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.

That’s right.

This one was about the racism and hate policies. She said, “These policies work best ... when they actually come from the different communities that” are involved, “when they are organic and come up through the different governance structures.” She pointed out that when you engage people in the policies, they “have more buy-in,” which means the policies are much more likely to be effective. And that’s the big problem with this ministerial directive, with this unilateral dictate about what has to happen on our campuses and what has to be in the policy.

Not only is the legislation silent on any process of consultation at the local level with individual colleges and universities, but as I highlighted earlier, there was absolutely zero consultation with the sector about this legislation overall. So when you think about OPSEU, they represent 45,000 workers at 24 colleges and 16 universities; CUPE represents 30,000 university sector workers; the Council of Canadian Universities represents 23 public universities; Colleges Ontario represents 24 public colleges; OCUFA represents 18,000 faculty, academic librarians and academic professionals. OUSA, the College Student Alliance—these are organizations that are the voices of students across the province, and yet none of them—none of those organizations—had any kind of conversation with the ministry in advance of this bill coming forward. None of them were asked, “What do you think? Is this a good idea to impose new policy requirements on our post-secondary institutions?”

Another concern about this unilateral approach, this dictating of policy through ministerial directive—with, I might add, no information about what consequences will be imposed if the minister deems that a college or university has not adequately complied with the ministerial directive. There are lots of concerns about what the consequences are, and kudos to the students from OUSA and a number of student unions who appeared before the committee, because one of the recommendations they made was that the consequences should not ever involve withholding funding because it is entirely counterproductive when you have students in crisis on our campuses who can’t access mental health services, who don’t feel supported when they experience racism and hate because of the lack of resources on those campuses. It is entirely counterproductive to then withhold resources.

The minister, when I asked her what the consequences are, sidestepped the question, wouldn’t give me a response. We moved an amendment to remove the minister’s ability to impose financial penalties on institutions, but of course the government voted that down.

The problem with ministerial directives is really around the lack of transparency. That’s why, as I said earlier, I referred to the model of the order-in-council process, a regulatory process to generate the policy requirements that were in place with the sexual violence and harassment policies that were mandated on campuses. That was the benefit of doing an order in council, because at least there is some kind of public process. Draft regulations are posted publicly. There is an input period. It would provide at least a little bit of transparency into what the minister is going to be requiring in these policies. That was a recommendation, certainly, of the Council of Ontario Universities. But unfortunately, when we introduced an amendment to provide that kind of transparency, the government voted it down.

The other big problem—and I did mention this earlier—when you have ministerial directives dictating policy is that it undermines the institutional autonomy of both colleges and universities. But in the university sector in particular, it undermines the legislated self-governance of universities and the importance of ensuring that our post-secondary institutions, our universities, are free from political interference.

In particular, I want to acknowledge the Coalition Against Political Interference in Public Research and Education as well as the Invest in Post-Secondary Education Inter-University Coalition for their submissions to the committee, because they emphasized that the independence and integrity of academic research and education is recognized internationally as a cornerstone of democracy. We should be doing everything we can to maintain that independence and that freedom from political interference of our post-secondary institutions and not allow this overreach by the government to move forward, which is what we see in Bill 166.

It was interesting, Speaker, back on April 19, when the Premier addressed a media conference and told the reporters who were there that he personally thinks that the government should not get involved in affairs of university governance, he said, “It’s really up to the dean to govern his”—he didn’t say this—or her “own university.” He said, “I think we shouldn’t get involved in that.” Even the Premier recognized the inappropriateness of using government legislation to interfere with the autonomy and the independence of our universities in this province.

I want to quote from one of the deputants who talked about the consequences of allowing the government to start determining what universities are going to do or what universities are going to say. What happens when the government is pulling the strings at our academic institutions is that the research that comes out of those institutions can no longer be trusted, because is the research being directed by the government because they want to achieve a specific end, or is it truly independent research that has integrity and trustworthiness that we can use to advance the public interest? There’s a big concern when you start interfering with institutional autonomy, and in particular when you challenge the legislated framework in which universities in this province exist.

This was an enlightening quote from Fred Hahn from CUPE, who pointed out that not only does this result in bad policy, but it also represents a degree of political interference that, quite frankly, no matter who was sitting in government, no matter which party of which political stripe, no politician should be able to dictate these kinds of policies at academic institutions in our province. It opens the door to whoever is in government, whoever is the minister of the day, setting out in dictates how hate and racism should be defined and how mental health should be addressed on—

Interjections.

Thank you very much, Speaker. There are very real concerns about allowing any minister, any party, to dictate contents of such vital policies, to define what constitutes racism and hate on Ontario campuses. It should not be allowed. The government shouldn’t be going in that direction, challenging institutional independence and undermining the legislative framework in which our universities exist.

There were also concerns raised about freedom of expression on campus and what kinds of protections will be put in place to ensure that freedom of expression is not restricted by whatever policy the minister decides to put in place.

There were concerns about possible conflicts between the policy that’s dictated by the government and the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because there has been some debate about if the charter applies on campuses. In Alberta, there was a court decision that said, “Yes, the charter does apply on those campuses.” That’s one of the reasons that we brought forward an amendment to specify that the charter of rights has to apply with the policy that the government is bringing forward.

Going back to what we heard from people who appeared before the committee about what a better approach would be to strengthen institutional responses to racism and hate on campuses, they talked about widespread, funded anti-discrimination training, cultural competency programs, reporting mechanisms. All the while, they emphasized the critical importance of involving marginalized voices in the development of any policy that is implemented.

I want to now talk a little bit in my remaining time about some of the amendments that we brought forward and, in particular, Speaker, in the context of today, as we watch the devastation—the humanitarian catastrophe—that is continuing to unfold in Gaza. As we see students across the province who are calling for an end to the violence, we moved an amendment that anti-Palestinian racism be explicitly included in the bill.

Some of us in this chamber will remember, back in 2017, the Liberal government of the day brought in the Anti-Racism Act. Initially, the Liberal government’s legislation referred only to anti-Black racism, anti-Indigenous racism and other forms of racism. But there was all-party consensus—given the circumstances of the time, given the passion that members brought to the debate on that bill—about the need to name anti-Semitism, the need to name anti-Islamophobia. There was agreement across party lines that the bill would be amended to do just that: to talk about those four forms of hate—anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism and anti-Indigenous racism.

And this is five years later, after the Anti-Racism Act was passed in 2017. We are at a time when circumstances are demanding that we name anti-Palestinian racism. This was brought to the committee by several of the deputants who talked about the importance of naming anti-Palestinian racism. The deputant from NCCM talked about anti-Palestinian racism as, “The dehumanization and denial of the equal dignity of Palestinian people.”

Nothing would be lost, Speaker, by acknowledging this form of hate and racism that is being increasingly experienced across this province. But the government voted down our amendments to include anti-Palestinian racism.

We also included, as I think I had mentioned earlier, a requirement for consultation to take place with students, educators, staff members, experts, community members on the development of a student mental health policy as well as the anti-racism-and-hate policy.

We moved an amendment, as I said, to increase the transparency around the policy that the minister is going to bring forward by requiring regulations through the Lieutenant Governor in Council about the process for policy development, what kind of training is going to be provided etc., and again the government voted that one down as well. They’re quite happy to have the minister dictating behind closed doors, determining what’s going to be in these policies with no transparency and no involvement of those who are directly affected.

We moved an amendment to ensure that the legislation complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We moved an amendment to ensure that the policies are reviewed regularly, every two years, to ensure that they respond to the changing needs of campuses in this province.

Unfortunately, Speaker, every single one of our many amendments was voted down by this government. As a result, we can’t support this bill. We cannot support this bill because it ignores the presentations that were made to the committee about what a government that was serious about supporting the mental health needs of students on our post-secondary campuses would do. It ignored the feedback that we heard about what is needed to actually respond in a meaningful way to incidents of racism and hate on campus. As I said, what that involved, most of all, is funding. It’s funding to do the training, it’s funding to hire the staff, it’s funding to deliver the services, and this bill came with no additional commitment of resources except for that $57,000 per institution for mental health—nothing for anti-racism and hate, and we can’t support this bill in the third reading vote.

Stop the clock. The House will come to order.

Interjections.

The member from London West has the floor and I ask her to resume. Start the clock.

I appreciate hearing the member opposite participate in the debate this afternoon. I have, perhaps, a little bit of a unique privilege: I’m still a part-time student at the McMaster University in Hamilton, and so I have the opportunity regularly to be on campus at McMaster University and speak with students about the challenges that they are experiencing and also the opportunities that they see here in Ontario. I’ll be done that journey pretty soon in just a couple of months’ time. I’m looking forward to graduating and earning that degree.

But I’ll tell you, it’s a stressful time for many students. I know I hear from students about the challenges when it comes to mental health and the lack of awareness that they sometimes have or a lack of resources that are readily available to them that they’re aware of. They might not know where exactly to go to access services even if those services are there.

So I’m wondering if the member opposite agrees with the portions of the bill that lay out expectations for universities and for other post-secondary institutions to provide greater transparency and also access to those services and create policies that reflect the need that we see, not just on campuses, but across all parts of this province.

I want to thank the member for her hour lead on this manner. In a previous life, prior to my time here, I was a university professor, and I can definitely say, one of the more challenging things, as the member detailed, is the necessity for us to make sure that campuses are welcoming environments where a conflict of views can be heard but people feel safe at the same time. It’s not an easy balance to walk.

What I worry about in Bill 166, and I’d like the member to elaborate based upon what she said, is that we don’t seem to be putting a lot of faith in colleges and universities to be able to do that.

Given the real and present dangers, some of which the members talked about, where many students, many faculty, many staff at our post-secondary education campuses do not feel safe, do not feel like they have the ability to express themselves without undue censorship, without undue ability to have that foreclosed, what was the advice you heard at the committee stage to make sure that this government could put faith in the campuses so we could set up those learning environments where we encourage the conflict of ideas but not the conflict of people?

It’s time for questions. Questions?

Meegwetch to the member for that presentation. I know the government says the intent of the legislation is to ensure safety and support for post-secondary students. A growing group of professors say that the bill undermines the independence of Ontario’s universities. For example, “Bill 166 fundamentally changes the way universities in this province are governed, moving us away from democratic principles of university autonomy,” said Sue Ferguson, associate professor emerita at Wilfrid Laurier University.

What do you make of this strong opposition to Bill 166? Instead of advancing student mental health and anti-racism on campuses, this bill stymies both and opens the door to a degree of political interference that would shatter the integrity of Ontario’s post-secondary institutions.

Thanks to the member for Kitchener–Conestoga for that question. Interestingly, the committee heard almost nothing about that aspect of this legislation. Because it makes sense. It does make sense. Students need more financial transparency.

But one of the interesting things that we did hear from a number of the students is the stress that financial pressures create and the impact on their mental health when they worry about being able to find housing, about food insecurity, about keeping up with the rising cost of living.

So yes, they need transparency in terms of knowing how much those costs are going to be. They need tuition that is affordable, but they also need access to student financial aid that will help them attend colleges and universities in this province.

It’s not the way to conduct the anti-discrimination training that has to take place across campuses. So we need to provide the resources. We need to involve those who are living this on a daily basis in developing an appropriate policy response and then implementing it—

Having the minister unilaterally dictate the contents and topics of mental health policies on campus is not going to support the students who don’t know where to go, often because those services are so understaffed that they don’t have the staff to run them.

Thank you to the member from London West for that lengthy presentation. I enjoyed your presentation, but I have a question for you.

At committee, we heard from a number of students who reported incidents of discrimination to their institution, only for no recourse to be taken. There, you also heard one of the members opposite call the anti-hate provision of Bill 166 “unnecessary red tape.” So will the member vote so that the incidents of hate are dealt with in a consistent manner, or are they of opinion that ensuring the safety of all students is an unnecessary bureaucratic burden?

I wanted to follow up to the member opposite with a similar question that I asked to the Minister of Colleges and Universities and that is, in this bill, it does prescribe and set out some regulations in regard to what costing looks like for fees for students.

And like I had mentioned, I’ve got my oldest son going off to college, and it’s been interesting to see how the fee breakdown works when it comes to textbooks, when it comes to tools that are required, tuition, residence fees, different things like that. So I know that this does hopefully help clarify some things for students, parents, caregivers.

I just wanted to get some of your thoughts on that.

It’s an honour to rise on behalf of the government to speak to Bill 166, as the parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, to discuss the significance this bill holds and the implications for our colleges and universities across the province.

As Minister Dunlop stated earlier, Ontario’s post-secondary institutions draw some of the most talented students globally. This positive momentum doesn’t just benefit students; it also generates local employment opportunities and drives economic development across the province. Bill 166 is not just a significant move toward protecting the well-being of students and promoting inclusivity within our post-secondary institutions. It’s a crucial step in ensuring the overall well-being of our entire province.

All across Ontario, I see a diverse mix of people from various cultural backgrounds, with different political beliefs and varying levels of education. Despite these differences, what we hold dear and what we stand for is crucial. Our values shaped by our backgrounds and experience play a significant role in defining who we are as individuals and how we navigate the world around us.

In Ontario’s diverse landscape, this variety of perspectives and beliefs enriches our communities and contributes to our collective growth. It’s through this diversity that we learn from one another, broaden our understanding and foster a sense of unity amongst our differences. Each person’s unique perspective adds depth to the fabric of Ontario’s society, creating a tapestry of experiences and values that make our province vibrant and dynamic.

These amendments that we’re going to be discussing here today are not only bureaucratic procedures, they are a symbol of support for our students and their communities at large. At its core, this legislation is about mental health, anti-hate and fee-transparency policies on all public colleges and universities. By creating these standards and reporting mechanism, Bill 166, if passed, will ensure that every student in Ontario receives the support they need to succeed regardless of their background.

Bill 166 not only stands for but promotes a culture of inclusivity, equality across the post-secondary education sector, reinforcing that every student is valued and has the opportunity to thrive. And in turn, Ontario thrives.

Speaker, recent events have underscored the urgent need for this legislation. The tensions arising from overseas have reverberated onto our campuses, breeding discrimination, anti-Semitism, anti-Palestinian racism, anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia and other forms of hate. Incidents like these have spread across to institutions across Ontario, leaving many students feeling unsafe and marginalized. While commendable efforts have been made by post-secondary institutions to address these issues, it has become clear that more proactive and comprehensive approaches are necessary. Our government denounces all forms of hate and discrimination, affirming that they have no place on post-secondary campuses.

Speaker, the Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024, embodies our commitment to combatting hate and ensuring that the safety and dignity of every student is looked after. Our legislation mandates that every college and university must have policies and rules specifically designed to address and combat racism and hate. Encompassing areas such as, but not limited to, anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. These amendments signifify—“signifify”? I can’t even say it—a firm stance against discrimination and harassment, establishing a framework that promotes accountability and support for those affected.

We recognize that a healthy and respectful campus environment is essential for our students’ success. No student should ever feel marginalized or threatened while pursuing their education, and it’s our collective responsibility to uphold principles of inclusivity and tolerance, nurturing an environment where everybody can succeed.

Speaker, throughout our committee deliberations with students and faculty, we have been confronted with distressing accounts of hateful acts occurring on campuses. These incidents—that I know we all have seen through social media and the news—highlight not only the need but the urgency for action. These students’ experiences are evidence that we cannot stand idly while they live in fear.

If passed, the implementation of Bill 166 will ensure the adoption of comprehensive policies, transparent reporting mechanisms and swift responses to anti-hate-related incidents. We believe that Ontario’s colleges and universities should be places where people can freely share their thoughts, ideas and knowledge and freely be able to study and grow as they start their journey in Ontario. While we believe that post-secondary institutions should be an environment where diverse viewpoints are welcomed and valued, Bill 166 reinforces our dedication to cultivating a learning atmosphere that nurtures growth and development by bolstering measures against hate speech, discrimination and in alignment with free speech policies of post-secondary institutions.

Speaker, Bill 166 helps further empower our educational institutions to intervene decisively and support those affected by hate and discrimination. It provides a framework for transparent reporting and investigation, ensuring that justice is served and that the perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.

I also want to note that we’re not overlooking the work already being done by many of our colleges and universities, as Bill 166 is not intended to undermine these efforts, but rather to complement them, fostering consistency and clarity in our approach to student well-being. Bill 166 embodies our unwavering dedication to fostering inclusive and welcoming campuses where every student can flourish without fear or prejudice.

Madam Speaker, this bill will serve as a tool against hate as it also stands as a beacon of support for the mental health of Ontario’s post-secondary students. Our government is making historic investments across Ontario, including mental health services within our post-secondary institutions. We’re committed to safeguarding the accessibility and availability of these mental health supports that colleges and universities have to offer.

Just this year, our government has dedicated $32 million to enhance mental health supports for post-secondary students throughout Ontario. This funding will enhance on-campus mental health services catering to the diverse and challenging needs of our student population. Whether it be specialized supports for vulnerable demographics, peer-to-peer networks fostering solidarity and understanding, or mindfulness and resiliency programs nurturing emotional fortitude, the grant ensures that no student is left behind in their journey towards wellness.

We firmly believe in the importance of mental health resources. That’s why our government has undertaken initiatives such as the Mental Health Worker Grant, which serves as a vital resource facilitating the hiring of diverse mental health professionals within post-secondary institutions. From experienced counsellors and compassionate social workers to caring nurses and diligent care coordinators, these dedicated individuals are prepared to address the complex array of student mental health needs with empathy, skill and commitment. In 2023, over 160 positions were filled thanks to the Mental Health Worker Grant, resulting in noticeable reductions in wait times for students and easing the pressure on campus services.

Speaker, we also recognize the significant contributions of our international students, who enrich our campuses with their diverse perspectives, talents and resilience. It’s important that we ensure they have access to the mental health support they need to thrive academically, culturally and personally.

Our government’s investments are focused on offering a wide range of support services, including virtual options like Get A-Head and Good2Talk, which provide support to students in distress 24/7, 365 days out of the year. However, we also value the importance of on-campus resources where counsellors provide personalized support and guidance to our students.

Despite our progress, disparities in mental health resources persist among different institutions. It’s concerning that some students factor in the institution-specific mental health supports and specialties when deciding where to study. This shouldn’t be a deciding factor and it’s up to us to tackle this disparity.

If enacted, Bill 166 will create uniform mental health policies throughout the post-secondary education sector. This legislation would ensure that all students, regardless of their location, have access to basic support at their chosen institution. By requiring the publication of policies and resources online and setting standards for compassionate leave, we aim to create a more fair, inclusive and supportive educational environment.

It’s important to emphasize that any directive would be built off best practices and from feedback from the sector—much we have already received through weeks of consultation with the sector. Together, we can ensure that every student in Ontario receives the support they deserve to flourish academically and personally. Speaker, when talking about mental health, it’s crucial to address one of the paramount issues that affect our post-secondary students.

I’d also like to talk about fee transparency, and this is a conversation that we had a lot during committee. In terms of tuition, this government has enacted a tuition freeze to ensure that rates don’t rise and students have the lowest tuition possible. But as we work towards those goals, students have seen other fees rise, and we need to prepare students and students need to have the ability of transparency to see what those fees look like beforehand. Those examples can be some of the examples shared by the minister earlier today: somebody signing up for a biology lab and then not knowing that they have to pay for coats; not knowing they have to pay for special tools and things going forward. These transparency measures will really help students understand where their money is going, and that also applies to the fees that they’re paying to their universities or colleges when it comes to their enrolment and how much they’re contributing to each individual item.

Right now, some colleges and some universities list exactly where all of that money goes, some don’t. We want to create a universal platform where all of that is listed transparently for every student that’s paying tuition to know where exactly every dollar and every cent is going. This issue is the financial stressors burdening our students as they pursue higher education. It’s no secret that the cost of post-secondary education can weigh heavily on the shoulders of our Ontario scholars, affecting not only their academic pursuits but their overall well-being.

In recognition of this pressing issue, Ontario is taking proactive steps to alleviate the financial strain on our students and their families. Speaker, we are proud to have announced the continuation of the domestic tuition freeze for publicly assisted colleges and universities for a minimum of three more years, additionally allowing limited increases of up to 5% for domestic, out-of-province students. This commitment builds on our government’s historic 10% reduction of tuition in 2019-20, coupled with the previous tuition freezes over the past four years. These measures have made post-secondary education more accessible and more affordable for Ontario students.

However, we understand that tuition is just one piece of the financial puzzle. That’s why the Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act includes provisions to enhance transparency regarding student fees. We have listened to the voices of our students who have shared their concerns about the hidden costs associated with their education. Whether it be textbooks, subscriptions, additional reading materials, unexpected lab fees, students deserve to know the full extent of the financial obligations tied to their education.

The proposed legislative amendments will empower students and parents by providing them with clear and comprehensive information about ancillary fees, enabling them to make informed decisions when selecting courses. While faculty will retain the autonomy to choose educational materials for their classes, we urge them to prioritize what’s in the best interests of our students.

Speaker, transparency is crucial, especially in these challenging economic times, where every dollar counts. By ensuring that students are aware of the expenses they are undertaking, we are fostering a culture of accountability and empowerment within our educational institutions, and our government is committed to affordable and accessible higher education for all. Together, we can break down the barriers that hinder the academic success of our students and pave the way for a brighter future.

I’d like to start concluding with discussing the incredible potential of our province and the great people of the province of Ontario. Our collective spirit, our resilience and our unwavering determination propels us forward, even in the face of challenges. If we want to see our province truly thrive, we must invest in nurturing a highly skilled workforce that can adapt to the demands of our rapidly growing economy.

Our government is deeply committed to ensuring that every individual has the opportunity to pursue post-secondary education and achieve their dreams. Over the past few years, we’ve made significant strides in making education more accessible and inclusive for everyone, regardless of their background or where they come from. We believe that education should be affordable, respectful, and welcoming to all. Speaker, we’ve worked hand in hand with colleges, universities, Indigenous institutions and community partners to create an environment where every learner can flourish. Our goal is to build a post-secondary education system that not only celebrates diversity but also empowers individuals to carve out fulfilling and meaningful careers.

Bill 166, during its second reading, passed smoothly. I urge each and every one of you to throw your full support behind Bill 166. This legislation is pivotal in ensuring Ontario’s colleges and universities are held accountable for supporting the well-being of our post-secondary students. This legislation represents a significant leap forward in creating a safe and nurturing environment that students deserve.

It’s imperative that the resources allocated for student mental health are used effectively and transparently. We can’t afford to overlook the mental health and well-being of our students; it’s our duty to prioritize their welfare. This is an opportunity to implement meaningful change that will leave a lasting impact for generations to come. Speaker, let’s seize the opportunity and stand united in our commitment to creating a brighter future for all learners.

Speaker, I’d also like to talk about the great work that our government is doing to ensure that the mental health, safety and well-being of every student in Ontario is being looked at and letting them know that we, as a government, truly and deeply care to ensure that their mental health and well-being while on campus is a top priority not only for the government but the universities themselves. That’s why, through Bill 166 and the directives that we’re taking, we’re also going to be ensuring that mental health supports and mental health funding that is given to colleges and universities is mandated and is spent in that particular direction, that they don’t have the opportunity to spend that money into different aspects.

The mental health funding that the government gives must be spent on mental health supports for those students learning in those post-secondary institutions. That’s why Bill 166 is so crucial as we continue to support our students and continue to ensure that they have an environment where they feel like they’ll be successful, where they feel like they can thrive and where they can feel that they can move forward in their lives and create great careers for themselves going forward. As we take a look at some of the contentious issues that we see around that are impacting us globally, this bill will really help us ensure that all students have a safe place to learn, a safe place to be while they go through their educational journey.

We can’t afford to overlook the mental health and well-being of our students; it’s our priority to prioritize their welfare. It’s an opportunity to implement meaningful change and leave a lasting impact for generations to come. Let’s seize this opportunity and stand united in our commitment to creating a brighter future for all learners. Together, we can forge a path towards a post-secondary education system that embodies the values of inclusivity, accountability and excellence.

Thank you, and I hope we have your unwavering dedication to support Ontario’s students.

With the few remaining minutes that I have left, I just want to add that a lot of the discussions that we had in committee and a lot of the consultations that took place prior to drafting Bill 166—done by the previous parliamentary assistant, the minister and the ministry’s team—are really reflected in the actions that we’re taking to make sure students are protected going forward, the actions that we’re taking to ensure that those mental health supports are there for students and the actions that we’re taking to ensure that transparency is there for students. It makes a huge financial impact for young learners who are just entering the preliminary workforce, starting with beginner jobs, supporting themselves through education and creating a transparent path for them to see what the costs and expenses are involved. Bill 166 will really help set the standard across the province.

Right now, as of today, when we look at different universities and colleges, a lot of them have the best practices implemented, but they vary. It’s not a standard practice across the board, across the province. And with this Bill 166, we’re going to be able to ensure that transparency spans across the province to all post-secondary institutions, all colleges and universities.

As we continue to do that, we’re going to make sure that the funding we have allocated to support the mental health of those students enrolling into those great programs and great classes is going to be there for them, with a ministry directive mandating universities and colleges to spend that money where it’s duly supposed to be spent, and that’s for the students’ mental health and well-being.

The minister has done a wonderful job bringing this bill forward. The previous parliamentary assistant has done a wonderful job with her consultations, and I’m taking that work forward by presenting and speaking to Bill 166 today. I spoke about this a lot in committee as well: I hope we have your support to take Bill 166 forward, ensure that we have transparency and ensure that mental health funding is there for all of our students across the province.

With that, I’d like to say thank you, Speaker. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this bill today.

Quick response?