Quick response?

I appreciate the question from the member for Markham–Thornhill. The testimony that we heard from those students was very powerful. It was very difficult to hear, and it is entirely, completely unacceptable that they have those experiences on our campuses and don’t get an appropriate institutional response.

The difference between your side of the House and our side of the House is that we don’t think this legislation is the way to improve things. We need to appropriately fund anti-racism and anti-hate initiatives on campus to ensure that students get the support and the response that they deserve when they experience racism or hate.

Questions?

As the member mentioned a lot, earlier, regarding mental health—I have some similar questions. Attending university or college can be a challenging time, when many students are away from home for the first time in their lives. Many students have complained that navigating their university or college’s mental health programs often requires a degree of its own. So what will this bill be doing to improve a student’s ability to access mental health services on their institution’s campuses?

I listened to the member for Brampton East just now and during his remarks talk about access to mental health supports. I heard him talk to my colleague about cherry-picking things out of bills, and the funny thing is, is the government side cherry-picks what they want the public to hear. They don’t want to hear the criticism. They don’t want to hear from the people that came to committee and raised huge alarm bells about this bill.

But I’m going to talk specifically about the mental health piece. Because you can talk about mental health supports all you want, you can pass on that responsibility—which is what you’re doing—to the post-secondary education institutions, but you are not properly funding those institutions to be able to provide those supports and services.

You are grossly underfunding community mental health and addictions supports, to the point where they’re laying off workers, at the detriment to the community. There are months-long or years-long wait-lists for mental health supports in communities all around this province.

So my question to the member opposite is: Rather than just talking about what we are doing, what are you actually doing to fix the funding problems and to address the root causes of mental health and addictions, to ensure people actually have those connected supports?

I wanted to say that the member will pick and choose lines from recommendations from the blue-ribbon panel to ensure that they meet the objective of what he’s trying to talk about, but the blue-ribbon panel also encouraged the government to raise tuition fees, to increase fees on students and to support universities in that directive.

Our government will not raise fees on students. We will make sure that we have lowest fees for students in Ontario. We will support them with every resource that we have. That’s the mandate given to us by Premier Doug Ford and that’s what we’re going to continue to do. And if the NDP insists that we accept every single recommendation from the blue-ribbon panel, they can go ahead and tell students that they want to raise fees. We’re not going to do that.

As mentioned, this bill will ensure that we have a minimum mental health standard going forward across the province. This bill will ensure that mental health funding provided by the province will be used by the institutions on mental health programs within the post-secondary institutions. We want to make sure that that money that we’re putting forward makes it all the way down, makes it down to the student, and the resources that we’re providing are actually available to them. We want to make sure that happens, Speaker.

As we continue to work together to make Ontario’s post-secondary institutions a great place for students to thrive, Bill 166 is a crucial part to achieving that.

We had a lot of debate during committee, when we talked about all of these issues.

Rest assured, Speaker, this government has invested a historic amount into education: a whopping $1.2 billion, which is a number that has not been seen before. That’s our government investing those dollars back into our universities, back into our colleges, making sure that they have the resources that they need to move forward in changing climates and changing times.

This government is investing $23 million to support mental health and introducing legislation that will require colleges and universities to have mental health policies and let students know that those supports are available to them. That’s a big deal. We’re making sure that these students have transparency, we’re making sure that these students have access to mental health care, and we’re making sure that that’s a standard across the province.

The one thing that we’re not going to do, that the NDP members haven’t mentioned in any of their questions—we’re not going to raise tuition fees. We’re going to continue to work with colleges and universities to make sure they stay low, and we’re going to continue to work with them to make sure that they have the resources they need to provide the critical services for our students.

It’s amazing to hear that we’re just going to sign away a blank cheque and say, “Hey, you go figure this out.”

The Ministry of Colleges and Universities, as we work with all of our partners across the board—when it comes to post-secondary education, we like to see what types of programs they’re offering, how we can support, what different types of programs we can invest in. I’m sure the member opposite is also aware of all of those things that we need to make sure happen in order to ensure the success of all of our post-secondary institutions across the board.

This bill is about transparency. This bill is about ensuring that my kids, your kids, our future of Ontario—when they get to school, they get to see exactly where every dollar is being spent; they know what they’re paying for; they know what they’re getting involved in.

This bill is to ensure that the mental health supports and the funding that are being provided by the government make it all the way down. That’s exactly what this bill intends to do. That’s why I urge every member of this House to vote in favour of this bill.

Our government is committed to freedom of speech, and that hasn’t changed. As a part of the free speech policy announced by this Premier—colleges and universities should be places where students really exchange different ideas and opinions in open and respectful debate. This also means ensuring that they follow the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Criminal Code and ensure the protection of academic activities where students could share ideas in good faith.

Speaker, we know that some institutions have not treated all professors, students and employees the same and can create multiple standards that members of the institution are held to. By and large, there is limited publication of the results of non-academic conduct cases—and specifically, the way the cases are handled, ensuring that there is a meaningful conclusion at the end of the process. Perhaps now more than ever, it’s clear that a broad and comprehensive approach must be taken to ensure that all incidents of hateful speech are addressed in a fair and consistent manner.

Transparency, accountability and due process for those found violating codes of conduct are essential for ensuring the protection of freedom of speech on campuses. And that’s exactly what Bill 166 intends to do, and that’s exactly what—

Coming down on Sunday, I was sitting beside le recteur de l’Université de Sudbury, and he was telling me that your government’s own panel of experts have recommended, via the blue ribbon, an urgent $2.5-billion investment over three years, as a minimum, needed to keep colleges and universities running. This was before the international student cap was announced. He was telling me that the new budget, the money they received, was only $13,000 more and they’re really struggling financially.

My question is, why is your funding just half of what your own expert was recommending—the $2.5 billion?

I’ve enjoyed the debate this afternoon.

I’d like to ask the member what our government is going to do to help enforce freedom of speech on all the campuses.

I’ve definitely been listening to the debate this afternoon, as well as previous times that this bill has been before this House. I was happy to hear the NDP lead on this—but again, it brings us back to the fact of the lack of funding for mental health. I’m sure you would have heard this from your constituents.

Are you satisfied with there not being enough dollars for mental health when it comes to our students?

I’d just like to say to the member opposite, thank you for the question.

If you support transparency for students across the province, I urge you to vote for this bill. If you desire for those mental health dollars allocated to those colleges and universities to make it all the way down to those students, I urge you to support this bill.

If you go ahead and vote yes for this bill, you’ll be delivering for students.

It’s always a pleasure to rise and speak in the House, but today is kind of an interesting day, obviously.

I want to say that a lot of times on this job, you’re not home—I think we can all relate to that on special occasions. Today is my wife’s birthday, so I wanted to make sure that I wished her a happy birthday. I know she’s spending her time with my beautiful daughter, as well. I think they’re going out for dinner. The other reason I thought it was a good idea to start with talking about that is that my wife—although she’s retired now, and she actually retired a year early because she had to take care of her mom and dad, as a caregiver, and she gave up a year of her pensions—was a teacher. So I’m surrounded by education quite regularly. And then, our daughters—Tara works with special-needs kids in the school board. My other daughter is a teacher. And here we’re talking about education and where we should go with education.

We heard a lot today, and I’ve been listening about the bill—how important education is, how important colleges are, how important universities are.

In my riding—I don’t know how many know this, how many have been there. Well, you guys have been down to Niagara so much, I figure you guys don’t even need a map anymore. We have a couple of really good colleges and universities in my riding.

Niagara College—10,500 students at Niagara College. They do a great job down there. Their president is Sean Kennedy. I met with him a couple of weeks ago. The programs they have are really geared to jobs in Niagara, quite frankly—some are in the skilled trades, some are in tourism, some are in winemaking.

And then you go up the road and you look at Brock University. They have 19,000 students at Brock University, under Lesley Rigg, who is the president there. That’s a lot of students, and quite frankly, they have a lot of power.

We didn’t have any transportation at Niagara College—or very little—same like Brock, and the two student bodies got together and said, “Hey, there are 34,000 of us who come to school. We need to make sure that we have proper public transit.” They got together, and they changed the whole thinking in Niagara. Now we have regional transit in Niagara, all across Niagara—and a lot of that was geared to the students standing up to the establishment and saying, “We need to make sure that we can get to school in a timely manner.”

Unfortunately, I know that both of these institutions have significant concerns about their current financial health. I’m not here today to say they’re in any way in trouble, but they have clear concerns—those concerns sometimes go right across the province. But I will tell you that Niagara College is $12 million in debt—that’s underfunding. Brock University is in worse shape—$35 million in debt. As I listen to the PCs stand up here and say how they’re funding our colleges and our universities—well, they wouldn’t be that much in debt. And now they’ve got another problem, which we’re all hearing about, which is international students and some of the rules that have been placed on them by the federal government.

What we don’t talk about, on the international students, is the fact that they’ve been being gouged for years to make up for the lack of funding coming from, at this time—the Liberals and the PC government. And do you know—put your hands up on the other side. I know you’re not really listening to me, but I figure you can put your hands up—those who are. Do you know that international students are being charged three to four times more than domestic students to take the exact same course?

I spend a lot of time walking down Wellesley, from my apartment to here, because I like to get a little walk in in between, and I run into a lot of students in my apartment, where we live, where I stay Sunday to Thursday. And I say to them—they’re at University of Toronto, right here. I say to them, “How’s things going?” “Well, the rents are really bad.” Do you know that a student who’s going to University of Toronto, where I live, is paying somewhere between $3,400 and $4,100 a month just in rent?

Yesterday, I was in the elevator. A really nice young lady and I got talking while we’re going up to the 20th floor—I probably shouldn’t say what floor I’m on, but I’m on the 20th. She had a bag of groceries—one bag—and I said, “Oh, you were out shopping for groceries.” Do you know what she said? Unbelievable. One bag was $80. This is a student—$4,000 in rent; $80 for a bag of groceries. That’s what students are facing, and you wonder why we’re talking about that you’ve got to fund our universities and our colleges.

Our students are our future. Let’s think about that. Most of you guys in here are probably—I look around; most of you are at least over 40, so you have kids, you have grandkids. One of the most important things that we can do is make sure that our kids and our grandkids are getting an education.

But do you know what happens when you get an education in Ontario—and it goes back a few years. I’m not just blaming the Conservative government. They’ve been terrible, but to their credit, it’s not all their fault; the Liberals helped too. The reality is that when you get an education, you are coming out of a university—particularly a university; sometimes a college—when you have a student debt that’s as high as a mortgage: $100,000.

The thing I’ve never understood—nothing in Bill 166 on this, by the way. What I’ve never understood—why, as they borrow money from the government to go to university, do they have to pay interest on that money?

I’ll tell you, as bad as the States is right now, they’re talking about this and they’re actually doing it in some of the states down there—they’re limiting all the interest on their student loans. To me, if you’re looking at a bill and you’re saying our students are struggling—they’re struggling to pay their rent. They’re struggling to buy their books. Some are working two jobs. Some, quite frankly, are going without food sometimes, just because of the cost of everything. Wouldn’t that be an easy solution to put in Bill 166? Just get rid of the interest on student loans.

Why should government—Madam Speaker, you can answer this. I don’t know if you can speak now, but I know you can when you’re sitting up here some days. Why would government have to make money on the backs of students? Can somebody explain that to me?

Interjection: It makes no sense.

I don’t think I’ll be in committee because, remember, you guys took me off committee because you don’t like me asking these tough questions. But I’m going to make a suggestion to you: Why don’t you guys fix the bill and say, “We’re going to get rid of the interest on the student loans”? I see my colleague there—I don’t know what riding you’re from over here. He’s nodding his head. He doesn’t think that’s a bad idea, but he’s probably just old enough—he just probably came out of university. He’s not that old. Or even the member from Niagara West—Niagara West went to Brock University with my daughter Jacqueline, and he’s still taking courses, but he shouldn’t be paying. To me, he could raise that in his caucus meeting and say, “That’s not a bad idea.” Actually, it’s not in my notes, but I just thought of it, because it was driving me nuts for years, when I used to speak about education.

I see there are a lot of students up there. They’re nodding their heads. That’s our future up there—all five rows up there. They’re waving, and I’m waving back at them.

You are our future, and it’s up to people like us and the government that’s in power to make sure that your education is funded properly and that you’re not paying interest on your student loans.

And if you want to talk about the rest of it, you can talk about food prices. We’ve got to make sure we get our food prices in so the Weston family doesn’t continue to gouge us;—so kids aren’t spending one bag on a bag of groceries. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

So when we’re talking about education, do you know what we’re talking about? Right up there—our kids and our grandkids; my kids and my grandkids. My grandkids are still in grade 3 and 4; they’re just tiny. But someday, they’re going to go get an education. That’s our future.

Anyway, I’ll get on with my speech. I’m on page 2.

For decades, through both the Liberals and the Conservatives, our colleges and universities have endured underfunding to the point that they’re near collapse. And when people say, “You’re making that up”—I’m not making it up.

Interjection.

I rise to inform the House that the bill introduced earlier by the member for Nickel Belt, introduced as, “An Act to Amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act,” contravenes standing order 39(d), which provides that no bill be introduced in blank or imperfect form. The bill was introduced with a truncated version of the title, and the question on the motion for first reading was put using the incorrect version of the title. The bill is therefore out of order, and it will not be added to the Orders and Notices paper.

I recognize the member from Essex on a point of order.

Point of order, Madam Speaker.

It happened to Laurentian.

I just met with Brock University. I have a really good rapport with both the university and the college, because I think that’s important, even though Brock is not in my riding. It’s actually in Jeff Burch’s riding. He represents Brock.

Our proud institutions, pillars of knowledge and progress, now stand on the face of crisis. It seems like every time we stand up here, we talk about a crisis. Whether it be food prices, whether it be housing prices, whether it be the homeless, whether it be encampments, it just seems we’re always talking about a crisis. And guess what? Who has been in power for six years? The Conservatives. Yet, every time I stand up here, I feel like I’m talking about a crisis.

For Bill 166 to be a solution to the challenges facing our post-secondary education system—it falls short of addressing the magnitude of the issues at hand. While it may contain some terms, it lacks the ambition, the foresight and the commitment necessary to truly meet the moment that we are in.

The reality is stark: Our colleges and universities are at a breaking point. Years of neglect and underinvestment have taken their toll, leaving our educational infrastructure crumbling and our students and our faculty struggling to make ends meet. This is not a problem that we can sweep under the carpet or under the rug—or take half measures. We need a serious solution, and we need it now.

It’s very clear that the current government’s approach is insufficient. As a matter of fact—I’ll just get off a little bit, and we already had some questions on this—your own blue-ribbon panel said that you needed to invest $2.5 billion in universities and colleges. And what did you do? Half. It reminds me of some of the marriages—you get half. That’s usually the way it works.

What they didn’t say on the question—because it was a question from our side about it—right now, our colleges are at 44% of the national average; universities are at 57%. Do you know what that makes us when it comes to funding, Madam Speaker? I’m going to tell you what it is. It makes us the lowest-funded colleges and universities in the country. So when they stand up and say they’re investing, they’re investing, they’re investing, it’s not completely accurate. Quite frankly, it’s probably—well, it’s not the truth. I guess I can’t say they’re lying; that wouldn’t be nice. But they’re certainly not telling the truth.

Further, we must take a look at the exploitation of international students, who have become increasingly vulnerable in the face of rising tuition costs and precarious living conditions. I already mentioned that they’re paying three to four times higher than domestic students. I’m not making that up. You can look it up. It’s another point that’s not in my speech—to a point that Niagara College in my riding, going back a few years, under then-president Dan Patterson, set up a school in Saudi Arabia. Because they were so underfunded, they had to find different resources to try to get funding in Saudi Arabia. He took a lot of hits for that, because of some of the human rights conditions in Saudi Arabia. You think about that. He had to do that. By the way, I’m glad you heard about it, because they’re still in there. They’re still there.

The international students contribute immensely to our diversity, vibrancy on our campuses. Yet, too often, they are treated as cash cows. That’s why they want international students. Think about that. Instead of inviting them to our country and enjoying the country or the province—no, they’ve got to pay three to four times more, instead of being a valued member of our community. We must strengthen the oversight to ensure that they are protected from the exploitation and abuse.

I want to be clear on this: The NDP stands firmly behind our world-class post-secondary institutions. Let’s be clear on that—including Laurentian. I know my good colleague from Sudbury fought very hard about that. We recognize the positive impact that they have not only on the individuals who study and work within their walls, but also the surrounding communities, and quite frankly the province as a whole.

We’re committed to ensuring that everyone who lives, works and studies at post-secondary institutions in Ontario has the support they need to thrive. Well let’s be clear: This is not just about the institutions themselves. It’s about the future of our province, our economy, our society and—I’ve already mentioned, because the young kids were here—the kids and our grandkids. A strong and vibrant post-secondary education system is essential for building a prosperous and equitable Ontario for all.

Madam Speaker, it brings me to another issue. It’s not just the institutions that are struggling. It’s also the students, and it’s a big problem. It’s affecting a lot of people. First off, I’ve talked a little bit about it. Let’s talk about the money. The cost of living is going up. That includes things like groceries, which I meant, rent—gouging by the Weston family. For students who are already trying to juggle tuition fees and other expenses, this can be a huge burden. It’s getting harder and harder to afford the basic necessities, and that’s not fair. There’s the rent. Rent prices are going through the roof not just in Toronto by the way; down in Niagara is the same way. I believe Ottawa is the same way. Windsor, I would think—Hamilton is the same way. Rents are going through the roof. There’s not enough protection in place to keep them in check, like putting rent controls on new builds that haven’t been there since 2019—big, big mistake. That means students are being forced to pay more and more for housing. Often on top, there are already high tuition fees. It’s tough to focus on your studies when you’re worried about whether you’re going to be able to afford the rent the next month.

Let’s not forget about mental health, which has been raised here a number of times. And we know there’s not enough money. University—and I learned this from my daughter who went to university. It’s a really stressful time, and students need support more than ever. But the sad truth is there aren’t enough resources available.

Mental health services are often minimal and hard to access, leaving students feeling overwhelmed and alone. There’s not enough support on campuses. Then if you go off campus, you know there’s over a year wait to go and see if you have issues with mental health, including—I might as well raise this now; I’ve got a couple of minutes left.

We put forward a bill to the minister in Niagara asking for 24/7 services for those with mental health, because do you know what? Mental health doesn’t stop at 4:30 in the day. And we were promised that he’d bring it into Niagara. Here, that was two years ago. It still hasn’t happened, and we’re like everywhere else. Mental health is really in a crisis—crisis.

What can we do about it? Well, for starters, the provincial government needs to step up and start prioritizing the needs of post-secondary students. That means taking action to make sure groceries are more affordable, implementing rent controls to keep housing costs down and investing more in mental health supports. These seem to be three very reasonable things that they could do today—today, Madam Speaker.

Right now there seems to be a pattern from this government when it comes to education in total. The lack of commitment to post-secondary education also seems to be a case in our high schools and our elementary system, even encouraging some students not to finish high school. The failure to ensure Ontarians have access to good-quality education goes right across the board with the government.

Let’s take a look at the recent cuts to education funding in Ontario. I think that’s important. I probably won’t get to it all, but it’s important.

It seems like the government is trying to hide what they’re doing with the money. That’s not right. Let me break it down for you, Madam Speaker. In the past few years, the government has been setting aside money in something called a contingency fund. This allows them to play around with the numbers and make it look like they’re spending more than they actually are. It’s like using an accounting trick to make things seem better than they really are. This isn’t just happening with education; it’s happening in a lot of public services in the province of Ontario as well. It’s not fair to the people who rely on those services.

Take education, for example: In the budget of the 2019-20 school year, there was a line that was called “unallocated amounts.” It wasn’t a lot of money; it was $82 million. But then the following year, that line disappeared and instead they started putting money into something called a “planning provision.” Here’s the thing about the planning provision: School boards can’t actually use the money for anything.

I know that’s my time. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

It’s time for questions.

Next question?

I always enjoy my colleague from Niagara Falls when he speaks.

You were talking to the kids when they were here, saying that they’re our future, but they’re also our biggest resource. It’s not gold. It’s not materials or EV batteries. It’s not that; it’s our youth. And yet we see this government’s own panel of experts recommend—a blue-ribbon panel recommended an urgent $2.5-billion investment over three years, and that’s minimum. That’s minimum.

I heard you speak about how students are struggling. I want to ask you, what would the NDP government do? Because they’re not doing that which should be done. I know you brought some good points, but I’d like to hear from you, if we had recommendations like this, what would the NDP government do for their kids?

Thank you to my colleague for his speech this afternoon.

I know my colleague was talking about the cost of groceries. But it’s kind of ironic that the federal NDP props up the current federal Liberal government that has the highest carbon tax in North America. They prop them up. And he could really help the province and the people and the constituents he serves by talking to his federal NDP colleagues, Speaker.

I know the member also mentioned mental health supports and the availability of these very important supports at their institutions. I know at committee, members of the opposition called the requirement for institutions to have accessible mental health policies in this bill “unnecessary red tape.” Student mental health policies which are accessible and transparent are essential for students seeking help.

Will the member opposite stand in this House today and support Bill 166, or do they also believe that less paperwork for institutions is more of a priority than the well-being of students?

I think there’s a bit of an irony alert going on here. The Premier’s office has gone from 16 to 48 staff on the sunshine list in the last five years, has gone from about $3 million to almost $7 million in just that spending alone. That’s pretty rich. I mean, I did describe it as the gravy train. I think it’s a really apt—

Interjection: Choo-choo.

But you know what? Here’s the irony: They added another car on the gravy train. They just appointed a failed candidate in Ottawa onto the sunshine list to work for the Premier in Ottawa, bypassing the members who are here. It’s shocking.

But is there not irony? This government is talking about doing all of these great things but not putting any money towards it. It seems like it’s all going to the Premier’s office.