I thank the speaker very much for your remarks on this bill; it’s an important one.

There are a number of elements to this bill that I think are so supportive for post-secondary institutions: the sustainability fund, which provides underlying support for the sector, working with universities and post-secondary institutions—to work with them on their operations to make them work toward long-term sustainability; the tuition freeze, such a benefit for students; and, of course, the work on the mental health element for student support.

My question to the member is, isn’t this a wide range of measures that you could see supporting through this bill?

I thank the member for his question. As I stated in my remarks, there are certainly steps that have been taken in this bill that are addressing concerns that have been raised by stakeholders, especially students; however, so much more needs to be done. At the end of the day, we can have amazing, strong policies in place that are posted on the website and that everybody is aware of, but it doesn’t mean that in reality anything is changing, because the funding is lacking.

If we don’t increase the funding, what is essentially going to happen is that more supports and services, even the existing ones, are under threat and at risk for cutting.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly) Further questions?

Thanks so much to the member from Parkdale–High Park. I love the fact that she focused on the experience of international students.

I’ve spent a lot of time with Conestoga students in my riding. One student from India told me that she came to Ontario to learn, to gain experience, to build Canadian relationships. She didn’t come here to learn online.

Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, coming here just to learn online? I hope we can all agree that this is wrong.

Alex Usher, who has been a very vocal voice, obviously, on post-secondary institutions, says that—that of declining domestically sourced funding, because of Liberals and now this Conservative government, you’ve now offered only $700 million over three years in new public money, and about a third of what its own panel recommended.

To the member: How do you think post-secondary institutions are going to cope with this chronic and institutional underfunding going forward?

Question?

I recognize the member for Don Valley East for further debate.

I want to thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for her contribution to this discussion. Students, before coming to Canada to do their studies, I’m sure did a lot of research before deciding to come here. And they have seen a lot of great things that are here that can well fit into molding their careers into better global citizens. Bill 166 is a major win for students and post-secondary transparency across the province.

I’m worried that members of the opposition may choose to vote against this bill. I want to remind the House that this additional transparency for students—

Earlier today, the government and other members of the House spoke about the importance of International Women’s Day and the importance of us nurturing the leaders of tomorrow. I would like to ask the member for Parkdale–High Park how important it is to invest in said institutions, in our colleges and our universities, that are nurturing these leaders of tomorrow. Because I suspect it’s impossible—it’s impossible—for us to continue having women CEOs, presidents, chancellors, MPPs, all of these phenomenal women that we want to celebrate on International Women’s Day, without proper funding.

So, when the government’s own expert panel recommends $2.5 billion over three years, and the government invests roughly half that, what’s that impact on our post-secondary sector and students?

Students have a responsibility for their education, and that means they need and deserve to know exactly where their hard-earned dollars are being spent. One of the three aspects of Bill 166 deals with matters of basic transparency around costs associated with ancillary fees, the cost of textbooks and other materials.

Speaker, can the member inform us on how they plan to vote on Bill 166 and if they support transparency in student fees in our post-secondary sector?

It’s an honour and a pleasure to rise in the chamber today to speak about Bill 166, the Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act.

At face value, this bill is about three things: combatting racism and hatred, increasing mental health supports and services, and then increasing cost transparency. You’ll forgive that I’m a little bit skeptical about the government’s actual intention to deliver on these promises when, for example, on the issue of racism, we have a government that, immediately on taking power, slashed racism funding.

You’ll forgive me if I’m skeptical about a government that says it wants to fight anti-Semitism and Islamophobia yet, when given the opportunity to pass the Our London Family Act, chooses not to do so.

You’ll forgive me if I’m skeptical about a government that wants to introduce more mental health services and yet has been underfunding our primary care and health care system, leaving many people without access to a family doctor, which is for most people their main source of mental health care.

Finally, you’ll forgive me for being skeptical about this government’s interest in cost transparency when, under this government, the term “transparency” has become an oxymoron.

Furthermore, this bill is on the background of, currently, our province being dead last for funding post-secondary education, dead last for supporting operating budgets and dead last for contributing a fraction of our GDP on post-secondary education. Now, why is that and how did we get here? Because immediately on taking power, this government started hacking away at colleges and universities. They cut OSAP by 40%. They eliminated the six-month interest-free grace period for students for repaying their loans. They capped funding for domestic students; consequently, right now, there are 20,000 students in public universities for which those universities receive no public funding.

Because our universities and colleges are suffering, because 10 of 23 universities are currently running a deficit because they can’t balance their books, international student admissions have gone up under this government by 82%; and this government has opened the floodgates to private career colleges, with there presently being over 500 of them.

For a government that wants to address mental health challenges, let’s take a moment to reflect on that. Because what we know is that amongst international students—again, I remind you that international student rates have gone up dramatically under this government—we have an epidemic of mental health challenges. We have an epidemic of international suicides right now.

Not only will I point out that these numbers have gone up under the government; I will reiterate my skepticism that this government is interested in doing anything about that because if they were interested, then this bill wouldn’t just touch on public colleges and universities. It would be sweeping enough to ensure that there are mental health supports for students in private colleges and in career colleges, but it’s not. So even if and when this passes, even with the investments from last year, there will remain an epidemic of suicide amongst international students at private colleges and career colleges in our province.

So let’s recap first how we got here in the first place: deliberate underfunding by this government, limited domestic students’ access to post-secondary education because they capped that, the slashing of OSAP, and then they’ve allowed subpar, private diploma mills to take hold in our province. This bill does nothing to address that.

Now, we know a week ago there was an announcement of $1.3 billion to supposedly stabilize colleges and universities. The government’s own task force to look at that, the blue-ribbon panel, the panel that looked at the crisis we have in the post-secondary sector, gave sweeping recommendations that this government is refusing to implement, one of which was an infusion of $2.5 billion and the best that the members on the other side could come up with was barely half of that. This legislation is entirely inadequate and does not come close to meeting the needs of the post-secondary sector.

This bill could have been an opportunity to fix the shortfalls of their underfunding, to give our institutions the support they need, also recognizing that every $1 spent on post-secondary education brings back $1.40 to our province’s economy. This is not about spending; this is about investing.

Now, let’s actually dive into the content of this bill. We should first acknowledge that universities and colleges in this province do have mental health and anti-hate policies; they’re just not properly funded. All this bill does is propose to place a great degree of power in the hands of the ministry, but it implements no requirements to seek input into what those directives should be—not from colleges or universities and not from students or faculty. Mental health policies, anti-hate and anti-racism policies are for helping vulnerable and marginalized groups. They deserve solutions specifically built for those communities, not just handed down from the ministry. So I ask, will the ministry commit to speaking to all affected groups before handing down those policies?

You’ll forgive me for saying, yet again, that skepticism is a central theme of my remarks today for a government that proposes to want to support marginalized, vulnerable and under-represented groups. Let’s not forget that just about 24 hours ago, on the eve of International Women’s Day, they chose to silence the independent female members of our caucus. So how can this government be trusted to wield the power of issuing directives supposedly in support of marginalized and vulnerable communities when they’ve proven time and time again that they fail to do so and use their power in a harmful manner?

By giving the government so much control over universities and the ability to issue directives unilaterally and without consultation, if done poorly, it could also hamper the abilities of universities to act autonomously, and they should be allowed to act autonomously. Their policies and priorities are extensively vetted by governing councils, which include professional students, faculty members and a variety of other members who represent universities and colleges. If done poorly, it will not achieve its intended goal of fighting hatred and racism, and I fully acknowledge and support the ambition for all of us to fight hatred and racism in all of its forms.

We can all agree that mental health and anti-hate are great initiatives and should be strongly supported by every member in this House but, as ever, this government has a habit of pointing fingers at others rather than doing anything themselves. What we hear when we talk to colleges and universities is that policy directives are not what they need. They need actual support. It’s long past time that this government put their money where their mouth is. For example, this government announced money to mental health supports in the form of a mental health app. That’s great. But when a student is in a mental health crisis, what they need is in-person support from a competent and well-funded mental health team. That takes money—again, not policy directives—and this government has not done their share to support that. When students are feeling at risk from hate or racism, universities need more than policy. They need more than words. They need funding for counsellors, for wellness spaces and for all of the wraparound supports.

We value our campuses as safe venues for expressing ideas, but it takes resources—money—to build in the safeguards to bring about those environments. For example, it takes money to hire constables to keep everyone safe on campus, to keep everyone on campus safe during protests, demonstrations or sit-ins. It takes money to bring in campus security for longer hours. For students to feel safe and supported, it costs money.

As it stands, post-secondary institutions in the province are already not receiving enough funding from the provincial government. The recent announcement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities for an investment package of $1.3 billion falls far short of the recommendations set out by the blue-ribbon panel on colleges and universities, which required $2.5 billion over the next three years.

Additionally, a key point is that the $1.3 billion that has been promised is merely a one-time injection. It does nothing to ensure the long-term sustainability of our institutions. It gives universities and colleges no ability to plan their futures, and therein is the key failing. The blue-ribbon panel’s report was on the sustainment of our post-secondaries—not seeing them grow and thrive, just sustaining. It’s the bottom line, the bare minimum, that this government is still failing to deliver. Our institutions desperately need ongoing and reliable support from the government to offer the services that Ontarians need them to. Colleges, universities offer so much to our province and their communities, and it’s a shame that our government cannot see them as the investment that they are.

As a result of this shaky, unreliable support, we are seeing the consequences. As we speak, programs have closed in Guelph, at Queen’s, TMU, Nipissing, University of Ottawa, Laurier, Saint Paul, Western, Trent, Brock. These are strong universities that should be confident in their ability to offer world-class programs, but this government’s half measures have left them unable to offer the education that Ontario students want and need.

Madam Speaker, I want to use the last of my time to draw attention to the beginning of the bill. It reads, “This section applies to every college of applied arts and technology and to every publicly-assisted university.” What’s noteworthy in that is what is not said. There are hundreds of private career colleges in Ontario that are entirely left out of this bill, hundreds of colleges for which this government is paying no attention to their mental health challenges, no attention to the proliferation of hatred and racism, no care whatsoever, likely because putting those requirements on private colleges would be cutting into their profits.

While I’ve spent my time discussing the shortcomings of the bill, I can say, of course, it is essential to support the expansion of mental health supports and the expansion of measures to fight against hatred and racism in all of its forms. But I’m baffled why this government would decide to exclude around 45,000 students from these standards. These colleges have the lowest level of regulation in the industry, and that seems to be continuing under this government.

As I reflect on what is offered in this bill, it is incredibly superficial. It skips the underlying challenges that our post-secondary sector faces. It doesn’t come with the necessary, substantial infusion of funding that is required in order to fight hatred and racism in all of its forms and to deliver the mental health supports that our students need.

For as long as students are struggling to make their next rent payment, struggling to make their next tuition payment because OSAP is so desperately underfunded—no matter how many policy directives come down from the Minister of Colleges and Universities, we will continue to see mental health challenges and we will continue to see our colleges and universities stumble from month to month, year to year. They deserve better. I thank you for your time.

Questions?

I thank the member for his remarks on this. I was listening to your comments about the challenges that students are facing and certainly understand those challenges. I’ve got three boys. They’re post-school now, but when they were going through it it was a big burden. Frankly, it’s even more challenging these days, arguably, with the housing that you mentioned.

Looking at this bill and seeing that it’s freezing tuition fees for several more years after the benefits that have been there already, including a 10% reduction—I look at those benefits and say that those are very important benefits for students. My question is, really, don’t those benefits allow you to look at this bill and say, “Yes, I’d like to support it and support students as well”?

My question is to the member from Don Valley East. Finally the government is addressing some of the long-standing post-secondary issues that this Conservative government really has been ignoring. It’s not enough, but it is actually a start, and this is true. It’s been five years of neglect; that is also true.

But it is also true that the sector had been neglected by the previous Liberal government as well. The leader of the Ontario Liberals has not made any commitment to freeze tuition. Certainly there is no commitment to lowering them, as of yet. Could the member from Don Valley East elaborate on tuition fees and the importance of committing to lowering them within the perspective of how students are struggling after nearly a decade and a half of neglect?

I want to thank the member for his comments today.

I know that when going to university, I always felt it was a house for freedom of expression. You got to be who you wanted to be and to really say what you wanted to say. So I know many members of our House were alarmed when we saw that at the federal level, MP Charlie Angus tabled Bill C-372, which is a private member’s bill that seeks to prescribe jail terms for speaking well of fossil fuels. Do you know what? I’m not here to discuss the potential uses or harms associated with fossil fuels, but I’m incredibly concerned by the Orwellian rhetoric of the opposition’s federal cousins. We’ve seen an onslaught against free speech in the public domain and at our province’s universities.

Bill 166 aims to bolster free speech at our universities. Will you vote for free speech or will you send students to 1984?

I thank you for the question. I fully support the tuition freeze. However, what I want to highlight is that at a time of an unprecedented affordability crisis—we know rents have gone up; this government has abolished rent control, for example; the cost of living has gone up; groceries have gone up—what hasn’t gone up is the amount of student assistance. In fact, as I referenced in my earlier remarks, the amount of OSAP has gone down by 40%. And even if you qualify for OSAP, that OSAP comes largely in the form not of grants, but loans. Again, as I mentioned, those loans no longer have a six-month interest-free grace period.

So our students need substantially more support. The tuition freeze is part of that, but I would be looking for vastly more, specifically in terms of additional financial support and increasing OSAP as well.

I see that you’re encouraging me to think back even further in history. I think something that’s often lost in the narrative is that, once upon a time, there was an NDP government in this province. During that period, post-secondary funding was last of all of the provinces in this country.

Interjection.

What I will tell you is that free speech is sacred here. We know that our post-secondary institutions are a bastion of free speech, and we need to make sure that they are safe places. We’ve seen a wave of various kinds of hatred and racism. We’ve seen anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism. We’ve seen hate speech directed to the LGBTQ2S+ community as well, and anti-Asian, anti-Black and towards women as well. So while we fight to ensure that there are safe places for us to speak freely, we do also want to make sure that the protections are in place so that students can study safely and focus on their studies.

If you’re asking will I support increased mental health supports, will I increase initiatives that will provide more funding to university and college students so that they don’t have to live hand-to-mouth, of course I will support initiatives of those types. The main crux of my criticism here is that this bill doesn’t come even close to going far enough to support our post-secondary sector and the students who will be the foundation of our economy going forward.

Thank you to the independent member for his comments. Under the Liberals, students would be paying more for less. The Liberals opposed performance-based funding, opposed a freeze on tuition and supported increasing tuition. So my question is: Will the Liberals again oppose strengthening accountability and student supports?

Thank you to the member from Don Valley East, and particularly for the reminders about the cuts to actual funding supports for domestic students.

After my PhD, I taught for 11 years in a university, and I’ve certainly seen the increase of international students and the stresses that they’re under, and the exploitation that they’re experiencing. We have an institution that’s based on the exploitation of international students and the exploitation of the existing talent of the graduates of those very same institutions who are precarious workers. That includes library and support staff.

Now, I doubt that the government intends to be transparent about this aspect of how universities are being supported, but I know that when students learn about the exploitation that underpins their education, they’re really shocked. They’re really upset. They’re asking themselves, “Do I want to be part of this? Is this what it means to get an education?”

So my question is, what do you think the message is to students and Ontarians when our post-secondary institutions are based on exploitation?

I thank you for the question because I think it’s particularly prescient. When you talk to international students, they know that they are the piggy bank that is funding colleges and universities. It’s heartbreaking to hear from them that they were sold on a dream and a promise from faraway lands that they would be able to come here, settle and start a new life with hope for prosperity in the future. When they come here and realize that their tuition is orders of magnitude higher than domestic students and that the promise that was made to them can’t be delivered upon, it tells them that their individual dignity does not count; it tells them that they count for nothing more than what’s in their bank accounts.

The only thing that they should be focusing on is their education and how they can settle their roots here and give back to our country and our economy.

Further debate?

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the second reading of Bill 166, Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024. This bill is an amendment to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act that legislates three key pillars. The first pillar: Every college and university is required to have a student mental health policy that describes the programs, policies, services and supports available at the college or university with respect to student mental health. The second pillar: Every college and university is required to have policies and rules to address and combat racism and hate, including but not limited to anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. And the third pillar: The minister is authorized to issue directives in relation to the information to be provided about the costs associated with attendance at the college or university.

My remarks today will focus on the second key pillar.

The legislation, if passed, works in an effort to reduce hatred and racism within colleges and universities and holds our post-secondary institutions accountable with increased transparency.

Post-secondary institutions should be an inclusive place for all students. As a mother of post-secondary students, I am very aware that the environment on campus should be that of vitality and growth, where our students feel safe, valued and fostered. And these students should know that supports are available if they need help.

I truly wish that this legislation was unnecessary and the issue of hate did not exist, but, sadly, this is a very real circumstance for my community. For example, a constituent whose child was living in residence on campus recently received a note under his door. Drawn on the paper was a swastika and a hateful and threatening anti-Semitic message. I wish I could repeat the message, but the words are actually too disturbing for repetition.

Another constituent contacted me, very upset. Her daughter had been chased out of a university party after other students had learned she was Jewish, forcing that student to run to another location, and she hid there for hours before she felt she could leave and go home.

Another student was targeted by other students who drew over her peaceful walls—she had created a beautiful peace mural, and other students then later decided to write harmful and hateful threats for all to be seen on the walls within that college. That student is now so terrified that she refuses to go back to campus and will not go back to finish her final, fourth year of her degree. She’s currently attempting to request leave of the college to complete her final year virtually. The worst part of this situation was that this student felt threatened by not only the other students; it was my understanding that her instructors also took part in anti-Semitic activity that made her feel not only uncomfortable on campus but not able to return.

Another student could not leave his campus residence because of an angry mob of protesters. They were an intimidating group who chanted hateful messages against his faith on the field outside of his room. That young Jewish man only wanted to cross the field on campus so that he could get to the library to study, and that afternoon, he wasn’t able to leave his room, not even to go get food in the food hall, to get dinner, because he quite simply did not feel safe.

A last example, Speaker, is yet another campus. An Indigenous student was personally targeted, and paint was smeared on a three-storey mural that nods to Indigenous stories of creation. One of the students on campus told investigators that the sight of such blatant hate made him feel like he had to throw up.

This is just a small, tiny fraction of the countless acts of hate on a variety of university and college campuses which are far more than a distraction or a disruption for learning for our students, especially when these terrible acts of intimidation, abuse and sometimes assault happen without any ramifications against the person or the group perpetrating the hate. Further, when these actions are not recorded by the university or college or, worse yet, never adjudicated, how does this reflect on the post-secondary educational system?

Life is complicated, but if we cannot protect our children, our students, our future leaders who simply want to learn and grow in an inclusive environment where they can flourish in peace and safety, if we cannot provide that safe environment, or worse, not hold these bad actors accountable, then I believe the time has come for our government to force standards on our post-secondary institutions.

Speaker, it is common knowledge that hate crimes have drastically increased towards students on college and university campuses across Ontario and Canada. It is honestly horrific to think of all the aforementioned forms of discrimination that occur every day in the lives of students in this province, and our government cannot stand for this, which is why I’m proud of the Minister of Colleges and Universities and the PA for introducing this legislation.

Our government is committed to supporting post-secondary education, which is a healthy and sustainable place so that students have the best post-secondary experience possible and are ready for the jobs and careers of today and tomorrow.

Since 2014 there have been over 500 publicly recorded hate incidents on campus, according to an investigative study by the Toronto Star and the Investigative Journalism Bureau. Our government does not condone any of these reported hate incidents, and we also know that so many hate incidents go unreported. This is so disturbing, but something that we must acknowledge and work to address.

Our government understands the realities that many marginalized students face on campus. Whether it’s hatred through speech or hatred through actions, these issues need to be tackled for the long-term future success and safety of those in our colleges and universities. But the grim reality is that students no longer feel safe and this rising fear for their safety is impacting their overall mental health and well-being, as well as their academic success.

A new anti-hate policy that creates safer campuses and a streamlined complaint process for students empowers schools to deal with all forms of racism, all while upholding the principles of free speech. Direction to institutions would support greater consistency with how these incidents are dealt with and ensure a code of conduct is clearly communicated to help protect students and ensure they feel safe on campus.

Our government has developed several initiatives to put student safety first. This includes the Campus Safety Grant, a $6-million investment annually to help assist and support publicly assisted colleges and universities with campus safety programs like safety training; consent workshops; security equipment, such as cameras and emergency systems; safe walk programs; and a variety of violence prevention workshops.

Students in my riding and across this province are being verbally harassed, having their property vandalized and sometimes being targeted into situations that become violent. The reality is that many students are fearful to report these hate incidents, and when they do, some schools fail to take the appropriate action.

The Ontario Human Rights Code, which applies to all colleges and universities, prohibits discrimination based on race, place of origin, disability, age, religious belief, sexual orientation and more. Since January 2019, all publicly assisted colleges and universities in our province have implemented a free speech policy that meets a minimum standard prescribed by the government and based on best practices from around the world.

The policy protects free speech at colleges and universities, but does not allow hate speech, discrimination, harassment or other illegal forms of speech. But it is very concerning, especially since the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas on October 7, 2023. I have witnessed this, sadly, first-hand, the rising tension among students on campuses across this province. Concerning incidences have been reported all across Ontario involving students, staff, student groups and visitors to post-secondary campuses. Given the current lack of accountability with respect to hate speech, it is clear that a broader, proactive approach is needed so that incidences are dealt with in a consistent manner.

I support this legislation. As a mother and politician, I have been advocating for this for a very long time, so much so that my advocacy started prior to my being elected. As a government, we will continue to work with our colleges and universities, student groups and other partners to make sure our post-secondary institutions support a bright future for the people in this province.

I want to thank the Minister of Colleges and Universities and the parliamentary assistant for their work. Ontario is putting students first with a continued focus on efficiency, campus safety and accountability from our world-class post-secondary education system.

Questions? The member from Cambridge. No—

Next question?