Good morning. Through Bill 166, our government is continuing to work to ensure students have access to the right conditions to support their well-being and achieve success at colleges and universities by introducing legislation that, if passed, would enhance student mental health supports, increase ancillary fee transparency and continue to ensure our college and university campuses are safe and inclusive learning environments.

Speaker, every student has a right to study at a college or university. Removing barriers of mental health, racism, hate and cost will assist students with obtaining a better campus experience. Will the member opposite support this bill to develop policies which will protect students?

As always, it is an honour to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the residents of Parkdale–High Park, today to Bill 166, Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act.

Our post-secondary institutions are at a breaking point, and this is because of decades of Liberal and Conservative underfunding. That didn’t happen overnight. This has been years in the making. Action on this file is long overdue, and we need serious and sustainable solutions to address this crisis. This bill that the government has brought forward just doesn’t meet the moment.

We value our world-class post-secondary institutions, and we know the positive impact they have on staff, students and surrounding communities. The Ontario NDP is committed to ensuring that everyone who lives, works and studies at a post-secondary institution has the support they need. That is why we’re calling on this Conservative government to immediately commit to serious and reliable funding for colleges and universities and strengthen oversight to end the exploitation of international students.

I’m going to talk a little bit about what’s in this bill. The bill requires public colleges and universities to have a student mental health policy that describes the programs, policies, services and supports available at the college or university. The minister may issue directives specifying the elements to be included in this policy and the steps the minister intends to take if the institution fails to comply. The policy would have to be posted on its website, reviewed at least once every five years and reported annually to the board of governors on the implementation and effectiveness.

I agree, we need to have student mental health policies, and I think many or most universities and colleges have a student mental health policy. What they don’t have is the funding to provide the support and services to the students. We know from data we see year after year that the demand for mental health supports is increasing.

Speaker, in my first term in office, when I got elected in 2018, the first bill I tabled in this House was to ensure that every child and young person had the right to receive access to timely mental health care. The bill proposed that, for any young person, basically 24 and under, if a mental health support was identified as being needed, they would get access to it within 30 days. This was an ask from Children’s Mental Health Ontario. It was part of the Kids Can’t Wait campaign. It was a fully costed plan. And, Speaker, when that bill was brought before this House and debated and voted on at second reading, it actually received unanimous support. But then, after that, the bill languished at committee. The government refused to take any action on it.

Already it was too late to be taking action because the wait-lists were growing and wait times were getting longer. But even if we had taken action then, we are talking about four or five years of work that would have already gone into ensuring that everyone, especially young people, have access to timely mental health care.

This bill also requires public colleges and universities “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.” Again, the minister may issue directives specifying the elements of the policy and the steps the minister intends to take if an institution fails to comply. This policy, again, would have to be posted on the website, reviewed at least once every five years, and reported annually to the board of governors on the implementation and effectiveness.

Speaker, again, it’s very important to have policies, and we support that. We want to ensure, and we must actually ensure, that every student, staff—anybody—in post-secondary education feels welcome and that it’s a safe learning and working environment. But we need to make sure that our action as government, and particularly with this Conservative government, is not limited to just policies on paper, that there is proper funding in place to ensure that action can be taken.

Finally, it enables the minister to issue directives to colleges and universities specifying information to be provided to the public about costs associated with attending the institution, such as the ancillary fees, cost of textbooks and other learning materials.

It’s very, very important that this bill was tabled as part of a package of announcements that the government made following a report that came out in November, the blue-ribbon panel report—and, of course, the federal announcement of the cap on international study permits.

So, that package that this government announced in March—just last week—includes extending the tuition freeze for Ontario students for at least three or more years while allowing institutions to increase tuition by 5% for out-of-province domestic students, funding totalling just under $1.3 billion over three years. There is regulation to allow the minister to grant applied master’s degrees and the commitment to engage with colleges and universities to create tuition fee transparency.

Now, all of this is important, but I think that, again, it goes back to how for years students—important stakeholders within post-secondary education—have been ringing the alarm bells when it comes to the crisis. And the actions that I just outlined really are very, very small steps when it comes to addressing the scale of the crisis, which is why, as I said earlier, this bill does not meet the moment. The response to a crisis has to be able to solve the crisis or at least, at minimum, make a significant dent in the problem. But this does little— very, very little.

Speaker, let’s not forget that the post-secondary institutions are in a financial crisis for a number of reasons, starting with chronic underfunding. Ontario’s per student operating funding, which is really the bulk of the funding from the government, is well below the national average. This has been the case for decades. The Liberals underfunded post-secondary institutions and under the Conservative government, this current government, that funding has decreased even further. Of course, the government has talked about freezing tuition, but has not actually provided the funding to replace the revenue lost from tuition. I agree: We need to reduce tuition. Tuition should not be a barrier to attending a college or a university. But we need to provide the supports to offset that, and that has to be done through increased investments—increased public investments, I should add, because what we do not want is privatization in our public institutions, in our post-secondary institutions.

Of course, as for everyone else and in all sectors, inflation has been an issue. Higher Education Strategy Associates estimates that, accounting for inflation, the stagnant government funding and the tuition freeze have meant that Ontario’s public colleges and universities have lost about 31% of the funding, of the government-controlled revenue or the funding that the government provides, since 2010. That’s a huge figure: 31%.

Of course, as a result, what has been happening is colleges and universities unfortunately have developed an overreliance on international students. Post-secondary institutions have become dependent on international students. This actually started and ramped up under the Liberals and, under the Conservatives, it has skyrocketed. The Auditor General reviews both colleges and universities. I think multiple reviews have included warnings about this, again, over many years, but the government has failed to act on the AG’s recommendations.

I do want to acknowledge here that this growth in international students is happening across the sector. Of course, it’s not limited to private career colleges or public-private partnerships, but it is disproportionate in the private career colleges and public-private partnerships. In fact, international students at private career colleges that are partnered with the private colleges have seen skyrocketing increases in enrolment. I think some of the graphs that show the percentage of the increased enrolment have been shared around on social media, and it’s just unbelievable. There’s one—I don’t want to name any institution right now—but it’s an increase of 600% when it comes to international students.

Speaker, as you can see, the underfunding of our post-secondary institutions has led to a lot of other new problems as a consequence of the underfunding. What the government has announced in terms of this “historic funding” really is a drop in the bucket. It’s far from solving the crisis, but it does not even make a significant dent in the problem.

Don’t take it from me, Speaker. Let’s listen to what stakeholders had to say about this legislation. I’ll start with OCUFA. I’m going to quote directly from OCUFA’s statement: “The Minister of Colleges and Universities recognizes that we are facing a funding crisis, but the gap between what has been provided and what is needed is massive.” That’s from Nigmendra Narain, who is the president of OCUFA. They go on to say, “This is a one-time drop in the bucket.” As well, “The solution to the chronic underfunding of Ontario’s universities is simple: political will to make a true investment in per-student funding to get us up to the Canadian average.”

The request from important stakeholders like OCUFA is simply to have enough funding to be at the Canadian average, because right now, Ontario is dead last, and we have been dead last for many, many years.

I will add to that and say we should make it a goal to be the best. We want to be leaders. Investing in post-secondary institutions, investing in our students, in the supports and services—and in providing that funding—has huge economic benefits. It pays for itself and more in the long term, so it is extremely important. As OCUFA has said, at the very least we need to be at the Canadian average.

Another stakeholder, Council of Ontario Universities, goes on to say, “The sector will continue to adapt and evolve to better serve students and find even more innovative ways to drive greater efficiencies, as outlined in the sector’s efficiency update. However, the funding gap is just far too large to close through efficiencies alone. Ontario’s universities remain committed to working with the government on a longer-term solution to fix a broken funding model that is impacting all universities, so that they can continue to support student success and create the highly skilled talent and innovation our economy needs.”

Speaker, they go on to say, “We are calling on the Ontario 2024 budget to provide the additional multi-year base funding as recommended by the panel.” They’re of course referring to the blue-ribbon panel.

I don’t have too much time, but I do want to include the voices of students. First maybe I’ll share reaction from the workers, particularly CUPE.

Actually, before I go on to that, Speaker, I do want to state in the House that since the government tabled this bill, the past number of days, CUPE 3903, representing contract faculty, teaching assistants, graduate assistants, research assistants and part-time librarians and archivists at York University, has been on strike, and we all know why, really. In fact, it’s not a surprise. The low wages that CUPE 3903 workers experience do not come near to protecting workers from the skyrocketing inflation, the cost-of-living crisis. It is really heartbreaking when you hear that university workers—the workers who are really carrying a big percentage of the burden of teaching and the day-to-day operation of our classrooms and of the universities and colleges—have to rely on food banks to survive, and also have to work multiple jobs to survive. What kind of message are we sending to Ontarians? But also, what kind of message are we sending when it comes to what we value as Ontarians?

Speaker, I was quite surprised to learn that, in fact, it’s been a trend. A lot of the teaching assistants, the graduate assistants, they not only are now making up a larger percentage of the faculty, they’re now actually doing more than 50%—they teach more than 50% of the courses, and they are the precarious workers of our post-secondary education system.

I only have two minutes left. I did want to make sure I included voices from the students, so I will share a quote from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, who were here just recently as part of their lobby day. They say that—they go on to add some of the things that they welcome, but they really want to make sure that a lot of the funding need that exists on campuses when it comes to mental health services is focused. They’re appreciative that there’s some action on this, but of course, a lot more needs to be done.

Speaker, I’ll just end by saying that there are aspects of the bill that we support, but to truly address the crisis, what is needed is funding. So I urge the government to make the investments to have a world-class post-secondary education system in our province, to not only show that we value that and that we want to support students and faculty and everybody as part of the sector, but that this is something that is going to benefit us all.

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—

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.

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.

I’m honoured to stand and share a few words on Bill 166, Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act.

The first thing I’d like to say before I start is a huge thank you to the Women and Gender Studies Institute at the University of Toronto. I am a graduate, an alumna, of WGSI, and yesterday we had a chance to sit on a panel—myself with about 13 other graduates of the WGSI program—to celebrate International Women’s Day. It was really a good reminder of just how important the post-secondary sector is to the social, cultural and economic health of our province. I was reminded just listening to some of the stories of the graduates on that panel about how incredibly important it is for us to invest in post-secondary so we can have the leaders in law, in politics, in food justice, in the arts, in education, in health care that were there last night.

I just want to say thank you to WGSI. I was a student there back in 2007, a lifetime ago, and my commitment to trying my best to bring equity issues into this House, to grapple with race and gender and class and sexuality and all of our social locations and how they impact our experiences in institutions like politics, I really do owe that analysis, that lens, to WGSI.

We really do need to properly fund our colleges and universities, because there’s no question that they are at the heart of creating our next generation of leaders, and, frankly, at the heart of keeping a sustainable economy, because that’s where our future hard workers will come from.

I want to say that I appreciate the government’s effort to actually name some equity issues that they’re looking to address in our post-secondary sector. Bill 166 claims to want to address the mental health crisis in post-secondary, and that is commendable, as it’s written in the bill, that you want to address that.

You also mention that you want to address things like anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Palestinian racism, all forms of racism; homophobia, transphobia. Equity issues will be addressed at universities, reportedly, by this Bill 166. While that is a very good thought—it’s a good idea; it’s a good goal—I worry about the history of this government. I’ll never forget: One of the first things that shocked me in this Legislature was a few years back when the Conservative government slashed funding to the Anti-Racism Directorate. At one point, it had a budget of $1,000 to address inequities here in the province of Ontario.

So it’s a bit mind-boggling to believe, to be frank, that this government is actually committed to addressing those equity issues that I just mentioned, that are in your bill—and I actually support that piece of the bill, for sure, around addressing equity issues and mental health issues—when this is the same government that has slashed hundreds of millions of dollars in mental health supports. This is the same government that literally attacked our public school curriculum and tried their best to literally erase the lives and experiences of 2SLGBTQIA+ community members in curriculum—the same government, if I may just say, that voted down our bill to have gender-affirming health care recognized, and a simple advisory committee of, guess what, trans folks and other members from our 2SLGBTQIA+ community to be able to speak to the Minister of Health. So it’s difficult to believe that these equity issues are really at the heart of this legislation.

Furthermore, as I heard from my caucus and from other caucuses, the independent members—I wasn’t here yesterday, but the thought of the government trying to shut down the voices of women in this Legislature, that’s a significant inequity hours before International Women’s Day. So again, while I am supportive of what have this bill says in writing about addressing inequities and mental health challenges, based on the track record, I have significant worries about whether or not this is actually the case.

And from my experience, from talking to folks—funnily enough, many of whom don’t want to be named—from a lot of post-secondary institutions—we’ve got one institution in my riding. We have George Brown, and we thank God for George Brown, because they have 12 child care centres located around the city, and we have our own Casa Loma Child Care Centre, which is such a beacon of hope for those students who are eager to join our education, early education, care programs. But we also know that many of these programs are graduating students who, within weeks, months, in the industry, realize that they cannot get jobs that allow them to actually afford to live in this province during an affordability crisis. So what happens? We lose ECEs. We lose folks who could be in our communities working, contributing to our economy, if they were able to get the proper salaries that they deserve.

This issue with supporting our post-secondary institutions—and we know that this has been an issue of chronic underfunding for decades, and it is not only the responsibility of this government. I’ve learned in the five years that I was here that the Liberal government certainly had a thing or two to do with chronic underfunding of our post-secondary institutions. But we are here in 2024, and this is the government of the day, the Conservative government. So I wonder why the government’s own expert panel, the blue-ribbon panel, recommended $2.5 billion of investment over three years just to stay afloat. That’s really important: just to stay afloat. So we’re not necessarily talking about being excellent; we’re talking about “just to stay afloat.” Why would this government fund just barely half of that, and what does that message show?

We want to talk about equity. We want to give more students mental health supports. But who is going to do this? Policy needs people power to help implement said policies and initiatives. And if I’m a post-secondary student walking into an office where I’m seeking counsel because I am struggling—maybe it’s a mental health situation; maybe I’ve just been kicked out of my home for coming out; maybe I can’t afford food and I’m not concentrating in class and my grades are slipping. If I walk into that office and there’s no human body there, how do I get the help I need?

So at the crux, this bill is not addressing the financial crisis that our post-secondary schools are dealing with. And in fact, the bill does not address that this government and the previous Liberal governments have sort of, you know, stuck the price tag on the backs of international students.

If we think about international students—you know, you’re coming here. You may not have many friends, unless you’re connected on social media before you arrive. You want to have a little bit of entertainment, if you can, on the side. You want to be able to go to the movies. You want to be able to have a treat at a restaurant. Heck, you might even find someone in this wonderful province and you might want to take them out on a date. These things are highly impossible when your tuition fees are triple or more the tuition of domestic students. And even the tuition rates for domestic students are quite egregious.

So we’re not properly funding post-secondary education. We’re not addressing the staffing crisis in post-secondary education.

Interjection.

Again, Bill 166 is a major win for students and post-secondary transparency across the province. It deals with matters of basic transparency around costs associated with ancillary fees, costs of textbooks and other materials. I can only imagine—it’s a non-partisan issue—Bill 166 will receive unanimous support.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I just want to ask the member, do you support Bill 166, and do you support transparency in the post-secondary sector?