Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order: Pursuant to standing order 7(e), I wish to inform the House that tonight’s evening meeting is cancelled.

Interjection.

This petition is entitled “Reverse the Kaffiyeh Ban.”

The wearing of our cultural and national clothing is part of who we are as Ontarians and something that we are proud of.

The Speaker of the House has expressed that if it is the will of the MPPs in this chamber, it would be allowed in the chamber. The official opposition has moved forward two unanimous consent motions that have been denied because some government MPPs voted to uphold the prohibition of wearing of the kaffiyeh. This petition calls on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the prohibition.

Imagine waking up one morning and at your door is someone—an American company—telling you that you will accept $35,000 an acre for prime farmland or that land will be expropriated by the regional government. Imagine serving your community for years, Speaker. This is what’s happening in Wilmot.

I’m pleased to present 400 signatures from the people of Wilmot, from the people of Cambridge, Waterloo and Kitchener, to ask the regional government and this government, the provincial government, to pause on expropriating 770 acres of prime farmland in Ontario.

I would like to thank Diana Smith from Capreol in my riding for this petition, “Coverage for Take-Home Cancer Drugs.”

Basically, if—we don’t wish this upon anybody, but if you have cancer and need treatment, if the treatment is given in the hospital, it is free of charge. But the minute that you are able to go home, where your cancer journey will be a whole lot better—you get to sleep in your own bed, eat your own food—then cancer drugs are not covered in Ontario. This has led to a lot of people facing financial barriers.

I want to tell you, Speaker, that in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec, they all cover take-home cancer drugs. It is time for Ontario to do the same.

The Canadian Cancer Society will tell you that because Ontario does not have take-home cancer drug coverage, there are people whose lives are cut short. They die because they do not have access to treatment. So they ask that the Ontario government follow the other provinces and offer full coverage for take-home cancer drugs. I think that’s a good idea.

I will sign this petition and ask my good page Raisa to bring it to the Clerk.

Pour lui et pour des dizaines de milliers de familles, la qualité des soins dans nos maisons de soins de longue durée est importante. Ils veulent que le niveau de soins rencontre les besoins des différents résidents et résidentes des soins de longue durée, et ça, ça veut dire qu’il y a un minimum, à la grandeur de l’Ontario, de 4,1 heures de soins par résident ou résidente.

Donc, ils demandent à l’Assemblé législative de changer la loi sur les foyers de soins de longue durée, une loi qui date de 2007, pour s’assurer qu’un minimum d’heures de soins y soit inclus, et en ce moment, ce minimum devrait être à 4,1 heures de soins.

Basically, the art and cultural sector in Ontario is a big economic driver—we’re talking $28.7 billion to our GDP; we’re talking 30,000 jobs in Ontario alone.

Unfortunately, the Ontario Arts Council’s budget has not kept up with inflation. Actually, it has been frozen for many, many years. Many of the people who work in the arts and culture sector make way below $25,000—many of them make below the poverty line, which makes their lives very precarious.

They petition the Legislative Assembly to make sure that the Ontario Arts Council budget increases. And they’ve asked for a $65-million increase so that the arts and cultural sector continues to thrive in Ontario—but also support equity-deserving groups, such as small and medium grassroots collectives, such as individual members of BIPOC, and all of the artists who make our province so great.

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask my good page Liam to bring it to the Clerk.

I can tell you, Speaker, that the people and the businesses in northern Ontario need access to affordable and good broadband services. Right now, we do not have this in Nickel Belt. Most of—95% of the riding of Nickel Belt does not have access to good broadband, including myself. Unreliable Internet is not good for business. It’s not good for people in school. It’s not good for families. It’s not good for anything.

The government keeps allocating money in the budget for the private sector to set up broadband Internet. That does not work in northern and rural Ontario. I have spoken to every single Internet provider; none of them want to come to Nickel Belt. Even if this government pays for the tower or pays for all of the infrastructure, there is no money to be made. They do not want to come.

The government has to look at rural and northern Ontario and make sure we have access to broadband. That’s why those people signed the petition—and so will I. Then, I’ll give it to my good page Liam.

I have to interrupt the member and reminder her that she needs to summarize her petition; she’s not able to read it verbatim because of the new standing order that was presented. But if you could offer a summary of the petition, that would be fine.

I recognize the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington.

Laughter.

Ms. Dunlop moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 166, An Act to amend the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act / Projet de loi 166, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le ministère de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités.

Good afternoon, everyone. I’ll be sharing my time with my friend and colleague the Minister of Education.

I’m pleased to stand before you today to speak about Bill 166 once again—a bill that contains historic changes that will better position Ontario’s students and the post-secondary education system for continued success.

Before I jump into the third reading of Bill 166, I would like to thank each of the individuals who appeared in committee. Whether they were there to support, express their concerns or ask questions, I appreciate the time that they took out of their day to engage in the meaningful conversation.

I’d like to also address the petitions that the opposition members just recently read out, and I want to thank CIJA for the call to action that they put out, where we’ve seen support of Bill 166. We tracked over 6,500 emails in support of Bill 166. So thank you very much to CIJA for the incredible work that they do.

Speaker, I think back to my own journey, first as a university student, then as a faculty member at Georgian College, and as someone who has always cared about post-secondary students—as I see my youngest graduate from post-secondary. I made the connection early on in my life before politics that the strength of our post-secondary education system institutions directly ties to the strength of our communities, and this is particularly true in northern and rural areas.

You’ve likely heard me mention before that in my area, I have Georgian College as well as a Lakehead University satellite campus, which has been there for close to 25 years now. I think back to the work that was done in the early days within our community to really get behind that project, because the opportunity to have a local university was very, very important to our region. Everyone pulled together to make that happen. The partnerships that happen in our community because of these two institutions have been great for our area.

From learners to employers and to the broader community, post-secondary institutions make our communities stronger. Now, in my current role as the Minister of Colleges and Universities, I get to see this not only in my own community, but through my visits with students, instructors, administrators, professors, staff and community members at schools all across Ontario.

Ontario’s post-secondary institutions attract and train some of the brightest students and researchers in the world.

This positive energy doesn’t stop with just the students; it sparks local jobs and spurs economic growth in every corner of the province. You’ll often hear the Premier say the reason why companies from across the world are looking at coming to Ontario is because of the world-class education that’s offered here and the amazing labour market that we have.

To keep our post-secondary institutions strong, our government is providing $1.3 billion in new funding—the single biggest investment in more than a decade. Along with this funding, we are proposing measures in the Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024, that will give students a solid foundation for their education.

The bottom line is that all students in Ontario deserve to learn in a supportive, safe and respectful environment. The safety and well-being of everyone on Ontario’s post-secondary campuses is a critical responsibility of our colleges and our universities.

That’s why today I’m proud to speak about the three initiatives outlined in the Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024. All three of the initiatives are about creating the right conditions for student success, and that means creating affordable, inclusive and safe environments for learning, for all students.

The first of these initiatives is a set of amendments that focus on a top priority for my ministry: the mental health of post-secondary students. Specifically, the amendments would require colleges and universities to have policies in place outlining mental health and wellness supports and services available to students and, going forward, to report annually to their boards of governors on the implementation and the effectiveness of these policies. These amendments would also enable the minister to provide further direction to colleges and universities about the elements in their student mental health policies.

I know that many of our colleges and universities are already doing great work to provide mental health supports for their students, and the collaborative action on post-secondary student mental health GTA initiative is a great example. Five colleges—Centennial, George Brown, Humber, Seneca and Sheridan—partnered to pool their expertise and resources to better support their students.

The University of Guelph has also seen success in providing minimally intrusive mental health crisis responses through their Integrated Mobile Police and Crisis Team. Through this initiative, a dedicated mental health professional is stationed alongside campus safety officers when assisting with crisis calls. Guelph was the first university in Ontario to try this approach, and it has led to a significant reduction in the need for police or emergency medical intervention.

While many colleges and universities are already making considerable efforts such as these to support their students, the legislative amendments being put forward today will help build common ground among the institutions to help ensure that supports are accessible at all institutions. At the same time, colleges and universities will be able to take a tailored approach that meets the unique needs of their student communities. And as an added measure, our government will help institutions to enhance mental health supports by investing $23 million, including $8 million for the Post-Secondary Mental Health Action Plan over three years, starting in 2024-25.

I’d like to thank my former PA, MPP Pierre, for the work that she did across campuses. She had a chance to visit with many of our campuses, colleges and universities, and speak with faculty, staff and students about the needs for these mental health supports, but also to see this framework on campus to better support our students. I really want to thank her for all that work.

I have also had the opportunity to visit campuses and speak with staff and students about mental health supports. It’s interesting to see the changes that were made as a result of the pandemic and the supports that are now offered online or in a hybrid method that students really appreciate. In some cases, students were actually using those supports more often because of the convenience of having an online method, as well as not having to sit in an office space with other students waiting for a chance to see one of the clinicians.

So schools are doing a great job and really acknowledging the needs of the students on campus, but the mental health challenges that students face have become increasingly complex. I have three post-secondary-aged children, and I’ve also taught college students, so I know the significant impact that mental health can have on students’ lives. As a faculty member at Georgian College, we were encouraged to take the mental health first aid course for students, because we’re working with young folks and there seems to be a high level of suicide in young people. Sometimes, being a faculty member, you are the person a young person turns to for advice, for supports, and to acknowledge when there may be an issue, and you’re able to then help that student and find the supports on campus that best meet their needs.

These amendments are so important, because students are often unaware of the supports that are available to them, and the best way to make progress is to ensure that all students have access to the mental health supports they need, when they need them. That’s why our government has enhanced resources for students attending post-secondary institutions across the province.

In 2023-24, we are investing more than $32 million in mental health supports for post-secondary students, including funding provided directly to post-secondary institutions through multiple grants. Some key examples are the Mental Health Services Grant and the Mental Health Worker Grant, which help post-secondary institutions develop and expand mental health services on campus, as well as hiring mental health professionals to help meet the needs of students. Specifically, in 2023, more than 160 positions were filled with the help of the Mental Health Worker Grant, which resulted in shorter wait times for students and less pressure on campus-based services.

We are also working to ensure that students from around the world who come to Ontario to study have access to the mental health supports that they need to succeed. In 2023, our government invested close to $3 million in four special projects, all with the goal of supporting the mental health of international post-secondary students in Ontario.

Supporting ongoing initiatives like these that help provide direct one-on-one support for students continues to be a high priority for our government, as well—like the Good2Talk mental health helpline for post-secondary students. This initiative ensures that students, whether they are on campus, off campus or on break, have access to mental health supports where and when they need them. In 2023-24, our government invested over $5 million in this initiative so the organization could expand its services and continue to provide free, bilingual and confidential services to students.

And to ensure that all students in the province have access to the mental health services, our government has invested more than $12 million in 2023-24 in another important resource: the Get A-Head portal. Those seeking care can access a portal to match with a clinician or a mental health professional in training—so this is a win-win—based on relevant factors such as their area of support, gender, age and cultural background. This tool not only provides critical and timely mental health services to post-secondary students at little to no cost, but it also offers students training to be mental health providers—an opportunity to gain experience delivering those supports. I’m pleased to report that in 2022-23 the Get A-Head platform served over 27,000 post-secondary students. According to a survey carried out by those overseeing the online tool, more than 80% of students who responded reported improvements in their mental health and well-being.

Through all of these efforts, we want post-secondary students to know that they are not alone and that help and resources are always going to be available. That’s why I’m proud that this proposed mental health framework will ensure that all students know about and have access to the services that are available on their campuses.

The second set of amendments in the Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024, introduces policies and measures that underscore our government’s zero tolerance of any form of hate or discrimination in the post-secondary community. We know that a healthy, safe and respectful campus environment is critical to student success.

A number of my colleagues and I have heard personally from students about the devastating effects discrimination has had not only on their mental health but on their grades. I know many members of the committee heard this from students, as well, when they were presenting at committee.

At a fundamental level, no student in Ontario can reach their full potential unless they feel safe and have a full sense of belonging on their campus. All students should be able to pursue their studies on campus or off campus without having to worry about racism, hate or discrimination.

We’ve all heard reports in the news, over the past two years, of unsettling incidents happening at colleges and universities here in Ontario and across Canada and across North America.

It is really concerning to me, as the Minister of Colleges and Universities, that incidents of racism and hate on post-secondary campuses have been escalating over the past few months.

Since the outbreak of the war between Israel and Hamas last October, the media has been reporting about the rising tensions on campuses across the province, across the country and around the world. Countless students have reported that they feel unsafe due to incidents of racism, discrimination, harassment and hate at our post-secondary educations. This includes incidents of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia—concerning incidents that have been reported at institutions throughout Ontario and that have involved students, staff, student groups, and visitors to post-secondary campuses.

I’ve had the opportunity to speak with students and faculty alike, prior to October 7, about the incidents of hate on campus and the lack of reporting that we’re hearing from students and staff alike—saying, “What’s the point of even reporting when there’s never any follow-up, there’s no action?” So we knew there was a real need to have a plan in place.

Due to the serious nature of these incidents, institutions have pursued internal or external investigations, and many have requested the involvement of law enforcement.

Yet, at committee, we heard from several students who believe their complaints about the harassment that they faced went unaddressed by their schools, and that in some cases, institutions failed to abide by their own anti-hate policies. We even heard the tragic testimony of a student who felt so unsafe that she needed to hire private security just to attend classes.

I find it completely unacceptable that any student who has been subjected to hate could feel ignored by their institution and no longer safe on campus.

While many of our post-secondary institutions have taken action to address these incidents, it’s clear that a broader, more proactive approach is needed so that all incidents are dealt with in a consistent manner to address students’ concerns about safety on campus.

Our government’s position on this issue is clear: Hate of any kind has no place in Ontario, and especially no place at our post-secondary institutions.

Colleges and universities should be places where students feel free to exchange ideas and have open and respectful debates.

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 is based on best practices from around the world. The policy protects free speech at colleges and universities and does not allow hate speech, discrimination, harassment or any other illegal forms of speech.

The Ontario Human Rights Code, which applies to all Ontario colleges and universities, prohibits discrimination, and this includes discrimination based on race, place of origin, disability, religious beliefs, sexual orientation and more.

Free speech policies at colleges and universities apply to all faculty, staff, students, management and guests, whether on campus and/or in a virtual learning environment delivered by these post-secondary institutions. And let me be clear: Any directives would need to be in line with our free speech policy and not infringe upon the right to free speech all students and faculty are guaranteed under the law.

This bill is about upholding the right to feel safe on campus so that all students and faculty can participate in the free discussions our institutions are meant to foster.

Since last year, I have sent two letters to the presidents of each publicly assisted college and university to remind them of their role in supporting safe and respectful places of learning and their obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The most recent memo specifically referenced recent events in Israel and the heightened risk of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. While post-secondary institutions have taken action to address these recent incidents, issues continue to exist today, which means a broader, more comprehensive approach to campus safety must be adopted.

As I mentioned earlier, the second set of amendments in the Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024, introduces changes that underscore that our government does not and will not condone hate, discrimination or any other form of harassment in our communities. Our government believes that everyone should be able to pursue their studies, on campus or off campus, without having to worry about hate or discrimination.

Speaker, as you know, the government has zero tolerance for sexual harassment, sexual assault and any other forms of violence in our communities. This is not something we merely believe in; it is something that we have acted on, as a government. That is why, in 2022, the government passed the Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act, 2022, which will help publicly assisted colleges and universities and career colleges better address faculty and staff sexual misconduct towards students.

But that’s not all we’ve done since forming government. Over the years, we have listened, and we’ve addressed sexual violence matters in various ways.

For example, since July 2019, colleges and universities are required to report annually to their board of governors on the number of reports of sexual violence by students, as well as the supports, the programs and the initiatives available to students.

And since 2019, the government has invested $6 million annually in the Campus Safety Grant. These funds help publicly assisted colleges and universities implement campus safety initiatives, including campus sexual violence prevention programs and supports.

While government has done a lot of important work over the past few years, more must be done to ensure that our post-secondary campuses are free from discrimination, hate and any form of harassment. That’s why, today, the amendments we are speaking to, if passed, would help ensure inclusive, safe and welcoming campus communities for all students.

As part of these changes, all public colleges and universities would need to have clear, defined policies and rules in place to address and combat racism and hate, including but not limited to anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Direction to publicly assisted colleges and universities would ensure greater consistency with how these incidents are dealt with. We will work closely with our post-secondary and community partners as institutions implement these policies and report on them.

As I mentioned earlier, many universities and colleges are already taking important steps to address student safety concerns and build inclusive learning environments.

Education is a key element in building a more diverse and inclusive environment for everyone, not just on campus, but throughout our province.

Speaker, I want to share and thank Brock University for having me in February. I had the pleasure of touring Brock University and attending their Black History Month kickoff event. This was a rewarding opportunity to tour their campus and to meet with the bright students and faculty, to learn about some of the incredible work that is happening there to increase students’ knowledge about topics such as anti-racism and discrimination. In addition to their kickoff event, Brock University also had a fantastic lineup of events scheduled throughout February, such as the Spirit of Mali art exhibition, a Black student success centre paint session, and much more.

I want to thank the amazing students I had the opportunity to meet with at Brock as well as the esteemed student leadership on campus.

I want to thank all student leadership on campus. I was recently with my critic at the OUSA event for the session, and it was great to see students there, and the awards for the professors—that they were there—amazing work that they’re doing with leadership on their campuses across the province. We really appreciate that relationship that they have.

I know that many post-secondary institutions took the opportunity to mark Black History Month with their own special events and are doing exceptional work year-round in celebrating the many cultures that make Ontario so diverse and welcoming. For example, this past October, Western University had a week of awareness and learning opportunities, both on campus and within the city of London, on the importance of diversity, equity and inclusion. St. Lawrence College had a global learning opportunities week just this past March to showcase their vibrant multicultural community.

I commend all the colleges and universities for the efforts that they’re making.

Speaker, I hope we use each day as an opportunity to learn something new and to thank those who are making such a difference in their communities. By learning from the past, I know we can work together to build more diverse and inclusive campus communities where everyone feels welcomed and has opportunities to succeed. The legislative amendments we’re introducing today will help us get one step closer to this goal—a goal that I know we all share.

Our government wants to create a better future for everyone across the province, including students from all walks of life, to promote economic prosperity for all. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we keep the doors of opportunity open so that everyone in Ontario has the access to learn and access an affordable post-secondary education. To that end, we must also ensure that what we do is sustainable so that the doors of opportunity remain open for students today, and for students in the future.

I know that during these challenging times, when the rate of inflation and the cost of living is forcing Ontarians to make some tough financial decisions, students and their families could use some extra help.

As a parent and a public servant, I strongly believe we need to further reduce barriers to higher learning, both by improving access to post-secondary education and making it easier for students to succeed once they get there. As a first step towards this goal, as announced in February, Ontario is maintaining the domestic tuition freeze for publicly assisted colleges and universities for three more years, while allowing limited increases of up to 5% for domestic out-of-province students. This tuition freeze builds on our government’s historic 10% reduction in 2019-20, along with tuition freezes over the past four years. These changes have made post-secondary education more affordable for Ontario’s students and their families, and our government believes it must continue.

Prior to 2019, Ontario had the highest tuition fees for undergraduate and graduate programs in Canada. Currently, Ontario’s average tuition is the fourth highest in Canada for undergraduate students and the third highest for graduate students. This is solid progress in our efforts to increase affordability. We’re not going to undo that progress by making it more expensive to access education; particularly now, when too many Ontario families are already struggling to make ends meet.

In addition to the tuition fees students pay, students also pay fees for learning materials and activities associated with their programs. However, they do not always have a clear line of sight on these additional costs until after they have selected their programs. Textbook costs, in particular, can pose an additional financial burden to students and their families that they weren’t expecting and didn’t even know they had to plan for.

We likely all saw the CBC article reporting that textbook costs have increased dramatically over the years—in fact, by more than 800% since the 1980s.

That’s why the third set of legislative amendments we have introduced in the Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act will require public colleges and universities to follow ministry directives to increase the transparency of student fees, including learning materials.

As mentioned earlier, students have been facing financial burdens due to the costs of materials and activities associated with their programs and courses.

If passed, Ontario’s measures to increase transparency around the costs of ancillary fees would help students prepare for costs and provide them with greater options when selecting courses. Faculty would continue to be able to make decisions around the educational materials for their courses. However, as always, our government is requesting that both faculty and institutions keep the best interests of students in mind when selecting materials.

Speaker, I remember when I was back in university and paying for textbooks at the time—but then also, once you’re registered, finding out there were additional lab materials that you needed. You needed your lab coat; I remember needing my set for microbiology—and these were all quite expensive items.

We’re going to ensure that students know about these additional costs up front.

Separate from these legislative amendments that I’m talking about today to further support transparency in the post-secondary education sector, in coming months, we’ll be working with colleges and universities to provide greater details around how tuition fees are allocated and used. After all, if students are making such an effort to invest in their post-secondary education, it’s only fair that they understand exactly what they’re investing in.

That is why I’m pleased to now speak to another very important action our government is taking to support students, and that would be housing for students. Our government is also increasing affordability for students on another big-ticket item that is vitally important to their well-being and ability to go to school, and that is student housing. It’s so important to have access to student housing on campus.

I know when I was working at Georgian College, at the time, we actually didn’t have any student housing at the Orillia campus. When potential students and their families would come to visit during their open house, that was always a question I heard from parents—“Where is the residence?” That was definitely a concern for parents—that their child or young person was going to possibly have to live in the community somewhere, to find student housing. Were they going to have access to it? Was it going to be safe? So I know that was a big-ticket item—for the schools to have that consideration. A few years later, they did build residences, and I believe they also have more residences planned in the future because of the great need in my community.

The important thing with student housing is, when our colleges and universities step up and have student housing, that also helps to alleviate the pressure in our municipalities, which we know—we can all agree there’s a housing crisis in this province. So when we’re looking at the need to build 1.5 million homes, it’s great to see our institutions stepping up to support that in their way.

Addressing the housing needs of students is a long-term strategy that requires collaboration at all levels of government and with stakeholders, post-secondary institutions and students. Recently, we took important steps towards this goal by proposing to remove red tape faced by universities when building student housing. As part of Ontario’s spring red tape reduction package, we introduced changes to exempt universities from the Planning Act. This would enable universities to build faster and meet the needs of their students. Universities, like public colleges already, would no longer be subject to many municipal planning approvals. This will virtually save years in approvals, avoid application fees, and remove barriers to getting shovels in the ground to build safe and affordable student residences.

Speaker, we had a round table where we met with many institutions; we also had students attending, and hearing the concerns was interesting. There’s a project right here at U of T that has taken almost 10 years to get through the approvals. You can imagine, in that time, how the increase to the build has now suddenly resulted in a decrease to the number of units that the residence is going to have. Taking over 10 years just to get to this point, to move forward on the project—unbelievable.

This change in the red tape bill is really going to make a huge change for our universities.

We are also requiring all public colleges and universities to publish their student housing policies, including a guarantee that housing options are available for incoming international students. This will further ensure that all post-secondary students, whether domestic, out-of-province or international, have access to and are aware of student housing options that are safe, affordable and within an easy commute to campus.

Our government is committed to helping all learners access and succeed in post-secondary education. Our greatest strength in this province is our people, and if we can develop the highly skilled workforce that today’s economy demands, we can fill critical jobs and lay the foundation for long-term, sustainable growth. That’s why we’ve taken steps over the past few years towards ensuring that meaningful educational and economic opportunities are available to learners from all walks of life and in all parts of our province.

Speaker, our government supports a post-secondary education system that is affordable, respectful and inclusive for all learners, including Indigenous learners. We work with colleges, universities, Indigenous institutes and Indigenous partners to create the conditions that make it easier for everyone to access a high-quality education, because we want to build and encourage a post-secondary system that embraces inclusivity and promotes success for all learners so they can find rewarding careers.

Indigenous institutes are an important pillar of our post-secondary education system and act as a major local hub for their communities. Not only do they provide education and training for hundreds of Indigenous learners, but they are offering this in a culturally holistic and safe learning environment—an environment where Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing are woven into all aspects of the learner experience.

In fact, I just came back from Thunder Bay, where I attended the NOMA conference with many of our colleagues here to learn about the needs of northern communities and opportunities for growth. When I was there, I visited a number of post-secondary institutions: Confederation College and Lakehead University, as well as the Indigenous institute Oshki-Wenjack. I want to thank Laurie and her staff for the great day that we had and a wonderful tour. I had the opportunity to meet with the staff. We also had three students come in and talk with us about their experience. One student was actually returning for her third time, and she was now working on her bachelor of social work. Another student was also doing a social work degree, and she was explaining to me that she was graduating this year and her daughter was also graduating from grade 8. I said, “That is so amazing.” Someone that her daughter can look up to—that you can go back to school at any time and get a degree, or to college—amazing students.

We were talking with some of the PSW students and the RPN students, and there was actually one RPN student who was returning to her community in Red Lake. I was telling her that that same morning, I had had a meeting with Mayor Fred Mota from Red Lake. We all love Fred. Fred was talking about the need for health human resources in his community. So I told the student, “Well, I’m going to talk to your mayor later this afternoon and let him know that there’s a future RPN who’s returning to the community.” And I did do that.

One thing that we heard from the students at the round table was that the institution treated students like they were family. It was so important that they were talking about—sometimes when there were difficulties and life happened, when they got out of the elevator and went to school, when the doors opened, that family and support were there, and they could leave the issues and the problems at the door and focus on school.

So I want to thank Oshki-Wenjack for the work that they do, and I also want to thank them for the wonderful Persians that they brought in for us and also sent us home with.

On our part, our government is committed to supporting Indigenous institutes to help them flourish and respond to the community demands and the needs of the local labour market. That’s why our government continues to invest in Indigenous institutes across Ontario and to reduce financial barriers for Indigenous learners.

We support colleges and universities in providing culturally appropriate services and student supports to Indigenous learners through the Indigenous student success fund. Through this fund, our government invests more than $18 million annually to fund programs and services, such as Indigenous counsellors; elders-in-residence; academic supports; and access to mentoring, counselling and advising services. These supports are key in helping Indigenous learners and communities have the tools and resources that they need to build solutions, to develop local economies, and to revitalize languages and cultures.

I’m pleased that we are continuing to build on our supports for Indigenous institutes through mental health investments of $2.5 million over three years for the Indigenous Institutes Mental Health Grant. This funding will help all nine of the Indigenous institutes provide culturally relevant, trauma-informed mental health supports and services for their students.

We also recently announced investments that will help students, faculty and staff at Indigenous institutes have safe and accessible facilities in which to learn, to teach and to work. This includes an additional $3 million for the Indigenous Institutes Facilities Renewal Program for the next two years.

We also created a new Indigenous institutes equipment fund. This fund of $500,000 per year for three years will provide Indigenous institutes and their students with state-of-the-art, industry-standard equipment for their programs.

While important gains have been made, I know there is more that we can do to support Indigenous students. That’s why, earlier this month, we started discussions with the Indigenous institutes sector through the Indigenous institutes financial sustainability and growth circle to determine how to best support Indigenous institutes and their learners going forward. I’m really looking forward to working with this group and the collaboration and the work that unfolds as a result.

Up until now, I’ve talked about removing barriers to post-secondary education and how to support learners once they get there.

I’d also like to touch on some steps our government is taking to ensure students can successfully transition from post-secondary education to the workforce. It’s up to all of us, in partnership with all of our post-secondary institutions, to establish pathways to help set Ontarians up for success.

Like the rest of the world, as we continue on our road of economic growth, Ontario continues to face challenges. To navigate this ongoing global economic uncertainty, our government has a plan—a plan to build an Ontario that the people of this province can be proud of not only today, but in the future. An important part of this plan is preparing Ontarians for the jobs of a modern economy, with the skills to be adaptable, lifelong learners in an ever-changing world.

People are keener now, more than ever, to explore pathways to meaningful and rewarding careers. They want to ensure that the training that they put their time, effort and money into will pay off.

We also know that Ontario’s economy is becoming more knowledge-based and technology-driven. A skilled workforce is an important driver for the province’s economy and competitiveness.

That’s why Ontario invested $100 million in 2023-24 to help cover the operating costs of science, technology, engineering and mathematics programs at publicly assisted colleges and universities that have enrolments above their funded levels. On average, STEM graduates have better post-graduation outcomes than their non-STEM counterparts, with lower unemployment and higher wages. Therefore, it makes sense to provide enhanced support for these programs, as they will help post-secondary students secure good, in-demand jobs.

The second-largest information, communications and technology cluster on the continent is right here in Ontario. In Ontario alone, the sector employs approximately 400,000 people. That’s a lot of exciting jobs with great future prospects. In fact, today the number of tech jobs created in Toronto outpaces those created in Seattle, the San Francisco Bay area and New York City combined.

And according to a report produced by Deloitte on behalf of the Vector Institute, over 20,000 artificial intelligence jobs were created in Ontario between April 2022 and March 2023. During this time, venture capital investments in Ontario’s AI ecosystem reached nearly $1.2 billion. To support this sector, since 2017, the government has invested up to $81 million in the Vector Institute and $110 million in the Perimeter Institute to help make Ontario a global leader in these fields of AI and quantum computing.

The economic benefits and endless potential of the tech sector are clear. It’s safe to say that the demand for educated, talented and enthusiastic professionals in STEM-driven occupations is high.

Our province is well positioned to remain a global information, communications and technology hub. We are home to many world-renowned institutions with a strong focus on technology-related disciplines, such as the University of Toronto, Lakehead University and the University of Waterloo. Colleges such as Humber and Seneca also offer programs with a strong focus on STEM-related disciplines. These world-class institutions are often the birthplace of novel ideas, cutting-edge research and start-ups that drive Ontario’s competitiveness on the world stage.

To help build momentum, our government recently announced investments of more than $278 million in the last two years in research projects at universities, colleges, research institutes and hospitals. This funding will help safeguard Ontario’s position at the forefront of innovation that continues to be competitive on a global scale. More than 400 research projects across the province are being supported through this funding, helping to cover the costs of operations and infrastructure, including building, renovating and equipping research facilities with laboratories and the latest technology.

Beyond the AI-focused research institutes I mentioned earlier, our government is also supporting a number of other research organizations that are bolstering our health care sector.

For example, it was just Cancer Awareness Month, in April, across Canada, and I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the work of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. They are doing incredible work that is making a very real impact on the lives of people across this province. Unfortunately, I’m sure that we all know a family member, a friend, a neighbour, a constituent who has been diagnosed with cancer. It’s a truly terrible disease that impacts so many folks of all ages. That’s why it’s encouraging to see some of Ontario’s greatest minds, armed with a critical STEM education, working together to accelerate the development of cancer research discoveries for patients right here in this province and around the world.

I’ve had the opportunity to visit many of our research institutions, but one that I found quite interesting is at McMaster University, which is a research reactor, so I was joined by the Minister of Energy—very exciting. They’re producing medical isotopes there, as well, and doing research on those isotopes. Prior to the budget announcement being made, they were originally working 14-hour days, five days a week, so the reactor had to shut down every day and then restart. From what I understand, that is quite the process. In budget 2023, we invested $6.8 million over two years, and this would allow the reactor to run 24 hours a day, five days a week. This is incredible work that McMaster University is doing in medical isotopes, and it’s pretty cool that we have a medical reactor right on one of our campuses. I know the Minister of Energy was quite excited.

Importantly, our government’s investments to both fuel STEM programs and cutting-edge research projects will develop talent in these growing fields, which is a win-win for students and for the economy. Investing in the education of Ontario’s people now will support our economy for years to come and ultimately improve the quality of life for so many Ontarians. I look forward to seeing the incredible ideas and inventions that I’m sure will come from these investments.

And I look to my colleague the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, who seems to come in here every week, bringing a new company to Ontario from around the world—and we’re quite excited about the new investment from Honda, as well. They’re coming here because of the world-class training that we have here, the labour pipeline of students and folks who are already working in some of these industries—something that we should all be very proud of and that is definitely an economic driver, because of the training that’s being done here in Ontario.

Another way our government is connecting students to rewarding careers is by creating a career portal. This portal will help students understand labour market needs and make informed decisions on their post-secondary education journey. There are so many sources of labour market information out there that it can be overwhelming for students to navigate and choose their educational path. The creation of a career portal will help to strengthen how students, workers, employers and newcomers access education and career pathways in Ontario. I hope to be able to share more details about the portal with everyone soon. I’ve heard from students—especially high school students—who are saying, “There are so many opportunities out there. There are jobs that are going to be available in 10 years that we don’t even know about right now, ”and “How do I make these choices? Where do I look for these opportunities? What schools do I attend to be able to create that pathway to those future jobs?” The portal is going to be a great asset for all of our students—and not just the young folks in school currently, but those who are looking to maybe change professions as well.

Speaker, I’m sure we will all agree that all students deserve the best opportunities to gain the skills they need to get good-paying, high-quality jobs. Our government is taking steps to help our post-secondary institutions offer more in-demand programs and adapt to changing labour market needs. Pending regulatory changes, we’re planning to allow colleges to submit applications to offer applied master’s degrees. These programs would give students more choices when it comes to innovative, applied master’s programs that lead to in-demand jobs—programs that will help them graduate with the skills, the expertise and the credentials to successfully transition to the workforce. It will also give employers access to more industry-ready employees who can immediately meet labour market demands in specialized fields—fields such as advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence and animation. Again, finding new ways like this to prepare students for great careers is a win-win for all Ontarians.

As you can see, Ontario is putting students first with a continued focus on removing barriers to post-secondary education, helping students succeed once they get there, and ensuring that learners are equipped with the skills and experience they need to successfully transition to the workforce. However, it is important to recognize that the supports that we put in place for our students are only as useful as the strength of Ontario’s post-secondary system as a whole.

Our government provides more than $5 billion annually to Ontario’s publicly assisted colleges and universities; we do so because we recognize their important contribution to the economy of the province, to local communities, and the individual impact that higher education can have for Ontarians.

Continuing to focus on efficiency, accountability and financial sustainability within the system will help ensure our post-secondary institutions can deliver high-quality education for years to come.

Today, our post-secondary institutions continue to navigate the increasing costs of delivering programming, historic inflation, as well as some significant recent changes to the educational landscape across Canada. Therefore, Ontario is taking further action to ensure the continued viability of the post-secondary education system in a very responsible way—a way that supports students and post-secondary institutions today, while building an even stronger foundation for future generations.

That’s why, to bring financial sustainability to post-secondary institutions, our government announced that we’re providing nearly $1.3 billion in new funding. I mentioned this earlier, but it bears repeating: This is the single biggest investment in post-secondary education in over a decade. This funding includes the $100-million investment in STEM costs that I already touched on. We’re also creating a three-year Postsecondary Education Sustainability Fund valued at $900 million. This fund will provide $700 million in broad-based support for all institutions and will offer $200 million in additional top-up funding for institutions with the greatest financial need. This funding will help institutions to address their immediate, critical costs so they can continue delivering high-quality education to students.

We’re also supporting the world-class research being done in our post-secondary institutions with a recent investment of more than $65 million to support research and innovation.

Interjections.

The minister will know that there is a growing number of professors around Ontario’s universities who have serious issues with Bill 166. You’ve heard them at committee.

This is a quote: “Bill 166 fundamentally changes the way universities in this province are governed, moving us away from democratic principles of university autonomy.” This is from Sue Ferguson, from Wilfrid Laurier University in my riding.

She went on to say, “We need to ensure that the safeguards from political interference in our institutions of higher learning are strengthened, not weakened.”

And this is from the Coalition Against Political Interference in Public Research and Education in Ontario, which has been created because of Bill 166: “Instead of advancing student mental health and anti-racism on campuses, this bill stymies both and opens to the door to a degree of political interference” never seen before in this province.

What do you say to those informed voices who have serious and legitimate concerns about Bill 166?

Questions?

I have serious concerns about what’s happening on our campuses across Ontario. I have heard from students and from staff alike. Our committee members heard from students.

Let me read you some of the Hansard from committee. This is an independent member—mandating mental health policies is “red tape.” At committee, we heard from a member who called the anti-hate provisions of this bill “red tape.” That member heard the testimonies of students who were made to feel so unwelcome and unsafe that they stopped going back to campus. The member is more concerned about burdening university staff than the well-being of our students.

We also heard the need for centralizing reporting of incidents. Again, committee members heard from the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which expressed a need for centralized reporting of hate crimes to the ministry—according to these, incidents of hate are far often not reported to institutions and aren’t addressed in a timely manner.

We heard from a lot of students who were saying, “I understand that government froze tuition, but how come my tuition keeps going up every year?” That was because of the extra costs. So the legislation will require universities and colleges to, up front, explain the costs for programs.

I mentioned in my speech, when I went, I remember my microbiology class—you pay for these expensive textbooks, but then you find out once you start class that you also had a lab coat and you had your little microbiology kit. I remember going to the library—and, of course, they ranged from all expenses.

We want students to know up front what the expense is going to be for all their programs, as well as a tuition breakdown.

So, working with our colleges and universities—and I also want to thank MPP Smith for her motion as well, working with the anti-hate policy.

We’re going to work together with the institutions, and we want to ensure that these policies are the same across all campuses. Whether you’re at Georgian College or at Lakehead, the same expectation is going to be there for all students.

And he would know—because you were a PA back in 2018, when our party came into government and Ontario had the highest tuition in all of Canada. And under the leadership of Premier Ford, we decreased that tuition by 10% and have continued to freeze it every year since.

Life is expensive—expensive for all families. We have a cost-of-living crisis, and the thought of increasing tuition for students was absolutely ridiculous. This was not something that we were going to do, and the Premier was quite clear about that.

We’ve heard from the leader of the Liberal Party. She’s interested in increasing tuition. I’m not quite sure where the NDP stand on it, but we’ve made an investment in our institutions, and we’re going to work with our institutions to ensure that they’re running as efficiently as possible. We’re already doing some great work and some great collaboration that’s happening with our institutions, and I look forward to continuing that work moving forward.

These are the students that I’m concerned about, the stories that I’ve heard about, but we’re going to work with our colleges and universities to ensure that we have an anti-hate policy in place to protect all of our students across this province.

Next question?

It makes me feel a little bit old to stand up in the Legislature and say that my oldest child is actually going off to college next year. As we’ve been going through the deliberations—I know; I’m sorry. I’m almost 40. It’s starting to get to me a little bit. He’s going off to college. The bills have started to roll in.

I know one of the provisions in this legislation calls for more clarity, obviously, for students and parents, caregivers, guardians as they move forward with paying the universities for books, for educational courses, for residence and some of the different pieces like that. So I’m just wondering if the minister could elaborate a little bit more on how this will help clarify things for students as we move forward.

Minister, thank you so much for your presentation. Standing on your feet for one hour is not always easy, but you did it extremely well.

Speaker, I want to just bring to your attention—as you know, there were a number of witnesses who came to committee who expressed concerns that there were provisions within the ministerial directives on policies and rules on racism and hate, and they were fearful that it could be a form of political interference on campus. I know you’ve heard this as well. They’ve also expressed concern that this could quash certain types of activism on campus; in particular, Palestinian activism. They also noted that it could threaten academic freedoms, which I know that nobody is really interested in doing.

There were also some witnesses who talked about the powers that the government already has—including the Anti-Racism Act, which is still up and running. Why is the government not using those powers to create subcommittees to address Islamophobia—anti-racism—anti-Black racism and anti-Indigenous racism?

The minister will know that it’s not just the coalition; it’s the Council of Ontario Universities, who, of the 23 universities—an umbrella group. They’ve raised concerns about the powers that the bill gives to the minister and the risk that it would undermine their autonomy. Universities already have mental health and anti-racism policies in place, but provincial funding for those programs is inadequate. This is what they told you at committee. They also went on to talk about the powers that you’ve given yourself—sweeping, strong powers. They say that this power moves against them, colleges and universities who don’t comply with your directives.

Now, our critic asked you in committee, what are the consequences if universities and colleges do not comply with your sweeping powers and your directives? What is the consequence to those colleges and universities? Because this is not the way that you negotiate with universities in Ontario.

I want to thank the minister for her remarks. And I’m glad those whose hatred has been hidden behind the thin veil of academic freedom are now on notice, and I want to thank the minister for her leadership in cracking down on hatred on campuses. I’d hope members opposite would support that, but sadly, no.

Speaker, I’m really interested in the measures the minister has taken that haven’t resulted in an increase in tuition. I think the only party in this Legislature that isn’t doing this on the backs of students—and I’m wondering if she could shed a little more light on that and how it’s really putting a little more money back in the pockets of students.

It is my great privilege to serve as the critic for colleges and universities for the official opposition. I am pleased to rise today to participate in third reading debate on Bill 166.

I have shared before that prior to my election in this place, I was a policy researcher. So third reading debate always is something that I particularly enjoy, because it speaks to the researcher in me. You get to go to committee and conduct key informant interviews with the deputants who appear before the MPPs. In this case, there were 33 deputations. You collect very rich qualitative data on perspectives on the government’s bill, and you amass evidence that you can use to inform policy.

Clearly, the government does not share my interest in evidence-based policy-making. They appear not to have listened at all, or they’ve listened to a few of the voices that appeared before committee but ignored many of the deputants, in particular the deputations that were made by key stakeholders in the post-secondary sector: the Council of Ontario Universities, Colleges Ontario, Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, CUPE, OPSEU, OCUFA. These were all organizations that are deeply embedded in the sector and that raised some very legitimate concerns about this bill.

That was helpful to us in the official opposition in determining how we were going to vote on this bill at third reading, because we certainly did support it at second. We wanted to hear what people had to say. We listened to what people had to say, and we presented a series of amendments to address the concerns that were raised, to fix the bill, to make sure that it actually does address the very serious concerns that people raised with us—students in particular—about the lack of support for student mental health on campuses and the lack of appropriate institutional response to incidents of racism and hate.

I just want to begin with some reflections on that committee process overall and what we heard from the deputants who appeared before us. There was certainly a very strong recognition of the need for increased mental health supports for students. There was a strong urging of the committee, of the government, to ensure that there were increased efforts, more effective efforts to respond to reports of incidents and hate on campus.

We heard from individual students who were unacceptably failed by their institution when they went to report the anti-Semitism that they had experienced on campus. We heard from organizations like the National Council of Canadian Muslims how Muslim students on campus and Palestinian students on campus are also experiencing increased racism and hate. They also have concerns about the effectiveness of administrative responses to these reports.

The third piece of the bill, the requirement for institutions to provide some financial transparency about the ancillary fees of attending post-secondary institutions: There were very few deputants who spoke to that piece of the bill; obviously, that makes sense. We on this side of the House agree with the government that at a time of rising cost of living, students should not have to bear the cost of increased tuition. But unlike the government, we believe that the government should not just say to institutions, “We’re going to remove any possibility to increase tuition fees and institutions will have to figure it out.” We have said that the government has to come forward and ensure that there are public resources provided to institutions to replace the lost tuition revenues.

We also heard at committee from many of the deputants that the mental health supports that are provided on campus have to be culturally responsive. They have to be informed by the lived experience of marginalized communities. One of the examples that was shared with us was the student from the McMaster Students Union about the Black Student Success Centre on that campus.

We also heard from a number of the deputants that policies to support student mental health needs and policies to address racism and hate on campus already exist. So the question was raised, why not improve—strengthen—those existing policies? Why bring forward a bill that now says that these new policies have to be implemented on campus, dictated by the minister? Why not look at the policies that are already there that have been developed through a broad process of consultation and collaboration and that speak to the specific realities of each individual institution?

We heard very much about the importance of consultation. As I said at the outset, there was no consultation with post-secondary stakeholder organizations. We heard some references to what sounded very much like informal visits to campuses, where the parliamentary assistant had spoken to small groups of students. There was no report provided from those visits. We don’t know how many campuses were visited, how many students were talked to, but we do know that no formal consultation took place with any of the major post-secondary education stakeholders.

We heard about the importance of involving local communities. Certainly, in terms of students’ mental health, universities and colleges have stepped up to provide these services for students because of the pressures on community mental health services. Universities and colleges are already committing significant resources to supporting students’ mental health needs because they understand that resources in the community are so limited. But it really does speak to the importance of involving communities who understand the different supports that are in place, how the system works together and that will be very specific to the locations where these campuses exist.

We heard about the need to involve the people who are most directly affected by these policies in their development and implementation. Those people are students. It’s faculty. It’s staff. It’s community. It’s experts. Those are the people who should be involved in developing the policies that are now required by Bill 166 and yet the legislation doesn’t mention the word “consultation” at all.

If you read the legislation on its surface it says that the minister is going to unilaterally dictate the contents of these new policies on mental health and on racism and hate, and there’s no guarantee whatsoever that any kind of consultation with local campus communities will take place.

Many people raised concerns about the unprecedented nature of the ministerial directives that are imposed by this bill. As I said, the legislation gives the minister the power to say to a college or university, “Thou shalt have a policy and it shall contain these elements, these topics, these pieces of content.” That is a huge concern for institutional autonomy, but in particular in the university sector, for university self-governance. The principle of university autonomy, university self-governance, is established through legislation. Each university in this province exists by virtue of a specific university act, and that delegates governance to a board of governors and a senate, and it empowers individual universities to make their own governance decisions. This bill represents an unprecedented challenge to that long-established principle of the independence of our universities in this province.

Hearing the delegations from the people, organizations and individuals who appeared before the committee, the NDP members on the committee tried to move amendments to address some of these legitimate concerns that were raised. We put forward a number of amendments specifically around legislating a requirement to have a broad consultation process involved in the development of policies, to remove the minister’s power to issue ministerial directives, to have a transparent process through order in council, which is what had happened when the previous Liberal government mandated post-secondary institutions to have sexual violence and harassment policies.

When the previous Liberal government had made this requirement for sexual violence and harassment policies on campus, they brought forward the elements of those policies through order in council and they mandated a broad process of consultation to inform each campus’ policy. That, we heard from several of the deputants who appeared before the committee, was viewed as a very constructive process that resulted in good policy.

I just wanted to speak a little bit about what we heard about the need to have good policy, the need to have policy that really does address the growing mental health needs of students in our post-secondary institutions and the rising reports of incidents of racism and hate on our campuses.

We heard that the mental health needs of students are becoming much more complex than they were in the past. Instead of being episodic, they have now become sustained throughout the year and, as I said, much more complex than in the past. They talked about the fact that, as I mentioned, the gaps in community-based resources mean that the pressures on campus mental health services are even greater and that increases the demands on our university campuses.

We heard about long wait times. Some students can wait six months before seeing a mental health counsellor, depending on the kind of counselling that they were seeking. It’s also depending on whether specialized care was needed, what kind of support you need, how often you need it, etc.

Other barriers that created delays in enabling students to access services on campus related to accessibility because campuses are also dealing with issues around pressure on accessibility services, as well.

We heard about staffing of campus mental health services, where positions are short-term; they’re not able to become full-time positions so that there is a full-time counsellor who’s there to provide the support. They may be funded for a very limited period, and as soon as that staff contract ends, the service ends, as well.

One of the presentations, I think, that had a particular impact on me—and I certainly hope that the government listened carefully to this presentation—was the presentation from the Centre for Innovation in Campus Mental Health. That centre, Speaker, is a very unique partnership funded by the government of Ontario, but it is a partnership between Colleges Ontario, the Council of Ontario Universities, the College Student Alliance, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and the Canadian Mental Health Association. The experts from the Centre for Innovation in Campus Mental Health understand what is happening on our post-secondary campuses related to student mental health concerns.

They cited a report from the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations that found three quarters of students reported experiencing—three quarters, Speaker—negative mental health in their studies, and in particular, Indigenous students, low-income students and 2SLGBTQ+ students were most at risk.

They also talked, however, about the fact that most, if not all, college and university campuses in Ontario already have student mental health policies. What these campuses are really grappling with is the lack of resources to adequately deliver student mental health services. I’m going to quote from the presentation. They said, “The issue is the acute need for stable and ongoing funding for the work that must be done to put policies” in place. “A further concern is that the creation of mental health policies ... with no funding will consume resources and provide no real value to campus well-being.”

More red tape.

Yes. And they refer to a report that was done by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. This report was actually commissioned by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, and it was delivered to her desk in January 2024. It was a review of student mental health in Ontario, exploring best practices and identifying gaps. In that report, the findings of the report, the first finding of the report is that “structural and systemic forces ... make it challenging for institutions to implement programs, hire staff and plan comprehensively for the long term.” So, institutions’ ability to respond to increased service demands is limited by some of these structural factors, and one of their key recommendations was to “increase ... funding to help institutions address the growth in demand for services and increasing complexity of need.”

Now, this was research that was conducted by HEQCO. It took a very comprehensive look at mental health policies on post-secondary campuses, and nowhere in this report did the researchers say that what they were hearing is that the problem is that there are no policies in place. They very, very clearly heard that the problem is that there are policies but there is no funding. Again, I want to share some of the findings:

“Despite these investments, the systems in place to support students are struggling to keep up. Demand is outstripping the supply of available resources; institutions experience the dual challenges of ensuring adequate access to supports while experiencing increased need.”

So it would have been nice if the minister had reviewed this report when she received it in January 2024, and had held back on this decision to mandate, to dictate, a student mental health policy in this legislation, because we know that these policies already exist in our post-secondary institutions. It’s not an absence of policy; it is an absence of resources that is increasing the pressures on our post-secondary campuses.

I also wanted to talk about—and I mentioned this already—how the staffing for mental health services is very challenging. The roles that many of these staff fill are short-term, they are precarious, and that creates an ongoing turnover of staff and a massive level of burnout because of the caseloads that these staff are dealing with.

The challenges in delivering mental health services on campus also mean that campuses are limited in their ability to provide the culturally responsive mental health supports that are so important for young people on our campuses. We heard many of the deputants talk about the fundamental importance of culturally responsive mental health supports, including a deputant who works with Palestinian youth in particular. She talked about the need for culturally responsive trained mental health experts, as well as one of the Jewish students who came to speak to the committee. She said it’s paramount that professionals on campus are at the very least adequately trained on working with various student populations at the minimum. So culturally responsive supports on campus are critical, and yet, universities and colleges are challenged to provide those supports because of the lack of funding.

I now want to talk a little bit about the second major element of this bill, which is the requirement for colleges and universities to have an anti-racism and hate policy. As I said at the outset, there’s no disagreement that there is a need to strengthen post-secondary responses to racism and hate on campus. One of the pieces of information that was shared with the committee was from Hillel Ontario. They said they’ve had nine times more reports of anti-Semitism on campus within the last academic year. NCCM said that they had tracked a 900% increase in Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism on campus in the last year. So we do need to make sure that post-secondary institutions can respond to these increased incidents of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, as well as the other kinds of racism and hate that we have heard about on our post-secondary campuses.

At the University of Waterloo, in June 2023, there was a gender studies professor and two students who were attacked right on campus in—

In class.

Yes, in class. In Queen’s University in 2019, there was a Pride flag stolen and death threats.

So, yes, there is a need to strengthen these services on campus. But again, the big question is, does it require a new ministerial directive for a new policy to be put in place that will be dictated by the minister? I would say that we heard from many of the deputants that the answer to that question is no, that what is needed, again, is funding to support the education, the training, the efforts that are already under way on our college and university campuses to deal with racism and hate, because our post-secondary campuses in this province have to be places where people feel safe, but where they feel that they can freely express their opinions on issues so long as it does not cross the line and become hateful.

We do know, as the minister said, that many students are not reporting racism and hate on campus because they feel that there won’t be an adequate response. But what you need to be able to respond adequately is staff. You need fully staffed and funded equity and diversity offices to do the follow-up that’s necessary and to engage in that broad-base campus training to improve safety of our campuses and make sure that all students feel safe.

Again, just as with the mental health policy, what we heard from the people who appeared before the committee was not that colleges and universities lack racism and hate policies, it’s that they lack the funding to appropriately deliver these policies that will support students.

What happens when you don’t have that adequate funding? I want to share a couple of quotes from deputants who appeared before the committee. One said, “Our equity, diversity, inclusion and justice offices are just as depleted as the mental health units in this sector. For example, having two EDI staff in a campus with a student population of 20,000 students is equivalent to treating a deep wound with a Band-Aid and no antibiotic cream.”

You have to appropriately fund the offices that have the expertise to respond to racism and hate as systemic problems and do that hard work of dismantling racism and hate if you are going to adequately protect students.

Here’s what another deputant said: “There’s a massive funding issue at post-secondary institutions right now, and we keep saying it over and over again. We have equity offices that are willing to do this work, that want to do this work. Our group has spoken with people who do this work on campuses, and they are dramatically underfunded. They want to get the word out. They want to hire experts, people who are specifically trained in culturally specific mental health supports. They want permanent employees who can do this work, and they don’t have the funds.”

We heard from the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the NCCM, as well as from some of the B’nai Brith and CIJA and the other organizations that appeared before the committee about the importance of faith-based supports for students. What NCCM said is that there are a growing number of faith-based supports on campus, but he pointed out that these people may start doing these services based on the initial funds raised—he was referring to trained Muslim psychotherapists who have both a faith identity and a track record of serving the Muslim community. But he said they could “start doing those services based on the initial funds raised, but if their services get interrupted, which often has happened, it’s one step forward, two steps back—there are so many students who are left in more difficulty than when they started, because of the interruption of those services.

“There needs to be a long-term strategic investment in this area, in mental health supports broadly, and to also have wide consultation with various faith-based communities....”

Speaker, when this legislation was announced, the government also announced a funding package to accompany it. That funding package included a total of $23 million to enhance mental health supports, but of that $23 million only $8 million was allocated to the post-secondary mental health action plan, and that was over a period of three years. So you’ve got $8 million over three years for direct support for the post-secondary mental health action plan, which when you do the math, means $2.7 million per year for the post-secondary mental health action plan, which means $57,000 for each of the 47 colleges and universities in this province in direct student supports.

So, in the face of everything they know about the underfunding of mental health supports based on the current levels of funding that are provided, this government made the decision that they’re going to mandate this new policy and they’re going to give every college and university about $57,000 per year in direct student support to improve campus mental health services. I asked people who appeared before committee: Do you think that’s going to make a difference on your campus? Every time I asked that question, they said, “Absolutely not, absolutely not.” In the face of the kinds of pressures that are experienced on our campuses, that’s a drop in the bucket.

Now, on the racism and hate policy, with the government’s funding announcement that went along with this bill, there were no additional dollars for implementation. And we know that moving forward with a new policy, training people on a new policy, implementing a new policy requires significant dollars. Yet as our universities and colleges are in the midst of the most serious financial crisis that we have ever seen in this province—they are literally on the brink—this government decided to mandate this new policy for anti-racism and hate, which replicates policies that already exist, and to provide no additional funding.

I just wanted to go a little bit deeper into the financial context that our post-secondary sector finds itself in right now. For the last four decades, Ontario has been at the bottom of the list in terms of per student funding that is allocated by each of our provinces in Ontario. Since this government came to power in 2018, it has gotten worse; it has literally brought our post-secondary institutions to a state of such crisis that the government had to strike a blue-ribbon panel to look at how to ensure the long-term sustainability of the sector, because there are very serious questions about whether our colleges and universities are going to be able to survive in this fiscal environment. That blue-ribbon panel came up with a recommendation that what this sector needed was $2.5 billion in permanent base funding just to keep the sector afloat. And that, Speaker, was before the federal government announced its cap on international study permits, which has generated another huge financial hit for our colleges and universities in Ontario because this government was quite happy to see colleges and universities actively solicit international students because they brought with them much greater tuition dollars and it took the government off the hook. It let the government avoid its responsibility to publicly fund our institutions.

We know from the government’s budget this year that the impact of the federal government cap on international study permits on the college sector is going to be $3 billion—an additional $3-billion revenue loss over the next three years. We don’t know the total revenue loss that universities are going to face because of different kinds of reporting, but we do know that in the college sector, for those 24 colleges, they’re looking at the removal of $3 billion in revenue.

What we’re seeing are program cuts across the board, and I am positive that we are going to be hearing more and more about program cuts in every community in the province. This morning, I asked about Fleming College in Peterborough, which just announced that it was slashing 29 programs because of the loss of international-student tuition dollars. That’s more than one in five programs in that college. Queen’s University said that they are cutting programs in arts and sciences. University of Guelph said that they are cutting 16 programs; 10 of them in the science field. This is because of the very real financial pressures that institutions are facing.

The implications of those pressures are felt by students because the institutions have to cut programs, they have to cut staff; oftentimes they do that by not filling vacancies, by not replacing retirements, by moving to short-term contracts instead of permanent positions. In fact, when OPSEU appeared before the committee, they told us that in 2021-22, there were 231 full-time counsellors employed in the college sector. That was a 5% reduction from the total number of full-time counsellors that was reported the year this government was elected in 2018-19. So at a time when student needs are increasing, the number of full-time counsellors available in our post-secondary institutions is decreasing because of the very serious fiscal crisis that our institutions are facing.

Speaker, as I said, the big question for me, the big question not for the government members on the committee—although hopefully they were thinking about this—was, since these policies already exist in most if not all of our institutions, what can we do to strengthen them? Can we use this legislation to improve the student mental health services and anti-racism-and-hate services on campus? We felt yes, there is an opportunity to use this bill to strengthen those services, but you have to make sure that the policies that are mandated by the legislation are going to be effective. And how do you do that, Speaker? You require a broad process of engagement. You talk to students; you talk to faculty; you talk to staff; you talk to the people in the community about how best to support students’ mental health needs and how best to address racism and hate on campus.

Actually, I’m going to quote here from the Centre for Innovation in Campus Mental Health. She said, “For a mental health policy to be truly effective, there has to be significant consultation on that campus. It can take a year to two years for a mental health policy that truly embodies the needs of that school to ... come into fruition.” And she pointed out that, when you have that fulsome consultation process that leads to effective policy, there are costs involved in developing the policy and then additional costs in implementing the policy. But this government has refused to make the investments that the sector requires.

Again, we had other deputants who said—

Interjection.