I would like to express thanks to London West resident Johanne Nichols, who collected about a hundred signatures on a petition that addresses increasing costs in health care for corporate executives and administration. She notes that our health care system is in crisis. She is concerned about ensuring that funding is going to direct patient care instead of senior administration salaries. She is recommending that the Legislative Assembly institute parameters to specify the percentage of health care budget and funding that should be going to administrative and corporate personnel.

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

I will affix my signature and send this petition to the table with page Ethan.

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

We have all heard from constituents who want to see some improvements to the program to improve access to the program and also to make timely repairs. This petition has a number of measures that the government could and should take.

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

Yes. And they refer to a report that was done by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. This report was actually commissioned by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, and it was delivered to her desk in January 2024. It was a review of student mental health in Ontario, exploring best practices and identifying gaps. In that report, the findings of the report, the first finding of the report is that “structural and systemic forces ... make it challenging for institutions to implement programs, hire staff and plan comprehensively for the long term.” So, institutions’ ability to respond to increased service demands is limited by some of these structural factors, and one of their key recommendations was to “increase ... funding to help institutions address the growth in demand for services and increasing complexity of need.”

Now, this was research that was conducted by HEQCO. It took a very comprehensive look at mental health policies on post-secondary campuses, and nowhere in this report did the researchers say that what they were hearing is that the problem is that there are no policies in place. They very, very clearly heard that the problem is that there are policies but there is no funding. Again, I want to share some of the findings:

“Despite these investments, the systems in place to support students are struggling to keep up. Demand is outstripping the supply of available resources; institutions experience the dual challenges of ensuring adequate access to supports while experiencing increased need.”

So it would have been nice if the minister had reviewed this report when she received it in January 2024, and had held back on this decision to mandate, to dictate, a student mental health policy in this legislation, because we know that these policies already exist in our post-secondary institutions. It’s not an absence of policy; it is an absence of resources that is increasing the pressures on our post-secondary campuses.

I also wanted to talk about—and I mentioned this already—how the staffing for mental health services is very challenging. The roles that many of these staff fill are short-term, they are precarious, and that creates an ongoing turnover of staff and a massive level of burnout because of the caseloads that these staff are dealing with.

The challenges in delivering mental health services on campus also mean that campuses are limited in their ability to provide the culturally responsive mental health supports that are so important for young people on our campuses. We heard many of the deputants talk about the fundamental importance of culturally responsive mental health supports, including a deputant who works with Palestinian youth in particular. She talked about the need for culturally responsive trained mental health experts, as well as one of the Jewish students who came to speak to the committee. She said it’s paramount that professionals on campus are at the very least adequately trained on working with various student populations at the minimum. So culturally responsive supports on campus are critical, and yet, universities and colleges are challenged to provide those supports because of the lack of funding.

I now want to talk a little bit about the second major element of this bill, which is the requirement for colleges and universities to have an anti-racism and hate policy. As I said at the outset, there’s no disagreement that there is a need to strengthen post-secondary responses to racism and hate on campus. One of the pieces of information that was shared with the committee was from Hillel Ontario. They said they’ve had nine times more reports of anti-Semitism on campus within the last academic year. NCCM said that they had tracked a 900% increase in Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism on campus in the last year. So we do need to make sure that post-secondary institutions can respond to these increased incidents of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, as well as the other kinds of racism and hate that we have heard about on our post-secondary campuses.

At the University of Waterloo, in June 2023, there was a gender studies professor and two students who were attacked right on campus in—

My question is to the Premier. Yesterday’s budget showed that this government’s completely inadequate funding for post-secondary education, coupled with a 50% decrease in international study permits, will mean a $1.4-billion revenue loss for colleges in 2024-25 and an additional $1.7-billion revenue loss in 2025-26.

Not only that, the government’s inadequate funding ends after three years, which will mean even deeper losses for colleges and universities down the road. Why is this Premier choosing not to increase post-secondary operating grants and deliberately allowing colleges to fail?

Why did this budget not include the permanent, significant increase in operating grants that would move Ontario out of last place in the country in per-student funding and that is desperately needed to keep the sector afloat?

Interjections.

My question is to the Premier. Speaker, decades of chronic underfunding of post-secondary education by both Liberal and Conservative governments, followed by five years of Conservative cuts, have pushed our post-secondary system to the brink. Ontario is dead last in per-student funding—has been for years—which means larger classes for students, higher faculty workloads, greater reliance on precarious contract faculty and less time for faculty-student contact.

At least 10 universities in this province are already in deficit, and that number is going to grow, despite the government’s disastrous recent funding announcement. My question to the Premier: Will the government commit to the funding necessary to stabilize and preserve our world-class post-secondary system?

Interjections.

This bill requires colleges and universities to develop and implement policies on student mental health and also anti-racism and hate. The government has committed $8 million over three years for the student mental health piece, which, with 47 institutions in Ontario, means $57,000 per institution for each of those three years. There’s no additional funding for colleges and universities to implement the anti-hate policies.

How does the government expect institutions to be successful in developing and implementing these policies when there are no additional resources, and our sector is already in such a financial crisis?

I listened with interest to the minister in her lead speech on Bill 166. As the minister said, this bill was introduced as part of a package of announcements that the government claims would stabilize colleges and universities, who are facing a financial crisis in this province as a result of years of chronic underfunding and cuts that have been made by this government.

The government’s financial investment was $1.3 billion over three years, which is half of what the government’s own expert panel said was needed just to keep the sector afloat, which was before the international student cap was announced, which will make the financial pressures in the sector even worse.

My question to the minister is, why did this government ignore the advice that they received from the expert panel that they struck?

My question is to the Premier. Ontario colleges and universities are bracing for the impact of a 50% reduction in international study permits at a time when the sector is already at a breaking point. This was detailed in the blue-ribbon panel report which highlighted decades of chronic underfunding and years of declining provincial grants.

Speaker, does this Premier understand how critical post-secondary institutions are to our province’s well-being and prosperity? And will he commit to providing the urgent funding needed immediately to keep our colleges and universities afloat?

Ontario has had the lowest per-student funding in Canada since they started keeping statistics, spending half or less of what other provinces do. We have at least 10 universities and now many colleges facing deficits, which is going to put the sector and our communities at risk. Students are already struggling with cuts to OSAP and cuts to student supports and services. They should not be expected to cover this government’s failure to properly fund with tuition increases.

Speaker, what exactly is this government’s plan to keep Ontario’s colleges and universities solvent and sustainable?

My question is to the Premier. Since this government came to office, the post-secondary sector has seen a 12% decline in operating grants. Per-student funding now accounts for less than one third of university operating revenues—by far the lowest in Canada—while the need for investment in student mental health, housing and other supports has never been greater.

Last week, the Council of Ontario Universities released a report on the extensive efforts already being made by the sector to find efficiencies and cost savings. Speaker, how can this government possibly think that the funding crisis they created can be magically solved by universities just finding more efficiencies?

At the same time, Ontario university tuition fees remain among the highest in Canada. Students should not have to make up for this government’s failure to properly fund universities, especially during an affordability crisis.

Will this government commit today to a sustainability plan for the sector that increases operating grants without increasing student tuition?

My question is to the Premier. Under this government’s watch, we saw a public university go bankrupt, and now we have a new report highlighting the widespread financial fragility of the sector. The report has confirmed that this government provides the lowest per-student funding in the country for our colleges and universities. Compared to the rest of Canada, Ontario’s per-student funding is just 44% for college students and 57% for university students.

Speaker, will this government commit today to bringing Ontario’s per student funding in line with other Canadian provinces?

Deficits mean program cuts and hiring freezes, hurting students and undermining the quality of university education. When will this government increase post-secondary education operating funding to prevent more universities from falling into deficit or even bankruptcy?

Thank you to my colleague the member for Ottawa West–Nepean for her remarks. I want to focus on what she’s talked about with regard to the education system. My colleagues and I in London had the opportunity to meet with the Thames Valley District School Board trustees and senior administration last week. One of the things they told us is that the special incidence portion of the education funding that flows to school boards has not increased in 10 years. This is funding that is used to support the highest-need kids in our classrooms. The lack of that funding has meant that school boards can’t hire the EAs they need, and they can’t offer the wages that EAs need, to support kids in classes.

What does the member think this budget should have done to deal with those high-needs students in our schools?

I want to assure the member across the way that I am very much informed about what is happening in my community.

There was an initial investment from the province that, following the budget, was supplemented by an additional $8 million for London-Middlesex; $1 million of that went to Middlesex, leaving London with an additional $7 million. That is funding that came after the city had developed the health and homelessness whole-of-community response. It is funding that needs to be supplemented to a much higher degree if the city is to be able to move forward with this model, innovative program to actually deal with the health and homelessness crisis that we are facing in the city of London.

I want to thank my colleague for her remarks. Last week, we had a constituency week and I took the opportunity to visit a number of community service agencies in the London area. I visited staff at Community Living London, Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services, L’Arche, Meals on Wheels etc. One of the things I heard repeatedly was that there has been no increase at all in base funding for many of these vital community support agencies for a decade or more. They are already dealing with wages in that sector that are far below the wages that are paid to similar workers in the institutional sector.

I wondered if the member would like to comment on whether there was any funding in this budget to help stabilize and ensure the sustainability of that vital community support sector.

I heard the member boast about his government’s investment in schools in Ontario, but I wonder if he would share with the people of this province what that investment would be if it had kept pace with inflation, because just looking at the dollars, without taking inflation into account, presents a very different picture of how school boards are funded.

We know that when inflation is taken into account school boards are receiving on average $1,200 less per student in the 2023-24 school year than what they received in 2018-19. Total funding is $2.5 billion short of where it would have been if it had kept pace with inflation. So would the member please comment on what the numbers would look like when inflation is taken into account?

Thank you very much, Speaker. I was here yesterday when the minister spoke to the bill and he did spend some time on the GSNs and what the funding was covering. I’m just pointing out some of what the GSNs are not covering that people in London West have highlighted as a gap.

I heard from some school bus drivers also who say, “Due to a funding shortage, we have been forced to cut back on the number of buses and routes in our region. That means that often, despite my efforts and those of my colleagues, students are late or not picked up at all.” He says, “We are doing everything we can, but the system is under extreme pressure and it may buckle at any time. Please, for the sake of the students across this province, give the system emergency funding so that I can do my job and we won’t leave kids stranded.” These are some of the issues that we are hearing about in London West, as well as the need for new schools.

Now, this bill includes some provisions for the disposition of surplus property. The challenge that we are facing in London—it’s the fastest-growing city in Ontario, second fastest in Canada; it is seeing explosive population growth in areas outside the city, and this government continues to move forward with a funding formula that basically guarantees that the moment a new school finally opens its doors, there are going to be 10, 12, 15 portables on the site because, the way that new school construction is funded, it is planned around the number of students who are living in the community at the time that the new school is approved and does not take into account the planning projections for the number of students who are actually going to be in that area. We have seen a huge need for new schools, certainly in the northwest area of the city—terrible overcrowding in our schools, which is not good for student learning.

We know that what students actually need to be successful in schools are those resources and supports that I talked about. It’s an educator in front of a classroom; it’s reducing class sizes; it’s ensuring that we have caring adults in the school system to support kids who need supports.

As much as I would have liked to be able to actually talk about better schools and student outcomes, I’m not able to do that today because this bill does nothing to ensure that our students will actually be better off in our schools.

I rise today on behalf of London West families of children with autism.

After four and a half years on the wait-list, Sarah Farrants felt hopeful when her seven-year-old son Mason was invited to register for the OAP in October, but she has heard absolutely nothing since. While she waits, the one-time funding that paid for Mason’s speech therapy has run out, and so has Sarah’s hope for Mason’s future.

After a 10-month wait for an assessment for his three-year-old son Luke, Sean Menard was told he could wait years for OAP funding. Sean wants a plan from this government to clear the backlog and get Luke the critical early intervention he needs. Sean desperately wants Luke to speak one day. Sean said, “Without help from the government, he may never speak a single word to his mother or me.”

Even for families who have been approved, the autism program is broken. Virginia Ridley’s two teenage sons receive OAP funding, but Virginia struggles to find services geared to youth and faces constant delays getting reimbursed. At the end of February, she was out of pocket $9,000.

With no mention of autism in the 2023 budget, these families feel abandoned by the Ford government.

Where is the plan, where is the urgency to fix the OAP and get Mason and Luke and Virginia’s sons the services they need and deserve?

I think here in the province of Ontario we’re very fortunate to have a Financial Accountability Officer as an independent watchdog officer of this Legislature who does the analysis of budgets, like the ones that we have seen brought forward by this government time and again. We know from the Financial Accountability Officer that so much of the budgeting that comes out of this government is smoke and mirrors. It’s a shell game. There are huge contingency funds—money socked away in contingency funds. There are revenues that are underestimated to come up with the numbers they want. There are billions of dollars of funding that is underspent year after year.

Thank goodness for the Financial Accountability Officer for telling us the truth about the budget.

We need to see a permanent increase in financial support for seniors, but we also need to see some real action taken to address the affordability challenges that people and seniors are facing with housing, with groceries, with utilities.

My question is to the Premier. Speaker, the London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse released a snapshot yesterday showing that there were more than 10,000 domestic and sexual violence crisis calls in the London area in 2022, an increase of 54% from the year before. The vast majority of those calls were from women. Over the same period, women were turned away 2,166 times from Anova’s women’s shelter because of a shortage of beds, a 62% increase from 2021. Anova is also seeing more severe cases of gender-based violence than ever before.

Speaker, will this year’s budget include the increased and stable funding that organizations like Anova, Atlohsa and London Abused Women’s Centre need to keep women and children safe?

My question is to the Premier. In the face of an unprecedented health and homelessness crisis, Londoners have rallied behind a transformational whole-of-community response to help those struggling with homelessness, mental health and addictions. With leadership from local agencies, hospitals, emergency services, police, businesses, developers and city council, our community is united in making system-level change, and a generous donor family has galvanized $35 million in direct community funding. But London can’t do it alone.

Will the Premier commit today to funding the hubs and supportive housing units that are core to this first-of-its-kind local strategy?

Carol Brisseau is a retired London West senior who lives with her adult son on ODSP. They are one of many London West families struggling to afford skyrocketing natural gas bills. Carol doesn’t know how she will afford to heat her home and worries she may have to leave retirement and find a job to avoid her utilities being cut off.

Families like Carol’s are facing an affordability crisis like never before, but this Premier seems more intent on allowing mega-mansions to be built on the greenbelt than in helping people afford basic necessities like food, housing and utilities. This Premier’s rubber-stamping of gas rate increases has meant a doubling of Enbridge gas prices in the last two years and left families at the mercy of price-gouging energy companies and volatile energy markets.

The NDP stands with Ontarians in calling for immediate relief from the rising cost of natural gas. The government should be providing financial assistance to help people struggling to heat their homes. They should be bringing back and expanding rent control. They should be doubling social assistance rates. They should be taking on greedy corporations that are using the guise of inflation to gouge. And they should be funding aggressive energy conservation programs that will help people stay warm and comfortable while cutting back on use.

Will we see these measures in this year’s provincial budget? Speaker, Londoners like Carol will be watching.