I’m honoured to stand and share a few words on Bill 166, Strengthening Accountability and Student Supports Act.

The first thing I’d like to say before I start is a huge thank you to the Women and Gender Studies Institute at the University of Toronto. I am a graduate, an alumna, of WGSI, and yesterday we had a chance to sit on a panel—myself with about 13 other graduates of the WGSI program—to celebrate International Women’s Day. It was really a good reminder of just how important the post-secondary sector is to the social, cultural and economic health of our province. I was reminded just listening to some of the stories of the graduates on that panel about how incredibly important it is for us to invest in post-secondary so we can have the leaders in law, in politics, in food justice, in the arts, in education, in health care that were there last night.

I just want to say thank you to WGSI. I was a student there back in 2007, a lifetime ago, and my commitment to trying my best to bring equity issues into this House, to grapple with race and gender and class and sexuality and all of our social locations and how they impact our experiences in institutions like politics, I really do owe that analysis, that lens, to WGSI.

We really do need to properly fund our colleges and universities, because there’s no question that they are at the heart of creating our next generation of leaders, and, frankly, at the heart of keeping a sustainable economy, because that’s where our future hard workers will come from.

I want to say that I appreciate the government’s effort to actually name some equity issues that they’re looking to address in our post-secondary sector. Bill 166 claims to want to address the mental health crisis in post-secondary, and that is commendable, as it’s written in the bill, that you want to address that.

You also mention that you want to address things like anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Palestinian racism, all forms of racism; homophobia, transphobia. Equity issues will be addressed at universities, reportedly, by this Bill 166. While that is a very good thought—it’s a good idea; it’s a good goal—I worry about the history of this government. I’ll never forget: One of the first things that shocked me in this Legislature was a few years back when the Conservative government slashed funding to the Anti-Racism Directorate. At one point, it had a budget of $1,000 to address inequities here in the province of Ontario.

So it’s a bit mind-boggling to believe, to be frank, that this government is actually committed to addressing those equity issues that I just mentioned, that are in your bill—and I actually support that piece of the bill, for sure, around addressing equity issues and mental health issues—when this is the same government that has slashed hundreds of millions of dollars in mental health supports. This is the same government that literally attacked our public school curriculum and tried their best to literally erase the lives and experiences of 2SLGBTQIA+ community members in curriculum—the same government, if I may just say, that voted down our bill to have gender-affirming health care recognized, and a simple advisory committee of, guess what, trans folks and other members from our 2SLGBTQIA+ community to be able to speak to the Minister of Health. So it’s difficult to believe that these equity issues are really at the heart of this legislation.

Furthermore, as I heard from my caucus and from other caucuses, the independent members—I wasn’t here yesterday, but the thought of the government trying to shut down the voices of women in this Legislature, that’s a significant inequity hours before International Women’s Day. So again, while I am supportive of what have this bill says in writing about addressing inequities and mental health challenges, based on the track record, I have significant worries about whether or not this is actually the case.

And from my experience, from talking to folks—funnily enough, many of whom don’t want to be named—from a lot of post-secondary institutions—we’ve got one institution in my riding. We have George Brown, and we thank God for George Brown, because they have 12 child care centres located around the city, and we have our own Casa Loma Child Care Centre, which is such a beacon of hope for those students who are eager to join our education, early education, care programs. But we also know that many of these programs are graduating students who, within weeks, months, in the industry, realize that they cannot get jobs that allow them to actually afford to live in this province during an affordability crisis. So what happens? We lose ECEs. We lose folks who could be in our communities working, contributing to our economy, if they were able to get the proper salaries that they deserve.

This issue with supporting our post-secondary institutions—and we know that this has been an issue of chronic underfunding for decades, and it is not only the responsibility of this government. I’ve learned in the five years that I was here that the Liberal government certainly had a thing or two to do with chronic underfunding of our post-secondary institutions. But we are here in 2024, and this is the government of the day, the Conservative government. So I wonder why the government’s own expert panel, the blue-ribbon panel, recommended $2.5 billion of investment over three years just to stay afloat. That’s really important: just to stay afloat. So we’re not necessarily talking about being excellent; we’re talking about “just to stay afloat.” Why would this government fund just barely half of that, and what does that message show?

We want to talk about equity. We want to give more students mental health supports. But who is going to do this? Policy needs people power to help implement said policies and initiatives. And if I’m a post-secondary student walking into an office where I’m seeking counsel because I am struggling—maybe it’s a mental health situation; maybe I’ve just been kicked out of my home for coming out; maybe I can’t afford food and I’m not concentrating in class and my grades are slipping. If I walk into that office and there’s no human body there, how do I get the help I need?

So at the crux, this bill is not addressing the financial crisis that our post-secondary schools are dealing with. And in fact, the bill does not address that this government and the previous Liberal governments have sort of, you know, stuck the price tag on the backs of international students.

If we think about international students—you know, you’re coming here. You may not have many friends, unless you’re connected on social media before you arrive. You want to have a little bit of entertainment, if you can, on the side. You want to be able to go to the movies. You want to be able to have a treat at a restaurant. Heck, you might even find someone in this wonderful province and you might want to take them out on a date. These things are highly impossible when your tuition fees are triple or more the tuition of domestic students. And even the tuition rates for domestic students are quite egregious.

So we’re not properly funding post-secondary education. We’re not addressing the staffing crisis in post-secondary education.

Interjection.