My question is to the Premier. Speaker, last month, Fleming College abruptly announced the closure of 29 programs in Peterborough and Lindsay, following the loss of $40 million in international student tuition and years of provincial underfunding. With the college sector facing a projected $3-billion revenue loss over the next three years, Fleming is likely the first of many colleges to slash programs and possibly close campuses, which will be a huge blow to the communities and local economies that rely on graduates of college programs and the jobs that colleges provide.

Speaker, will this government act now to pause the program closures at Fleming and commit to a permanent increase in post-secondary base funding before it’s too late?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 was listening quite intently to my colleague’s remarks. He said that this was the biggest investment in post-secondary education in a decade. That’s 10 years. That means that we spent more money 10 years ago, but everybody is saying that this is a historic investment. If he could sort that out for me, what that means, I’d like to know, because I do know that if you take a look at the investment into the campuses between 2003 and 2015, it’s pretty significant investments that went into post-secondary education.

I guess the thing is—

Interjection.

How would you describe saying you’re going to do something great, but not putting real money behind it? What would you describe that as, my esteemed colleague?