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 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—

Next question?

Further debate?

Again, we talk about transparency; we talk about the intent of this bill. The Premier was quoted saying, when he was asked about Bill 166, that he had concerns about political interference and he said, “We shouldn’t get involved in that and that’s really up to the dean to govern his own university. I think we shouldn’t get involved in that.” This is where the confusion lies.

Then we get a statement from the Premier’s office saying that he supports the bill. Now we have directives from the minister asking the colleges and universities to have a student mental health policy, which we think we need to make sure is robust there. But they need to put their programs on the website and report back and they need to comply. But in the bill, they don’t tell you what the compliance measures will be if they fail to do that, and that’s another confusing part.

Can the member comment on how confusing this legislation has become with the Premier’s comments and then no recourse for how they have to comply, and when they don’t comply, what are the consequences?

I hope this question is not too personal for the member. You may have heard me mention the gravy train a bit earlier and how the Premier has 48 people on the sunshine list in his office and how he’s added another person to work for him in Ottawa—actually, the candidate that you beat in the last election is going on the sunshine list and probably making more money than any minister is here. But that’s not the point.

Actually, that office is going to cost $1.7 million a year for someone who you beat, and we all know the reason for doing that is that’s what the Premier wants to spend to try and get the seat back. Don’t you think it would be smarter for the Premier actually to just invest that money in the things that we’re talking about here?

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for letting me join the debate on Bill 166, the Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act, 2024. Once again, what’s clear is that our government is putting students first, with a continued focus on accountability, efficiency and financial sustainability in our world-class post-secondary education system: nearly $1.3 million in new funding, while maintaining the tuition fee freeze to keep costs down for Ontario’s students and their hard-working parents.

If passed, this legislation will support student mental health, safe and inclusive campuses and allow for increased transparency of fees.

Speaker, I have two universities in the region of Durham. One is Ontario Tech and the other is Trent Durham, and I also have a community college. But I’d like to share with the House—because I think it’s material to our debate today—what Trent Durham had to say about the legislation before us:

“As an institution that has advocated for wraparound supports for our students, Trent is pleased by the news of investments in enhanced mental health supports for students.” They went on to say, “Renewed support for capital repairs and equipment will help Trent maintain its world-class facilities for teaching and research.”

They concluded by saying, “The new funding will allow Trent to continue our role as a key contributor to the well-being of our communities, driving regional innovation and economic growth, and providing our graduates with the skills and abilities to support the complex workforce needs locally, nationally and internationally.”

Speaker, Ontario Tech also had this to say: “Happy to see Minister Dunlop commit to additional funding for students in STEM fields.

“With Ontario Tech’s focus on STEM and health programs linked to labour-market needs, we hope this will create more opportunities to prepare our students for rewarding and in-demand careers.”

Speaker, this suite of measures also includes initiatives that will help connect students to rewarding careers to build Ontario’s skilled workforce. One of the skilled trade centres is situated in Durham College, which I share with the Honourable Todd McCarthy. He has part of it in Oshawa, and I have part of it in Whitby. If you’ve ever toured that skilled trade centre, you’ll see the impact that it’s making on the lives of young men and young women, potentially, as they move forward with their career.

What’s clear to me and my colleagues is that it has never been more important to keep costs down for students and hard-working parents. Instead of burdening hard-working families in Whitby and other parts of the Durham region with higher tuition, we’re making historic investments to stabilize colleges and universities. Whether it’s Ontario Tech, whether it’s Trent Durham or whether it’s Durham College, we’re doing that. We’re doing that to support students and their families.

Ontario is extending the tuition-fee freeze for public assisted colleges and universities for at least three more years, which is significant overall. Institutions will be able, though, to increase tuition by up to 5% for out-of-province domestic students. At the time the freeze was first introduced and accompanied by a 10% reduction in fees, Ontario had the highest university tuition rates in the country. Since then, students and parents have saved an estimated $1,600 per year on average for university and an estimated $350 per year on average for community college compared to what they would have paid under the previous policy that allowed 3% increases each year.

I’d like to provide some examples of how this legislation stabilizes post-secondary institutions. The Ontario government is investing:

—$903 million over three years through the new Postsecondary Education Sustainability Fund, starting in 2024-25, including $203 million in funding for top-ups for institutions with greater financial need;

—$167.4 million over three years in additional funding or capital repairs and equipment; and

—$10 million in additional one-time funding through the Small, Northern and Rural Grant for colleges and the Northern Ontario Grant for universities in 2024 and 2025.

This funding will support financially vulnerable institutions while the government works with them on efficiency initiatives. And with respect to efficiency initiatives, there are many universities, like Ontario Tech, who have been spending time looking at efficiency initiatives in their particular sector.

There’s $15 million over three years beginning in 2024-25 through the Efficiency and Accountability Fund to support third-party reviews that will identify actions institutions can take to drive long-term cost savings and positive outcomes for students and communities, and $100 million in 2023-24 to support STEM program costs at publicly assisted colleges and universities with enrolments above currently funded levels.

I have some quotes from some of the universities and community colleges that I’d like to share with members in the Legislative Assembly right now, starting with Brock University’s Lesley Rigg, who is the president and vice-chancellor: “We have heard directly from industry that there’s a significant need for STEM workers, both in the Niagara region and across the province. We are very appreciative of the provincial government’s investment in STEM students, who will go on to fill labour market gaps and contribute to the future of Ontario’s economy.”

Long-time president at Seneca College, David Agnew: “We’re delighted that the government has recognized the value applied master’s degrees can bring to the Ontario economy, both for existing businesses and those who can attract the province. These degrees bring a practical, career-focused approach, building on the years of experience we have in offering students skills-based graduate education.”

And then there’s $65.4 million to support research and innovation, including $27.4 million for the infrastructure refresh of Ontario’s advanced research computing systems and $18 million for their ongoing operations and maintenance; and, importantly, $23 million to enhance mental health supports, including $8 million for the post-secondary mental health action plan over three years.

Now, Speaker, when I first came into the Legislative Assembly in 2016, I was appointed by the then-Leader of the Opposition to be the critic of colleges and universities, and then, subsequent to that, the critic for education. In those roles, I travelled the province visiting campuses, both community colleges and universities, and what I heard continually was the need for more mental health supports from students and from some of the faculty. That’s the importance of this $18 million for ongoing operations and maintenance, but $23 million to enhance mental health supports.

There are universities like Ontario Tech in Oshawa, which has been a leader in providing mental health supports for students for quite some time. And why is that? Well, they use a stepped care approach to mental health services that triages students to intake coordinators and wellness coordinators who serve the population, in the course of that reducing wait times for service and using the lowest level of intervention necessary. They’re also advantaged, Speaker, by the assistance of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, and Durham mental health, as well, but it’s a model that could be adopted in other areas as well.

If passed, this particular legislation would allow the minister to issue directives requiring colleges and universities to provide information about auxiliary fees and other student costs, including costs for textbooks or other learning materials. Importantly, to provide additional transparency as it relates to tuition, the province will also engage with colleges and universities to create tuition fee transparency to help students and their families better understand how tuition fees are used

The legislation would also, if passed, require colleges and universities to have policies in place related, as I just described, to mental health and wellness supports and services and require colleges and universities to have policies in place to combat racism and hate, including but not limited to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

The province is also introducing measures to protect students and improve the integrity of career colleges. The province will better integrate enforcement efforts across ministries to strengthen the oversight of career colleges and will ensure timely responses to concerns and complaints by improving data management, document processes and the efficacy of compliance investigations.

As recommended by the blue-ribbon panel, the government will be working with colleges and universities to establish certain core competencies for board members, including financial literacy and risk management.

Now, to help more students find jobs, the province intends to allow colleges to offer applied master’s degrees in areas of study that will help students graduate with in-demand skills, expertise and credentials. This approach will also provide local employers access to more industry-ready employees that meet labour market needs in specialized fields such as advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence and animation.

Speaker, when I meet with the chamber of commerce and other chambers across the region of Durham, this has been a long-standing ask of these employees. We’re approaching close to a million people in the region as I speak here this afternoon. Meeting this particular need is going to make a big difference with the local business community.

The province is also going to launch a career portal to help students understand labour market needs and make informed decisions on post-secondary education.

Speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit more about financial sustainability, because in the discussion that has taken place thus far this afternoon and earlier debates on this bill, there’s been a diversion of opinion. The long-term financial sustainability of our post-secondary institutions is a top priority, moving forward. However, the sustainability and viability of our sector is a shared responsibility. Increasing operating dollars so schools benefit on the backs of taxpayers or increasing tuition on students is not the solution. And we’ve heard that. We’ve heard that at delegations from students.

When our government invests over $5 billion of taxpayers’ dollars annually in operating funding for our colleges and universities, we need to ensure that money is being spent wisely. That doesn’t account for the billions in tuition, including over a billion through OSAP, that students and their families are spending on education each and every year. Our government’s response to the blue-ribbon panel report demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that college and university education will not be funded off the backs of students. Our government has committed to keeping the cost of post-secondary education low for students while providing the largest investment in over a decade to schools to provide them with the predictability and stability they need for the future.

Speaker, the members of the Durham four, which include myself; the Honourable Todd McCarthy; our finance minister, the Honourable Peter Bethlenfalvy; and our representative from Ajax, Patrice Barnes—we’ve heard this regularly when we meet, as we do regularly, with the presidents of Ontario Tech and Trent Durham, and we certainly do from the new president of Durham College. So, once again, our government is committed to keeping the cost of post-secondary education low for students while providing the largest investment in over a decade to schools to provide them with the predictability and stability they need for the future.

I talked a little bit earlier about sector accountability, and I can’t overemphasize that point: the importance of ensuring that colleges and universities operate transparently and are accountable to students and taxpayers about how their money is spent. In my region, and I know that Minister McCarthy will attest to this as well, they do that well. They do that well. They have KPIs and other measures to ensure that the money is being spent and is accountable to students and taxpayers.

The Ministry of Colleges and Universities has already begun working with institutions on a financial accountability framework that will allow for early detection of financial challenges and require immediate action where challenges exist going forward. From governance practices, program offerings, day-to-day operations and everything in between, colleges and universities across the province need to become the very best possible version of themselves, and I know that Ontario Tech and Trent Durham and Durham College are striving to do that every day, every month. My colleagues in Durham region see evidence of that, and I’m confident that other colleagues here in the Legislative Assembly see evidence of that as well.

This is not a change that’s going to happen overnight, but it’s one that’s necessary so that students, families and taxpayers can have confidence that every dollar is being allocated appropriately and with complete transparency. Because at the end of the day, when it comes to ensuring a bright future for our students—and I know we’re all committed to that—we cannot afford to provide anything less than a first-class education that is efficient, accountable and puts the needs of students first.

In summary, what I’ve described today are the first of many actions the government is taking as the government introduces a path forward where all partners, like Ontario Tech, Trent Durham, Durham College and the region of Durham, play a pivotal role in contributing to financial viability and creating supportive learning environments that prepare Durham students for great careers and, yes, success.

The province is supporting the financial sustainability of the post-secondary sector, as I said, and will provide all institutions with an inflation-based increase to their operating grants as well as offering more targeted support for the financial sustainability of publicly assisted colleges and universities. We’re going to work with the post-secondary institutions to create greater efficiencies in operations, program offerings and sustainability of the sector so that they can continue to provide financial relief and predictability for students and families seeking access to affordable post-secondary institutions overall.

The government is continuing to work to ensure students have access to the right conditions to support their well-being and achieve success at colleges and universities. This legislation, if passed, will enhance student mental health supports, increase auxiliary fee transparency and help students plan early for their educational costs and, at the end of the day, help prepare them for great careers and their longer-term success as contributors to our economy.