I have a petition entitled “Stop Bill 166.” This is legislation, of course, that was passed yesterday in this Legislature, despite the opposition of the official opposition. The reason we opposed that bill is set out in this petition. It’s because it directs anti-racism and mental health work on campuses without the involvement of those who have expertise in this area, at a time when there have been significant cuts to community mental health services and, also, an effective dismantling of the Anti-Racism Directorate.

It also notes that our post-secondary institutions are facing a very serious fiscal crisis, and the inadequacy of the government’s funding for post-secondary education is going to mean cuts to staff who work in mental health and anti-racism services on campus. The petition raises concerns about the political interference in university research and education in Ontario through Bill 166, and notes that the protection of universities from political interference is lauded as a cornerstone of democracy and, therefore, calls on the government to not move ahead with Bill 166.

I fully support this petition, affix my signature and will send it to the table with page Harry.

This petition notes that the pressure placed on our education system has led to a dramatic increase in reports of violence in our schools, as well as an increase in the severity of the violent incidents. The petition recommends that classroom sizes be reduced, that additional supports be funded for schools, including mental health resources. It calls for an end to violence against education workers, teachers and EAs and other education staff. It calls for improved workplace reporting and more support staff.

Those are the kinds of measures that would be needed to address violence in our schools. Those are measures I fully support, and I will affix my signature and send the petition to the table with page Harry again.

I have a petition that calls upon this Legislature to stop Bill 166. The petition notes that this government has made significant cuts to community mental health services and has also effectively dismantled the Anti-Racism Directorate, so this increases the pressure on our post-secondary institutions to provide student mental health services and to effectively tackle racism and hate on campus.

However, at the same time, the government has underfunded post-secondary education to such an extent that the mental health services are being limited and the anti-racism work is difficult to undertake because there are so few staff.

Bill 166 opens the door to unprecedented political interference in our colleges and universities in this province. The protection of universities from political interference is highly regarded as a cornerstone of a democratic society, which is why the petitioners, who include many, many faculty, staff and students from Western University as well as members of the community, are calling on the government to stop Bill 166, to use the powers of the Anti-Racism Act to enable the anti-racism work that critically needs to happen in this province, and to restore funding to post-secondary institutions so that they can provide student mental health services and support from equity offices.

I fully support this petition. I will affix my signature and send it to the table with page Raisa.

I have a petition that is signed by hundreds of residents of the city of London, including many faculty and staff who work at Western University. This petition is calling on the government to stop Bill 166 immediately. It notes the cuts that were made to community mental health services by this government right after they were elected, which has increased the mental health demands on our Ontario campuses from students, and the impact of COVID on student mental health needs. It also notes the dismantling of the Anti-Racism Directorate, which affects the ability to implement measures to address Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Black racism and anti-Indigenous racism on our campuses and in our province.

This petition raises concerns about the political interference that is represented by Bill 166, which allows the minister to unilaterally dictate campus policies on student mental health and racism and hate, which represents a degree of political interference that undermines democracy and the autonomy of our academic institutions.

The petition calls on the government to stop Bill 166, to re-establish the committees under the Anti-Racism Act and, most importantly, to provide funding to our post-secondary institutions so that they can provide the mental health supports that students need and also address incidents of racism and hate on campus.

I fully support this petition, affix my signature and will send it to the table with page Kai.

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.

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.

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?

My question is to the Premier. The committee reviewing Bill 166 has heard repeated concerns about the alarming overreach of the bill in empowering the minister to unilaterally dictate the contents of post-secondary policies on student mental health and racism and hate on campus. So it was quite a relief last week to hear the Premier say that he agreed Bill 166 went too far, because universities are legislated to govern themselves.

Unfortunately, the Premier issued a statement a few hours later announcing his support for the bill after all. Speaker, can the Premier tell us what happened to make him change his mind?

Not only does Bill 166 permit unprecedented political interference in the autonomy of universities, putting the government in conflict with each of Ontario’s universities acts, but it could also conflict with the Ontario Human Rights Code. This government already lost in court once over its attempt to use ministerial directives to dictate university policies on student fees.

Instead of spending public dollars on a lost-cause court challenge, why won’t this government invest in the mental health and anti-racism support that post-secondary students need?

Interjections.

I listened to the comments from the members on the opposite side, and I want to ask a question specifically to the member for Markham–Thornhill. He spoke very powerfully and sincerely about his awareness of the devastating consequences of sexual violence for the survivor, in the case of post-secondary institutions, overwhelmingly, the young women who are the people who experience sexual violence on campus.

Now, I wonder if he would agree that the experience would be just as devastating, just as shattering, for that young woman if she is on a co-op placement or an internship or some other kind of work experience learning thing that is mandated by the institution, and if he could answer why there is no oversight of those supervisors for experiential learning placements.

I’d like to congratulate my colleague the member for Toronto Centre on her remarks today, but also her leadership in her private member’s bill on Consent Awareness Week. I was privileged to attend the launch of that bill the day that she tabled it in this Legislature, and I heard the widespread support from student organizations who really identified the importance of consent education on campus as a measure that’s going to really help reduce incidents of sexual violence on campus.

So I wondered if the member could comment on the shortcomings of an approach, as set out in this bill, that focuses only on punitive cases of faculty-to-student sexual violence and doesn’t encompass the kinds of prevention initiatives like Consent Awareness Week.

I listened to the remarks from the member across the way, and I just want to emphasize how prevalent gender-based violence is on university and college campuses in Ontario. The government’s own climate survey showed that 63% of university students—that’s two thirds—experienced sexual harassment while on campus, and 23% disclosed a non-consensual sexual experience. It is a crisis at our post-secondary institutions.

But the majority of the sexual violence that is experienced is student-on-student sexual violence; it is not faculty to student. So I’m wondering, when so many organizations came to the committee and urged the government to include prevention in this bill, to include measures to reduce the prevalence of student-on-student sexual violence on campus, why did the government ignore all of that input?

I appreciated the member’s strong comments about the need to take decisive action to protect students on post-secondary campuses from sexual assault. There certainly is no countenance for that within this Legislature. But I am concerned, because we know from the data that, overwhelmingly, unwanted sexualized behaviours on campus that are experienced by students are from other students. So there’s an opportunity within this bill to implement training mandates on campuses, for example—training of all staff, students and faculty about what constitutes consent and how to respond. I’m just wondering why the government didn’t incorporate any of those kinds of prevention and education measures in this bill.

I appreciated the member’s reference to some of the data that has been collected in the student surveys, and in particular, the very disturbing data from Western University about the prevalence of students’ experiences of sexual violence. Western University has been taking exemplary measures to deal with that data and other issues at the institution. That includes university-wide mandatory training. That is the kind of holistic investment in prevention and education that would really make a difference for students in our institutions in this province.

I’d like to ask the member, why did the government not include measures like campus-wide education and training for all students, staff and faculty?