Part Three - Roadmap for Sustainable Change

Addresses: homogenization, mission drift, access

Small, remote, and teaching-focused institutions are the backbone of access and regional development. They deliver skilled trades training, applied learning, workforce-aligned credentials, regional innovation, and culturally grounded education. Yet too often they are pushed toward homogenization by funding and accountability systems that equate success with research output. When every institution is judged against the same narrow model, functional excellence in teaching or applied delivery is undervalued and underfunded.

More coherent systems would reward institutions for excelling in their distinct mandate. Governments can enable this by embedding role-specific priorities into funding formulas, program approval processes, and accountability frameworks — measuring excellence in teaching, applied innovation, Indigenous knowledge, and community alignment alongside research. Differentiation by function makes space for multiple forms of excellence. For learners, this means clearer choices, more relevant programming, and stronger pathways to employment and community impact.

Current State: 

Canada has several strong examples of functional differentiation, but few are fully supported or protected by policy and funding systems.

• Yukon University integrates skilled trades, academic degrees, and Indigenous knowledge tailored to northern learners, specializing in climate resilience and community-focused innovation.
• Okanagan College aligns programming with regional needs in clean tech, viticulture, and construction, and leads in sustainability and Indigenous partnerships.
• British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) and Saskatchewan Polytechnic deliver applied research and workforce training province-wide across vast geographies. 
• New Brunswick Community College (NBCC) and Nova Scotia Community College (NSCC) provide career-focused training that underpins rural economic development across Atlantic Canada.
• First Nations University of Canada delivers Indigenous-centered education rooted in cultural knowledge, community priorities, and language revitalization. 

These institutions already demonstrate strong models of functional excellence. Building on their success through recognition in funding formulas and accountability frameworks would help ensure their distinct contributions are sustained and strengthened over time, and support more institutions to excel.

Addresses: inefficient use of public funds, access, making differentiation legible to students

Coordinated delivery networks are structured partnerships between institutions that allow students to start programs locally while benefiting from the research capacity and expertise of larger institutions. Well-designed coordinated delivery networks reflect collaboration, not hierarchy. With the right policy scaffolding, these networks can reduce duplication and increase differentiation while also expanding access, anchoring research intensity, and supporting workforce responsiveness.

Coordinated delivery networks reframe the hub-and-spoke model by shifting away from defining entire institutions as hubs or spokes, toward defining roles based on disciplines, programs, or regional functions. For example, a polytechnic might act as a hub for applied research in advanced manufacturing, while serving as a spoke in a research university-led network for health innovation. A teaching-focused university may be a hub for delivery in underserved rural regions, while relying as a spoke on laboratory infrastructure shared by a larger hub partner in other fields. In this model, any institution can act as a hub or spoke depending on the strengths it can bring to fulfill specific needs. 

For students, the success of coordinated delivery networks depends on seamless credit transfer, portable credentials, and clear advising, making it possible to start locally, continue without losing credits, and graduate with credentials that are recognized and valued across regions and sectors. Without this scaffolding, learners risk losing time, money, and momentum when moving between institutions or regions. 

Equally important is governance: current funding models often reward competition rather than collaboration, leaving institutions little incentive to share programs or infrastructure. A coordinated framework should include provincial funding streams and accountability mechanisms that reward cooperation and resource-sharing. Employers and communities should also be treated as active nodes in the network—helping shape programs, ensure labour market alignment, and integrate applied research into regional priorities.

Current State: 

Delivery partnerships already exist across Canada but remain largely ad hoc and reliant on local leadership rather than systemic design. 

• In British Columbia, UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College align in health and sustainability, supported by province-wide digital tools through BCcampus.
• In Alberta, the University of Alberta and University of Calgary collaborate with NAIT, SAIT, NorQuest, and Bow Valley College in nursing, technology, and health.
• In Ontario, University of Toronto and York work with Seneca, Humber, and George Brown in business, liberal arts, media, and health.
• In Atlantic Canada, natural hub-and-spoke dynamics exist between Dalhousie, University of New Brunswick, NBCC, and NSCC.

Across Canada, many hub-and-spoke efforts remain ad hoc rather than strategic. Spokes often operate without sustained support, while hubs take on research costs without system-wide capacity sharing. With stable incentives, shared accountability, and meaningful roles for employer and community partners, these networks could evolve from patchwork arrangements to coordinated systems—reducing duplication, expanding access, and strengthening student mobility and innovation capacity.

Addresses: federal-provincial coordination, systemic mediocrity

Canada’s research universities carry a dual responsibility: they are expected to provide broad undergraduate access while also leading the country in advanced research and innovation. These institutions educate tens of thousands of students each year, producing graduates who enter every sector of the economy. At the same time, they anchor national innovation ecosystems through world-class research, commercialization, and global partnerships.

The challenge is that policy and funding frameworks often blur these roles, pushing research-intensive universities to stretch into functions better served by colleges, polytechnics, and regional teaching-intensive universities. The result is unnecessary duplication and missed opportunities for national innovation leadership.

To unlock their full potential, these institutions should continue to fulfill their undergraduate teaching role, but be primarily empowered and resourced to act as national leaders in R&D, ecosystem development, commercialization, and IP mobilization. Clearer role differentiation would allow them to sustain broad access while concentrating specialized capacity in research and innovation. For students, this clarity ensures they can access world-class research opportunities while also benefiting from institutions that remain focused on teaching, applied learning, and regional access, rather than being stretched too thin to excel at either.

Current State: 

• University of Waterloo combines co-op education with progressive IP policies, driving one of North America’s most successful startup ecosystems.
• University of Toronto leads globally in biomedical science, AI, and quantum computing, anchoring the Toronto-Waterloo corridor.
• University of Calgary focuses on energy transition, digital innovation, and entrepreneurship, supported by public-private partnerships.
• Université Laval advances research in agriculture, health, and Francophone economic development.
• University of Manitoba specializes in infectious disease, agri-tech, and Indigenous health, leveraging strong provincial and federal ties.
• Other institutions like Concordia, Carleton, and York are innovation leaders in aerospace, cybersecurity, and digital arts, which are areas of specialization that don’t replicate the mandates of U15 peers. 

Despite these areas of strength, federal and provincial systems continue to prioritize publication over commercialization, with inconsistent IP policies and limited support for applied research. Coordinated, differentiated systems would not only clarify the teaching and discovery roles of research-intensive universities but also elevate the applied research contributions of polytechnics, ensuring that both fundamental breakthroughs and practical innovations are backed by policy, funding, and strategy. Together, these complementary strengths can drive access, economic growth, and a more responsive national innovation agenda.

Addresses: making differentiation legible to students, access, equity loss

Expanding access to post-secondary education in Canada doesn’t require duplicating physical campuses. It requires building a scalable, high-quality digital and hybrid infrastructure that meets learners where they are – throughout their lives. Digital and hybrid models should enable students not just to start from anywhere, but to return as their careers evolve: studying part-time, reskilling in mid-career, and stacking credentials across institutions and time. This flexibility is especially critical for rural, remote, working, and non-traditional learners who need education pathways that adapt to changing work and life circumstances.

To realize the full potential, we must treat digital and hybrid delivery as core system infrastructure. That means investing in reliable digital access, consistent articulation frameworks, and faculty development — not leaving innovation to one-off, institution-specific projects. For learners, this means flexible opportunities to upskill and reskill throughout their lives—whether returning mid-career, studying while working, or building stackable credentials that evolve with the labour market.

Current State: 

Canada’s digital learning ecosystems expanded  rapidly during the COVID-19  pandemic, but it remains fragmented and uneven. Quality, infrastructure, and transferability vary by region, and most initiatives are still isolated pilots rather than systemic design. 

• Athabasca University has long played a national role as a fully online institution, offering asynchronous degree programs that expand access for working and remote learners.
• York University’s YUCO platform delivers scalable hybrid general education for students balancing work or caregiving.
• eCampusOntario and BCcampus provide shared tools, open resources, and digital pedagogy support, but their effectiveness depends on sustained provincial buy-in.
• Institutions like Seneca Polytechnic, Thompson Rivers University, and University of Manitoba are building hybrid-first programs.

These innovations serve learner flexibility, but system-wide coordination would make them stronger. Treating digital and hybrid delivery as national learning infrastructure would not only improve access and student experience but also make lifelong upskilling and reskilling a practical reality. In a labour market where careers span decades and skills must be continuously refreshed, digital and hybrid delivery is not an option – it’s the backbone of Canada’s talent strategy.  

Addresses: employer engagement alignment, workforce alignment, equity loss, making differentiation legible to students

Work-integrated learning (WIL) and experiential education must be treated as system infrastructure, not optional enrichment. Embedding applied learning across programs links students directly to labour markets, reduces skills gaps, and supports equity by improving economic and social mobility for first-generation, rural, and under-represented learners. Institutions that integrate WIL into their core mandate build stronger talent pipelines and deliver graduates who are both job-ready and adaptable in a fast-changing economy.

Moving from pilots to permanence requires embedding WIL into provincial mandates, funding formulas, and credential design. This means providing stable capacity-building for employer partnerships (especially SMEs), supporting faculty to integrate applied projects into curriculum, and empowering regional intermediaries to coordinate delivery. 

Current State: 

Current funding and governance models still treat WIL as peripheral. Canada has world-leading examples, but they are fragmented and uneven.

• While the University of Waterloo operates large, globally recognized co-op programs, many smaller colleges and polytechnics — especially those serving diverse and regionally unique populations — struggle to scale paid placements due to limited employer connections and funding.
• Seneca, Humber, and George Brown have embedded WIL across business, health, and media programs.
• Institutions like Saskatchewan Polytechnic, NBCC, and NorQuest integrate applied projects into workforce programs.
• National WIL delivery leaders like CEWIL Canada and BHER have expanded placements, particularly in SMEs and social sectors.

Designing WIL as a system-wide expectation ensures that all learners—not just those at a handful of institutions—graduate with practical experience, employer connections, and clearer pathways to meaningful work. For institutions, it embeds reciprocal partnerships with employers and drives innovation in talent development. At the system level, treating WIL as core infrastructure links education directly to workforce needs, strengthening equity, employability, and economic resilience across Canada’s post-secondary landscape.

Addresses: homogenization, mission drift, access,  federal-provincial coordination

Differentiation cannot succeed without clear mandates. Legislated mandates would define institutional roles by strengths, geography, populations served, and economic alignment, giving governments tools to coordinate investments, prevent overlap, and protect institutions from unsustainable mission drift.

Current State: 

While no province currently legislates missions by geography or function, several have partial frameworks:

• Ontario uses Strategic Mandate Agreements (SMAs) to outline institutional strengths. Colleges like Algonquin and George Brown, and polytechnics like Humber and Seneca, specialize in applied health, trades, and co-op programming. Yet SMAs are administrative agreements, not binding legislation, and drift persists.
• Alberta has one of the most explicit frameworks through its Roles and Mandates Policy, with NAIT and SAIT positioned as applied polytechnics tied to Alberta’s energy and tech economies. Still, their roles remain policy-based, not legislated.
• British Columbia respects institutional catchment areas and features BCIT as a polytechnic anchor in the Lower Mainland. Coordination through BCcampus strengthens collaboration, but no statute protects roles across the system.
• Quebec maintains structural segmentation between CEGEPs and universities. Institutions like Laval play clear Francophone and regional roles, but mandates are not formally codified.
• Saskatchewan and Manitoba rely on tradition: Saskatchewan Polytechnic and University of Manitoba each serve important functions, but role overlap persists.
• Atlantic Canada depends on colleges like NSCC and NBCC for rural access and workforce delivery, but differentiation arises from geography rather than policy design.

The unique contributions of Canada’s post-secondaries are held together by convention, not statute, leaving the system vulnerable to duplication, competition, and diluted impact. Legislation would formalize clarity. Institutions should be resourced and evaluated on their ability to meet regional, national, and societal needs according to their strengths—not on conformity to a single model of success. For learners, this would mean clearer choices, stronger local options, and pathways that reflect the economic realities of where they live. For governments, it would deliver coherence, specialization, and equity across post-secondary ecosystems.

Addresses: access, equity loss, systemic mediocrity, making differentiation legible to students

In well-designed differentiated systems, equity is not an add-on — it is a core design principle built directly into funding formulas. Institutions serving rural, Indigenous, low-income, and first-generation learners often face the most complex challenges, while also generating some of the most profound social and economic benefits. Inclusive access, cultural responsiveness, and regional service mandates are essential forms of excellence and must be recognized as such.

Funding models tied too narrowly to outcomes like graduation rates or graduate earnings risk penalizing the very institutions doing the hardest and most necessary work. Equity-based provisions help ensure access-oriented institutions are resourced because of their student populations, not in spite of them.

Current State: 

Many Canadian institutions sit at the front lines of equity, but remain under-supported by conventional funding systems.

• First Nations University of Canada provides Indigenous-centered education across Saskatchewan, prioritizing language revitalization, land-based learning, and cultural continuity. Its students often face structural barriers like intergenerational trauma and geographic isolation, yet conventional metrics rarely capture its transformative role.
• Indigenous Institutes recognized under Ontario’s Indigenous Institutes Act deliver community-led, culturally grounded programs that sustain Indigenous knowledge systems and sovereignty. But measures like research income or employment statistics fail to reflect their value.
• University College of the North (Manitoba), Yukon University, and Aurora College (Northwest Territories) serve remote and northern learners with few local alternatives, operating in high-need, low-scale contexts that volume-based formulas consistently disadvantage.

Policy experiments exist, but remain limited. Ontario’s SMA3 agreements allow for “institution-specific differentiation metrics,” but equity outcomes remain marginal. Alberta’s abandoned performance-based funding lacked any demographic adjustment. Across provinces, most formulas prioritize headcount, completion, and earnings — metrics that structurally disadvantage institutions focused on access and equity.

A stronger approach would embed equity into the funding architecture itself. That means weighting formulas to reflect student demographics, regional context, and the complexity of institutional mandates. Equity indicators—such as cultural responsiveness, access, and community engagement—should be measured alongside traditional outcomes.

Dedicated funding for wraparound supports like housing, child care, and mental health would further recognize the realities learners face. For students, equity-informed funding means choosing a regional, Indigenous, or northern institution wouldn’t mean sacrificing quality or support—but gaining access to education designed for their success.