What we have here is a mess that started long ago with the Liberal government, with the lowest provincial funding—the member talked about it being 44% of the average of other provinces’ funding. Very low funding led to precarious work—a rise in sessional precarious professors teaching our young ones. That led to the exploitation of international students. The massive growth, a 343% increase—a 420% increase in private international students, attracting people to fill the coffers and pay the bills that the Conservative and Liberal governments are refusing to pay. The federal announcement is going to result in about a $2-billion cut. The Conservative government’s solution to this is to provide an approximately $23-million top-up.

To the member: What is wrong with these governments? They don’t understand that we need to provide proper funding to our post-secondary institutions so that students can be successful. It’s not about freezing fees or slightly reducing tuition. It’s about paying the system properly so that post-secondary institutions, like Laurentian University, aren’t in fear of going into bankruptcy and so our students can be successful without a lifetime of debt.

It is a pleasure to rise today to highlight some recent announcements I was able to make on behalf of the Minister of Health in my riding of Perth–Wellington. Last month I was pleased to announce not one but two local family health teams would be receiving funding to expand primary care in our rural communities.

The Minto–Mapleton Family Health Team will receive over $560,000 to hire two additional nurse practitioners, an RPN and a medical receptionist. This funding will ensure an additional 1,600 residents can access primary care closer to home.

The Listowel–Wingham family health team will receive over $822,000 to expand primary care to serve an additional 2,000 residents.

Speaker, it truly was a historic day for our rural public health care sector. The province-wide investment of $90 million represents the first expansion of primary care in Ontario’s history, ever. It is disappointing the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, had 15 years to expand primary care in rural Ontario, and they chose not to, Speaker. In fact, the current Liberal members and the current NDP members voted against our historic expansion.

Despite these obstacles the previous Liberal government put in place, we are rebuilding our public health care sector. We’re expanding medical school spots and nurse practitioner spots. We expanded the clinical extern program. Speaker, our government will continue to expand primary care.

I thank the member for his question. As I stated in my remarks, there are certainly steps that have been taken in this bill that are addressing concerns that have been raised by stakeholders, especially students; however, so much more needs to be done. At the end of the day, we can have amazing, strong policies in place that are posted on the website and that everybody is aware of, but it doesn’t mean that in reality anything is changing, because the funding is lacking.

If we don’t increase the funding, what is essentially going to happen is that more supports and services, even the existing ones, are under threat and at risk for cutting.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly) Further questions?

Earlier today, the government and other members of the House spoke about the importance of International Women’s Day and the importance of us nurturing the leaders of tomorrow. I would like to ask the member for Parkdale–High Park how important it is to invest in said institutions, in our colleges and our universities, that are nurturing these leaders of tomorrow. Because I suspect it’s impossible—it’s impossible—for us to continue having women CEOs, presidents, chancellors, MPPs, all of these phenomenal women that we want to celebrate on International Women’s Day, without proper funding.

So, when the government’s own expert panel recommends $2.5 billion over three years, and the government invests roughly half that, what’s that impact on our post-secondary sector and students?

I thank the member for his question. I’ll say two things: One, I think your time would be better spent worrying if you’re actually doing something to help students. Again, as I shared reaction and thoughts from stakeholders, I have not heard a single stakeholder call this bill, as the member called it, a massive win—no. In fact, we’re hearing the opposite, that the government has finally decided after, again, decades of inaction—not just under you, the Liberals and you, but it has gotten worse under the Conservatives for sure. This is a small step. Even the funding is a drop in the bucket. There’s a lot more that needs to be done.

In this day and age, you need a master’s. It’s the minimum you need—a bachelor’s for sure. Certainly, I don’t want to—I’m not talking about the trades. There is obviously that pathway as well. But I’m saying, in terms of—

But when it comes to—

Thank you to the member from Don Valley East, and particularly for the reminders about the cuts to actual funding supports for domestic students.

After my PhD, I taught for 11 years in a university, and I’ve certainly seen the increase of international students and the stresses that they’re under, and the exploitation that they’re experiencing. We have an institution that’s based on the exploitation of international students and the exploitation of the existing talent of the graduates of those very same institutions who are precarious workers. That includes library and support staff.

Now, I doubt that the government intends to be transparent about this aspect of how universities are being supported, but I know that when students learn about the exploitation that underpins their education, they’re really shocked. They’re really upset. They’re asking themselves, “Do I want to be part of this? Is this what it means to get an education?”

So my question is, what do you think the message is to students and Ontarians when our post-secondary institutions are based on exploitation?

As the finance critic, I’m very concerned about the operational funding for post-secondary institutions. We do know that these institutions have become very dependent on international students. With the reduction in international students and the failure to meet the moment, we now know that the PSE sector will be seeing a 15% cutback, which is only comparable to 1996 Mike Harris.

How is this government going to support post-secondary institutions in their core business of education?

I thank the member opposite for her comments in the House this afternoon. The member gave us a history lesson on our funding in combatting hate and racism in the province of Ontario.

I was just wondering if the member knew that the government has invested $132 million in an anti-racism strategic plan. I’m wondering if the member knows that we’ve invested $80 million in anti-hate funding initiatives. And I wonder if the member knows that we invested $27 million into the Anti-Racism Directorate.

We know that communities and people across the province are feeling a sense of angst because of the heightened acts of hate we’ve seen, particularly on campuses.

What message does that send to communities—by the NDP voting against this bill?

Thank you for that question from the member from University–Rosedale. One of the most impactful things I remember in this House was when the Conservative government cut mental health funding by $330 million, I believe it was. That spoke volumes about this government’s “commitment” to mental health.

The reality is mental health for many Ontarians is something that they need to pull out their credit card for. It’s not something that they can access freely. It’s not covered under OHIP, necessarily, for everyone. It would be great to see a province that recognizes that mental health is health and that we need to have our mental health services covered by OHIP so that every student, even when they graduate, can get access to the supports they need, because that’s how they become contributing citizens. That’s how they can become homeowners. That’s how they can become employed and leaders and possibly one day take their—

Again, it comes back to the point: The bill has some very positive first steps. As I said, years ago you all gave the Anti-Racism Directorate a $1,000 budget. I’m sure some of your suits cost more than $1,000. So the fact that you’re at least addressing the issues of equity and mental health is a good thing. I’m just saying, put some money behind it. Properly invest in the post-secondary sector so they can actually do this work that you are saying you want to get done.

And listen to us—