This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
RM, Doug Ford, Jr. → Doug Ford (politician), Not moved, 25 November 2016, discussion
RM, Doug Ford Jr. → Doug Ford, No consensus, 11 March 2018, discussion
RM, Doug Ford Jr. → Doug Ford, Moved, 8 June 2018, discussion
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Controversial decision on the private colleges[edit]
I suggest including the section below in the main text. This is a neutral posting that reflects the current situation with colleges in Ontario as many private colleges will collapse soon after the restriction imposed on the private education business. I am not a businessman and I do not work in a college.
On March 27, 2024, the Government of Ontario, led by Doug Ford, made an unexpected decision that may have a huge negative impact on the entire educational system of the province leading to the bankruptcy of many private colleges. It was announced that the private colleges will not receive any international study permits as 96% of spots will be allocated to public colleges and universities while the remaining 4% of international students may be allowed to study in some private universities and language schools. The decision to eliminate a "low-quality education" in the Province of Ontario is controversial as a "low-quality education" cannot be generalized to all private colleges of Ontario. Moreover, so-called "low-quality education" allegedly practiced by private colleges implies complete discrimination against domestic students because of the (allegedly) lower standards of education. The real issue that led to such a controversial decision is the conflict of interests between public and private colleges. This decision leads to a monopolization of the educational system and complete predomination of the public colleges. [1]Nomonopolyofeducation (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with quality of education. Unfortunately, Canada is the country where the most educated and talented people with MSc and PhD degrees cannot find jobs according to their skills and qualifications.[2] So, any private college in Canada can easily find and hire highly qualified specialists with MSc and PhD degrees for teaching positions. Therefore, poor quality of education is just an excuse. What we actually see is that the large business of public colleges expels the small business of private colleges. Observateur Canadien (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The shares in all public or community colleges of Canada largely belong to the big private businesses that, of course, may not be interested in competing with small private colleges. When tons of dollars are involved the scale of business becomes too attractive for influential tycoons as millions of international students entering Canada must pay their very expensive tuition fees. This is the only sound answer, which explains the preplanned collapse of many private colleges in Ontario. It was a corporate lobbying that convinced the Ontario Government to exclude private career colleges from the business. The small private colleges are outsiders now and this monopolization is idiomatically saying "riding the gravy train" for the richest private shareholders of the public colleges. Snowflake Enneagram (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Public colleges are by definition, owned publicly, by governments, recognized by the Crown, not corporate entities. Alaney2k (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral tone means the a reader cannot tell what position the writer takes on a topic. You need to re-write the suggested text in order to reflect that. Also, you need a reliable source that supports the text. TFD (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested section is neutral and not used as a platform for political advocacy. It only states the negative impacts to the educational system of Ontario that are cased by this decision. Nomonopolyofeducation (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section I proposed is neutral and it does not criticize Doug Ford's government. It only states the real facts and issues in the educational system of Ontario that are caused by this decision. As far as a reliable source is concerned, this article [3] supports the proposed section:
"New Ontario rules to deny private colleges international students will wipe out their partnerships, killing jobs and ending a lucrative source of income for public colleges, experts and advocates say.
They're going to have to make some very difficult financial decisions. They’re going to have to do some restructuring. There are large administrative questions — where that lands is not going to be a good place,” said University of Toronto education Prof. Glen Jones, an expert in post-secondary policy."
As we know, any kind of monopolization is illegal in USA and Canada. This decision certainly creates a monopolization of the educational system of Ontario by public colleges and we should say something about it. Nomonopolyofeducation (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a basic misunderstanding here of what Wikipedia is and is not. Speculation is out, opinion is out. It's not a place for any kind of advocacy - commercial, political, any. It's not the news, but events are covered. An article about private education in Ontario could include information about quotas and changes in immigration policy. It could include noting opposition to changes, as long as it is attributed to a specific person or media outlet that is secondary to the cause. That's about the only place it -could- be appropriate to discuss views on a topic that has politics attached. Alaney2k (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}