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’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.

I thank the member for his remarks this afternoon. I’m just reflecting a little bit on the objectives for this legislation. If passed, it would require colleges and universities to have policies relating to student mental health and wellness. These supports would be available to meet the needs of unique student populations. It would also require colleges and universities to have policies in place to combat racism and hate, and greater consistency in how these incidents are dealt with. And it would also authorize the minister to issue directives requiring colleges and universities to provide information about ancillary fees and other student costs—I heard the member talking about costs—including textbooks and other learning materials.

So, really, my question is, aren’t these objectives important to education in Ontario and ones that the member could support?

That was kind of an interesting question. First of all, if you guys were honest with the public, you’d know that you got rid of a cap-and-trade system that made polluters pay, which meant that nobody else had to pay. Farmers didn’t have to pay. Housewives didn’t have to pay. Husbands didn’t have to pay. It was done through cap-and-trade. Instead, you took it to court. You went to court to argue you didn’t have to have a cap-and-trade in the province of Ontario. You went to court, and guess what happened? You lost, for the 47th time—because every time you go to court, you don’t win. And then you decided, “Now we’re going to have the carbon tax,” and then you blamed everybody else but yourselves, because you’re the ones who didn’t want the cap-and-trade. Do you know why you didn’t want it? Because your buddies that are paying $1,000 every time they come to one of your fundraisers were very happy they didn’t have to pay because they were polluting anymore, because it was put onto everybody else in this room but the ones that were emitting—

Interjection: Resource.

I think it’s easy to answer what you should be doing for education. One thing I talked about: Get rid of the kids paying taxes on their student loans. I think that’s the first thing we should do.

The second thing is called funding. Everything comes down to funding. There’s a reason why Niagara college is $12 million in debt. There’s a reason why Brock University is $35 million in debt. It’s all about funding, and it’s all playing with the numbers. I’m glad to see my colleague from Niagara West is back, because he went to Brock University, and I’m sure he doesn’t want that university to be $35 million in debt either.

So there’s the things you do: Fund it properly; take the interest off the poor students that are paying that. It’s ridiculous.

So they are definitely, definitely a problem. I agree 100% with you. There are better ways to spend money. It’s about choices, and the choices should always be putting money into education, putting money into a publicly funded, publicly delivered health care system. It’s about choices. Their choice is about privatizing, whether it’s in our public system or whether it’s in our health care system.

So I agree with you. That’s the second time I’ve agreed with you in 12 years.

It’s all about funding. So you can stand up and say, “Well, isn’t this good?” I think it’s great that we spend as much money as we can on mental health. I’m a firm believer in that. There’s a crisis there. But you can’t say to the college, “You’ve got to do this, but we’re not going to give you enough money to actually run your classrooms.” That’s what’s happened. It’s about choices, and the choice from your government should be funding them properly.

If the blue-ribbon panel is saying—that you put together, by the way; this is your own. You guys did it. It was your own. It’s not mine. It’s not the Liberals’. It’s yours. So do the recommendation: at least $2.5 billion. And you put $1.25 billion and then you throw more rules on the colleges and universities when it comes to mental health. That means cuts to student learning. That’s just the way it’s going to have to be, because the envelope is not big enough.

Well, we absolutely should be treating our international students with respect, but not only is Germany the same way, Finland is as well, and so is Sweden, and both those countries actually have the highest union representation in the world because they’re paid fairly, they get vacation time, all that stuff.

So absolutely, I agree with you. International students shouldn’t be looked at as cash cows; they should be treated with respect and dignity, and when they come to this country, that’s exactly how we think—and when we go to Germany, they should treat us the same way: with respect and dignity when it comes to paying for universities or colleges.

No one could argue against anti-racism, mental health or fee transparency policies. They all make perfect sense. Everyone deserves a safe and welcoming post-secondary experience. The challenges our students are facing are real, and they deserve real support, real advocacy and strength, funding and respect.

Putting out a piece of paper with policies but no money attached is wrong. This government needs to invest in safety from racism, help to overcome challenges in mental health, and the security of financial transparency.

The money this government has allocated to post-secondary recently is just half of what was recommended by the government’s own experts, and that’s even before the international students were capped.

Speaker, anti-racism and mental health both touch vulnerable and marginalized communities. The fact that this government wants to hand down policies without consultation, not only is awful for academic freedom, but I believe it’s a reckless approach to policies that will have serious consequences on people’s lives. This lack of consultation is completely unprecedented.

When the previous Liberal government asked post-secondary institutions to have sexual harassment policies, there was a defined and rigorous consultation process that led to good policy. That’s what we need. We need good policy.

The Premier himself even said, “Universities and colleges are really good, and it’s up to the dean to govern their universities.” I wonder, what makes it that a minister will know more about how to deliver good programs for students than the people that are on the front lines in those institutions every day. Speaker, all of these institutions already have these policies. They just need proper funding.

Also, the minister has repeatedly refused to state how they plan to penalize non-compliant institutions. Will the minister financially penalize institutions? We can’t say. This is the glimpse in the lack of transparency that we can expect in the future. This bodes poorly for this bill. When the government mandated free speech policies in 2018, it was explicitly with the threat of funding cuts. I’m a little worried that they’re refusing to give the details this time around.

This government’s approach to this bill, with no formal consultation taking place, is not the way forward for dealing with complex social issues that require input from across a broad spectrum of stakeholders. We could end up hurting people if we don’t do this right, so why not take the time to actually listen to those experts, listen to people with experience in mental health and other things? How do we prevent these policies from being hijacked for personal benefit or political gain? What processes are there in place to make sure that that doesn’t happen? I don’t see them, Speaker, and that worries me.

These policies currently exist, and I think that the universities and colleges did a good job of creating the kind of policies they need. Could they be improved? Absolutely. Now, that would have been a bill, to mandate that the policies that are in the universities and colleges need to be reviewed every three years, every two years. Now, that would make sense, because that would make sure that they’re addressing the most current issues that are out there and that things that we’re learning about today that we had not thought about five years ago are included in the policies. That’s something that would make sense, and it would also make sense in terms of funding if we’re funding mental health.

We don’t even know what these policies will look like if they’re handed down from on high. What one college in northern Ontario needs and a university in southern Ontario could be two different things. We don’t know. But I would like to see that whatever money comes into these kinds of policies, which I think—I think they are really important; they’re absolutely essential if we are going to do a better job of making our education system more inclusive and more welcoming and more open and more successful to more people.

I believe that the experts are at the coalface, as we would say in the military. They are on the front lines, are at the colleges and are at the universities, and are at the mental health agencies. We need to listen to the people who know, and I worry that these decisions will be taken up to the minister’s office without that consultation we need in order to make them as good as they could possibly be, in order to make them so that they will serve the greatest number of people and serve them well.

I don’t think that handing down extra policy requirements is addressing the reality of the current situation. The government is happy to tell you that our students are their priority, but I’ll tell you what, Madam Speaker: Show me your budget and I’ll show you what you care about. We’ll say that over and over again. Coming up with policies of this nature that are so instrumental—can be instrumental—in people’s future without transparency, without consultation and without funding is just plain wrong.

In closing, no one could argue against anti-racism, mental health or fee transparency policies. Everyone deserves a safe and welcoming post-secondary experience. The challenges our students are facing are real, and they deserve real support, real advocacy and strength, funding and respect.

Next question?

Further debate?

I enjoyed in particular the member for Niagara Falls talking about international students because I’m very concerned about them. I see an incredible amount of international students in Ottawa using food banks and who are very housing-insecure, and I just want to zoom out for a minute because there are other places in the world that treat international students very differently.

I want to cite in particular Germany. Germany is a place with over 300 public post-secondary institutions, and you can study there as a Canadian for free, for minimal tuition; there are nominal fees here and there.

The German economy is one of the most successful economies. I had the occasion to go there for some conferences when I was a student. I learned a lot from people I met over there about how particular industries run in that country, and I’m wondering if we could actually convince this government to financially contribute to colleges and universities. Why couldn’t we treat international students with more respect?

The independent Liberals and the opposition routinely vote against every measure that our government initiates to make life more affordable, and of course, the member opposite who just made her submission is a former member of a government that brought us a dreaded carbon tax.

I wonder, since this bill, Bill 166, is about increasing transparency, allowing students to make more informed choices and, of course, maintaining the principle behind the lower tuition rates for students—it’s about putting students first, supporting students and creating and improving transparency—will the member commit to voting for transparency and the core principles of this bill, which is about students?

There’s 40 seconds, Madam Speaker—