures at Ontario Tech. Members are already facing unsustainable workloads as a result of larger class sizes, higher student-to-faculty ratios, less TA support, and a lack of research support. Now, we are being asked to find further efficiencies by sacrificing our intellectual property, academic freedom, and collegial rights, so that the University can continue to invest in strategic initiatives as determined by Senior Leadership with little to no consultation from the University community.
As the University works to implement the findings of the efficiency review through the drafting of a plan to be presented to the University Board at its June meeting, our members must push back against these proposed efficiency measures. We must remind the University that our members have worked hard to prioritize the financial health of the University and it’s long overdue for the Administration to recognize our members’ contributions to the overall success of the University. Instead of continuously demanding that our members do more with less, it is time for the University to invest in its core educational mission, and the students, faculty and staff that are central to that mission.