Point of order.

Point of order, Speaker.

While the London terror attack was the most deadly incident of Islamophobia in Ontario, it was certainly not the first. And in the three years since, we have seen an alarming intensification of Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism—especially in the wake of the violence in Gaza—in our schools, on our streets and in our communities.

In 2022, I was proud to co-sponsor Our London Family Act, legislation that sets out comprehensive measures to proactively combat Islamophobia and all forms of hate. Shockingly, the government refused to allow the bill to be debated, saying it would be studied instead and brought back. Two years later, there has been no study, no legislation, no opportunity for debate, and no increased protection from harassment, discrimination and hate.

Speaker, all Ontarians deserve to feel safe in their workplaces, schools and communities. If this government is not prepared to heed the urgent call of Ontario’s Muslim community, the NDP is. The need for legislated action has never been greater, and we hope that this time the government will support our efforts and pass our bill.

Point of order, Speaker.

I am proud to support this petition, which is signed by 120 residents in London West, and I will send it to the table with page Anika.

Point of order.

Signatures on this petition were collected last Friday when my London MPP colleagues and I met with leaders from the community to hear their concerns about the message conveyed by the banning of the kaffiyeh in this very heart of Ontario democracy. They feel that the ban singles out Palestinian history, culture and identity as being lesser than other cultures. It opens the door to legitimizing anti-Palestinian racism in schools, workplaces and across the province.

The community told us that the ban feels like the erasure of their Palestinian identity at a time when identity has never been more important, as they watch with pain and horror the humanitarian catastrophe under way in Gaza and the escalating death toll of innocent civilians, mostly women and children.

The petition recognizes the kaffiyeh as a garment that dates back centuries as a symbol of the spirit and resilience of the Palestinian people. Its patterns have deep meaning, representing the olive trees, fishing nets and historical trade routes of Palestine. It represents the Palestinian people’s right to exist and to express their cultural heritage.

Although the signatures collected on this petition were signed prior to the Speaker’s wise decision to allow the kaffiyeh in other parts of the building, until kaffiyehs are permitted in this chamber and in the visitor galleries, we will continue to present these petitions calling for the reversal of the ban.

I fully support this petition and want to thank London’s Palestinian, Muslim and Arab communities for their advocacy.

Point of order.

I want to start out by saying what a privilege it is to be talking about post-secondary education in this place. We don’t see a lot of bills that come forward that address post-secondary education, especially under this government, so this is a welcome opportunity to highlight the value of post-secondary education in this province for students, our economy and our well-being, and also to raise issues that are fundamental to the stability and the sustainability of Ontario’s post-secondary system.

Our system of post-secondary education is absolutely vital to the success of our province and our hopes as Ontarians for the future of this province. Post-secondary education is important not just for labour market success of graduates, but also for the health and well-being of all Ontarians. Graduates of our colleges and universities earn higher incomes. They contribute more in taxes and consumer spending.

There is a remarkable success across our post-secondary institutions in preparing students for the labour market. We know that 90% of university grads—more than 90% of university grads—are employed within six months after graduating and 83% of college grads.

But of course, Speaker, post-secondary institutions do much more than just train workers for employment, and that is particularly the case at the university level. Our colleges and universities are truly anchor institutions in our communities. There are 200 communities with college campuses. I understand there are about 70 communities with university campuses. These anchor institutions support local and regional economies. They respond to local labour market needs. They work with local employers, businesses and non-profits to solve problems and advance innovation. They are a significant source of local employment for the faculty and the staff who work at colleges and universities. They are cultural institutions, often with art galleries, musical theatre, sports facilities, and they are focused on developing human capital.

Speaker, at a time of rapid economic and social change, we know that investing in people is vitally important. The jobs of tomorrow won’t look like the jobs of today. We need creative, resilient critical thinkers with communication, collaboration and problem-solving skills. Colleges and universities foster human development and personal growth, enabling students to reach their full potential. They generate new knowledge and tackle the wicked problems, the grand challenges of our time. Think about the work that was done by Banting and Best on the polio vaccine and, more recently, the work that was done by our world-class universities in developing the COVID vaccines and the work that is being done on climate change, on climate adaptation and mitigation strategies.

In all of this we can see how critical the public post-secondary education system is to our well-being as a province. It is very much and truly a public good because we all collectively benefit from an engaged and active citizenry and a highly educated workforce. And Ontario has built a truly world-class system of post-secondary education, with universities that consistently rank among the highest in the world. Our college system is the envy of many other provinces and jurisdictions.

But, Speaker, our system today is on the brink. We have seen successive governments in this province demonstrate that they do not understand the fundamental value and importance of post-secondary education. For four decades, Ontario has been dead last in Canada in terms of per student funding for PSE. We fund, on a per student basis, less than every other province in this country. At the same time, as we were dead last in per student funding under the Liberal government, we had the highest undergraduate tuition in all of Canada.

Now, one of the things that this government did shortly after they were elected in 2019 was they announced that tuition was going to be reduced 10% and it has been frozen at that level ever since. That was the right decision, as I said. The legacy of the Liberal government was a university system that had the highest undergraduate tuition in the country. But what this government did wrong is they removed those tuition dollars from our system and they did not replace them. They did not replace them with anything. What that has meant since that change was implemented in 2019 is an accumulated revenue loss of $2 billion for Ontario’s colleges and universities. This government just said, “We’re going to do this; you figure out how to manage it.”

At the same time that the government was doing that, they also decided it was a great time to cut operating grants. We have seen a 9% decline in the amount of operating funding that goes to our colleges and universities accompanying that significant loss of tuition revenues. Government operating grants now represent just 30% of the funding that colleges and universities receive. The rest is mainly tuition. Two thirds of the revenues that come into our colleges and universities come in through student tuition.

When you take that all together—the changes to tuition and the year-over-year cuts to operating grants that have escalated under this government—we have seen a 31% decrease in base funding for colleges and universities since 2010. When you look in comparison to other provinces—think about this: For every dollar that other provinces spend on colleges in Canada, Ontario spends just 44 cents. We are at 44% of the average of other provinces. For every dollar that other provinces spend on universities, Ontario spends just 57 cents.

Of course, our colleges and universities have not been immune to the impact of skyrocketing inflation, escalating costs across the institutions that have further impacted their ability to manage budgetary pressures. We’ve seen them dealing with the multi-million dollar impact of Bill 124 and this government’s decision, again, back in 2019, to legislate an unconstitutional cap on wage increases for public servants, including the public servants who work in our public colleges and universities.

We have seen a quarter cap funding formula that means that there are thousands of unfunded domestic students who attend our colleges and universities. The quarter cap, what it is, is it’s a limit on the number of students that the government funds on a per student basis within 3%, plus or minus. The rationale behind this is that if enrolment declines, it will provide some stability for institutions, and if enrolment increases, it just gives some wiggle room in terms of the number of students who are funded at each institution. The reality is that right now in this province we have 20,000 unfunded domestic students who are attending Ontario universities; we have 2,500 unfunded domestic students who are attending Ontario colleges; and the cost to our colleges and universities is $178 million. When you take all of this into account, it’s not surprising that we have at least 10 universities in this province currently running deficits.

Our post-secondary system was already at the breaking point. It was on the brink, after all of these decades of chronic underfunding, when the federal government announced the cap on international study permits. Some people have estimated that will mean an additional $1.8-billion hit to the bottom lines of our colleges and universities.

The cap on international study permits was important, and it has a particular impact on Ontario, which has seen the number of international students skyrocket. Since 2018, there has been a doubling in the number of international students. In our college sector, three quarters of all tuition revenue is now generated by international student tuition. International students contribute $3.3 billion in tuition for our colleges, which is much more than the $1-billion domestic tuition and the $1.9 billion that the government contributes in operating grants. Ontario colleges have tripled international student enrolment since 2016, and at 10 of our 24 colleges there are now more international students than domestic students. And the Ford government, as they were reducing operating grants, as they removed those tuition dollars from the system, creating a huge revenue hole for our colleges and universities, was quite happy to watch the growth of international student enrolment. In fact, they actively promoted the growth of international students.

Back in 2017, under the Liberal government, we had six colleges that had public-private partner agreements; that is, an arrangement where a public college partners with a private provider, typically located in the GTA, and the staff at that private provider deliver curriculum that is developed by the public college. So students pay tuition to the public college, the public college pays a fee to the private provider so they get compensated, and the student may never go near the actual campus of the public college. It’s a good arrangement for the public college: They get the revenue. The private provider gets the fee and the student is able to graduate with a credential from the public college. The importance of that is that public college credential makes them eligible for the federal government’s post-graduation work permit, which then sets them on a path to immigration.

As I said, in 2017, there were six colleges with those public-private partner arrangements. Today, there are 15. What we saw under the former Liberal government was a policy decision to phase out public-private partnerships. The government of the day commissioned a report which decided that the risks of these partnerships were too great, which is why the government of the day said that they would be wound down. But the Ford government, following those tuition changes and the decrease in operating grants, decided to reverse the decision. They saw these partnerships as an easy solution to replace the funding that had been removed from our public colleges.

I thought it would be helpful, Speaker, to review some of the cautions that David Trick raised in the report that he delivered to the Liberal government back in 2017 that led to the Liberal government’s decision to phase out these public-private partnership arrangements. These are some of the key findings that came out of his report. He said, “Colleges that have formed partnerships with private providers have acted rationally given the circumstances and incentives they face”—because, as I said, they’re able create a campus in the GTA, attract lots of international students who pay tuition revenues that are as much as four, five, six, eight times the amount of tuition that domestic students pay.

The report also notes, “The partnerships do not serve an important public purpose and are an inefficient way to provide needed revenue to colleges.”

He found, “The partnerships pose risks that are inherently difficult to manage,” risks related to “academic quality, legal liability, reputation, quality of student services ... financial loss, federal government policy change”—now, that was a prescient point to include in this report—and finally, “accountability to the Legislature.”

He said, “The risks potentially affect all colleges, not just” the six at the time that had private partners.

He also said: “The risks potentially affect the government.” “Without timely action, the risks will become larger.” “The government needs to find better solutions to the problems that colleges actually face.”

So the Liberal government decided to act on his recommendations, phase out those arrangements. This government decided, nope, they like those arrangements because they allowed those international student tuition dollars to flow into the system.

David Trick, in the report he provided to the Liberal government, was not the only person to flag some of these concerns with the overreliance of our public colleges and our universities on international student tuition. The Auditor General has done a series of reports, and I want to just highlight some of the findings of the reports that she did on public college oversight and financial management in the university sector.

In 2021, in a value-for-money audit on public colleges oversight, her first finding was high financial dependency on international student recruitment, enrolment and fees. She found that “between 2012-13 and 2020-21, domestic enrolments declined 15%, while international enrolments grew 342%.”

She also found that “the ministry does not have a strategic plan for the college sector to mitigate the risk of high reliance on international students,” and that five of the six public colleges that had those public-private partnerships back in 2017 “could have incurred operating deficits had they not received a share of international student tuition partnership revenue.” She also noted limited oversight of public-private college partnerships.

In that same year, 2021, the auditor did a value-for-money audit of private career colleges oversight, and she also noted in private career colleges an increase in international students. She said that the number of international students enrolled had increased by 420% between 2015 and 2019, so just over a period of four years, from about 2,000 to over 10,000.

She concluded, “The ministry does not effectively administer, oversee and enforce the legislation and ministry policies that are in place to protect the interests of existing and prospective students of private career colleges in Ontario.”

The following year, in November 2022, she did a special report on Laurentian University, following the unprecedented bankruptcy of that public university—not something that anyone in this province ever expected to see, and quite possibly the first of many in the wake of this government’s decisions not to appropriately fund our post-secondary system. But in her review of Laurentian University, one of her key recommendations was that the government needed to do a thorough analysis of the impact of tuition reductions and freezes on all universities prior to implementation to determine if universities can sustain the impacts of these policy decisions.

Now, I don’t think the government did that analysis when they made their budget announcement last week, because if they had, they would have understood that you can’t just remove $2 billion in tuition revenue from our system without replacing it with something to ensure the financial stability of the sector.

In November 2022, the auditor did another value-for-money audit on financial management in universities. She also noted the risks to the system of the overreliance on international students and recommended that there be a strategic plan and actions put in place to ensure the stability of our universities in this province.

Again, she made recommendations specific to the increased reliance on international students despite the inherent risk. In 2023, last year, she did an audit of York University operations and capital, again noting increased reliance on international student tuition revenue. She found that international students accounted for 18% of York’s total enrolment, but almost half of its revenue.

Clearly, Speaker, you can’t run a system that is so overreliant on international student tuition at both our public colleges, at those public-private partner campuses, at the main campuses of the public colleges, and in our public universities. This has been noted by David Trick and by multiple reports from the auditor, but did this government do anything to address these concerns, to look at the sector and figure out how to properly fund it so that it wasn’t being subsidized by international student tuition dollars? No, they did not.

There was an interesting story that came out from Global News in January with some internal documents that were FOIed, showing that the ministry was very much aware that it had an overreliance on international students, but “was in the midst of a plan to ramp up its international student program despite the worries articulated by provincial staff.” And that is particularly concerning, Speaker, that the ministry was prepared to ignore all of these red flags that have been raised by the auditor and still wanting to proceed with its plan to aggressively continue to recruit international students.

Now, some may want to ask why the government was so determined to do this and maybe some insights were provided as to why this may be. A story that was reported in the media a couple of weeks ago said that the college minister had raised $24,000 from private college executives at a meet-and-greet. The story actually says that the Progressive Conservatives, as a whole, “have raked in over $151,000 from directors and executives of private schools that partnered with public colleges since 2018.” In the minister’s riding, she “raised more than $27,000 from directors and executives of” those public-private partnerships “since she was appointed to the ... portfolio,” and almost all were from a single event on March 7.

Another interesting context for this government’s fondness for using international student recruitment to maintain the budgets in our college sector comes from the fact that college surpluses, the cash flow that goes in and out of our public colleges, appears on the provincial balance sheet. All but one of Ontario’s 24 colleges reported surpluses of more than $660 million in 2022, and that goes into the province’s book; it shows up as a surplus. It helps the government say what a good job they’re doing as the colleges are bringing in more and more international students and the tuition dollars that they bring with them.

Now, all of the government’s plans came to a crashing halt on January 22, when the federal government announced the 35% reduction in international study permits. And, of course, we’ve seen some finger pointing between the federal Minister of Immigration and the provincial Minister of Colleges and Universities, but really, as this government was moving forward with its plan to ramp up the recruitment of international students, we did see the federal government also happily signing off on all of those visa applications, which led to this skyrocketing of the numbers of international students in this province. But one of the fallouts of the federal government’s sudden announcement on January 22 is that everything has come to a complete halt. We are at a standstill.

And when you look at those significant revenue dollars that are represented by international student tuition for our colleges and universities, it’s very difficult for them to do any planning until they know how this government is going to proceed. The federal government delegated to the provincial government the responsibility for allocating those new caps on international study permits. Ontario is going to get about half of the number of permits that were in place before. The provincial government has to figure out how to allocate those caps and also put in place a process for attestation letters to be attached for all of the applications. So I’m hearing from colleges and universities that are in a bit of chaos right now and total uncertainty in terms of budget planning until they know how those caps will be allocated and how many international students they will be able to enrol.

Before I go any further, Speaker, I do want to be very clear: When the federal government made the announcement, it was made with some claims that international students were causing the housing crisis in this province, were contributing to the health care crisis in this province and we had to crack down on the numbers of international students, which is actually quite shameful, to scapegoat international students as somehow being the cause of the challenges that we are confronting in this province. It’s deeply wrong and unconscionable. International students are incredibly important to the vibrancy of our post-secondary campuses and also very important to helping address labour market challenges when they graduate as the skilled workers that Ontario needs, as the health care workers that we so desperately need, but also while they are studying.

I know so many international students fill those low-wage jobs in tourism and hospitality, as servers, working at Tim Hortons and as Uber drivers. They are very important to keeping our economy functioning. They deserve so much more than being exploited just for the high tuition fees that they pay. They deserve access to adequate housing. They deserve a social infrastructure that doesn’t leave them going to food banks. International students are one of the highest new users of food banks in our province. We have heard just appalling stories of the exploitation that they have faced, the substandard housing conditions that they have been forced to live in, the unsafe circumstances in which they find themselves. They should not be scapegoated. We have an obligation to support the international students that come to Ontario to study.

At the same time, the government has an obligation to take real action to start to address the housing crisis. We have talked so many times in this Legislature about all of the things that the government could do to start to solve the housing crisis, starting with a public builder to build those non-market homes—because that is what housing experts have said; that’s where the bottleneck is. It’s at the low end of the housing spectrum. Right now, in Ontario, only 4% of our housing stock is social housing, and in other parts of the world—social housing accounts for 18% of housing stock in the UK; it accounts for 17% of the housing stock in France. And until we can get those non-market units—the social housing, the supportive housing—in place; until we can provide real rent control so that the lowest-income tenants, the most vulnerable tenants, aren’t economically evicted from their units by landlords who are taking advantage of the opportunity to charge larger rents; until we can get those protections in place, we will not be able to address the housing crisis in this province.

That takes me to some of the announcements that the government has made since the federal cap. I don’t think I’ll talk about the initial announcement, but I’ll go straight to the announcement of the package of measures that the minister brought in on February 27, which included the bill that we are discussing this morning.

There was an interesting piece that was written by Steve Paikin on February 29 about the media conference that the minister held to announce the package of measures the same day that the legislation was tabled. The title of Steve Paikin’s article is “An Anatomy of a Bungled Press Conference”—because, basically, it was a disaster. Paikin wrote: “Reporters got increasingly frustrated by the fact that the minister was so blatantly ignoring their quite reasonable questions.”

The minister announced a package of $1.3 billion. The reporters were saying—it sounds like a lot of money: “But your own blue-ribbon expert panel said $2.5 billion was necessary. Why have you only done half the job?”

The reporters were saying: “Yes, you’re complaining that the federal government dramatically cut back on visas for foreign students, thereby depriving the system of $1.8 billion it desperately needs. But was it your original underfunding that forced post-secondary institutions into an overreliance on foreign students to begin with?”

These were questions asked by reporters that were completely ignored by this minister.

Let’s look at the announcement that was made on February 27. As the minister repeatedly said, it was a historic $1.3-billion investment into the sector which, as the reporters noted, sounds like a lot of money. It is a lot of money. It is a lot of scarce and precious public dollars. Funding that is provided by this government into our post-secondary system is an investment in our collective future.

The government struck an expert panel to take a look at the sustainability of this sector. What the expert panel said was that institutions need $2.5 billion in public funding over three years just to stay afloat, just to stay at the level that they need to be, which is twice the amount that the government committed in the historic investment on February 27. The blue-ribbon panel’s recommendation for $2.5 billion—many people said that was too modest. There are estimates that we would need $4 billion just to get Ontario from last place in the country in terms of per student funding to ninth place in the country, or second-last place in the country, in terms of per student funding. We would need $7 billion just to reach the average funding on a per student basis in post-secondary education that is provided across the province.

The historic $1.3 billion includes about $903 million over three years through a new post-secondary education sustainability fund. That’s broken down into $700 million over three years for all 47 institutions—for the 23 universities and 24 colleges—plus $203 million in top-up funding for institutions with greater financial need.

I had a briefing with the ministry staff, and I appreciate the minister’s co-operation in making that happen, but one of the things that the ministry staff said is that the criteria to access that $203 million in top-up funding includes greater reliance on international students and exposure to greater revenue decline.

Now, Speaker, as I have said, international student tuition was generating $3.3 billion in funding for Ontario colleges. Half of that—at least half of that—is potentially gone with that cap on international study permits, and the minister is offering $203 million in top-up funding to help institutions who may have greater financial need.

The other key thing to note, Speaker, is that this government’s investment was not an increase to operating grants, which is what institutions have been clamouring for. It’s what they have been pushing for. It is what they need, but that is not what this government gave. Again, the blue-ribbon panel had recommended that 10% increase to operating grants, but this government decided that its historic investment was going to be provided in the form of time-limited funding, three-year funding in new grants. This in no way addresses the long-term financial sustainability of the sector, and it puts student programs at risk, the programs in our institutions that are so vital for the success of the young people who attend colleges and universities.

Currently, the Council of Ontario Universities, COU, estimates that within the university sector, they spend an estimated $1.6 billion on student services: on career counselling, on work-integrated learning coordination, on academic counselling, on accessibility services, on all of these supports that are so important for students to be successful. These are all programs that will be at risk unless we can figure out how to keep this sector sustainable, and I’m already hearing from students about reductions in library hours, which reduces their access to the materials that they need and the resources, the librarians who can assist them.

We are going to see a decline in the quality of the education that we provide if classes get bigger, as students get less contact with faculty. We’re going to see even more precarious work on campus, more contract faculty. We already know that within the post-secondary sector in this province, half of academic faculty are contract faculty. That means they do not have full-time jobs. They do not have job security. They do not have the benefits that go along with secure full-time work. These are precarious jobs.

We are seeing more and more of the support positions in our colleges and universities shift from full-time to part-time, to temporary jobs, to contract positions, forcing these support workers—who are research assistants, teaching assistants, administrative staff, custodians, maintenance workers, you name it. In so many of our institutions, these are the workers who are having to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, because the wages that they are earning in the college or university where they work are not enough to provide a livable income.

That’s what we’re seeing right now at York University: a strike over livable wages, a strike to get improved job security, a strike to strengthen protections in the workplace. We saw U of T come down to the wire with a midnight agreement reached to avert a strike there from their teaching and research assistants. We are seeing institutions leaving vacancies unfilled, not replacing people who are retiring. What I’m hearing from workers within the sector is greatly increased stress, burnout, workload pressures as they’re having to take on more work as more employees are going off sick. That directly affects the quality of education that students receive in our colleges and universities.

I’m going to quickly go through some other parts of the government’s announcement. There was $167 million over three years in additional funding for capital repairs and equipment. This is highly necessary funding to enable renewal of existing facilities and to purchase new equipment, but let’s put that in the context of the backlog in maintenance and repair. This was one of the questions I asked in the 2023 estimates process and the minister told me there’s a $5.1-billion maintenance and repair backlog in the university system and a $1.2-billion maintenance and repair backlog across our colleges. Yes, this $167 million is great, but it is not going to do very much at all to deal with that backlog.

There is one-time funding of $10 million through the Small, Northern and Rural Grant for colleges and the Northern Ontario Grant for universities. This funding is available to 11 colleges in our system. Hopefully it will make a difference, but as I said, when you look at the overreliance on international student tuition that these colleges have been functioning on, it is highly unlikely whether that is going to enable them to maintain their financial stability.

We know, particularly in northern and rural Ontario, where the population is much smaller to draw students from, that it’s much more costly to maintain the institution, to run the gamut of programs that students need to prepare for the labour force. But one of the ongoing concerns, particularly in northern Ontario, is that if those opportunities aren’t there, then students are going to leave, students are going to go get their education in a larger urban centre and not come back. That speaks very much to the importance of maintaining those small, rural and northern colleges and universities.

There was funding—$65.4 million—for research and innovation. That again—yes, that’s good; I’m glad that the government has recognized their obligation to support research and innovation. But one of the findings from the blue-ribbon panel report is that Ontario provides the lowest funding for research—no surprise; Ontario is dead last in all of these indicators—of any other province. It’s interesting, Speaker, as we see this government having no problem at all giving huge subsidies to companies, they do not seem to understand the importance—the value—of investing in the research that is conducted at our colleges and universities to grow the companies of the future, to develop intellectual property, to create new products and services, research to solve societal problems around the climate crisis, around growing income inequality, around the housing crisis. This $65 million, while it is a gesture, is really not the kind of investment the sector needs.

There is also $15 million over three years for a new Efficiency and Accountability Fund to support third-party reviews to drive efficiencies. This minister’s initial response to the blue-ribbon panel report and the recommendations, the $2.5 billion that was needed, was, “We’re not going to do anything until the colleges and universities deal with their inefficiencies, become more efficient, find that $2.5 billion by making some internal changes.” But we know, and the blue-ribbon panel confirmed, that within the sector, our institutions are already operating very lean and efficient. There are lots of examples of shared services that reduce internal costs, that demonstrate efficiency, like joint purchasing agreements, university pension plans. Yes, we can definitely always find more efficiencies, but we’re not going to find $2.5 billion of efficiencies, Speaker.

In my conversations with employee groups, they highlighted the concern that “efficiency” in this government’s speak always means contracting out. And as I said, this sector is notorious for the amount of contract work that underlines the delivery of education in Ontario with the overreliance on contract faculty.

The government’s announcement also included $100 million to support STEM enrolments in programs that are unfunded, and that goes back to those 20,000 unfunded domestic students that I mentioned earlier. I understand that this STEM funding is going to support 13,000 of those unfunded program spots, which is great, but that means that there are still 7,000 unfunded domestic students in programs other than STEM. This is something that we have seen repeatedly from this government, a disregard for the value of liberal arts—because we’re already hearing from Queen’s, from Guelph, from other institutions that are looking at what programs to cut, and liberal arts, humanities are often the first programs that are on the chopping block.

One of the stats that I think it’s really important that all of us keep in mind—and I just learned this fairly recently—is that one third of the Fortune 500 CEOs in North America are liberal arts majors. They didn’t graduate from STEM or business; they are liberal arts majors, because there is such value in liberal arts in terms of critical thinking, collaboration, communication, all of those soft skills that support entrepreneurialism and that foster corporate leadership skills.

I just want to go onto the legislation that was also part of the announcement on February 27. Really, there are three main parts to the bill. The first is a requirement for all public colleges and universities to have a student mental health policy, describing programs, services etc. that are available. It also allows the minister to issue directives specifying the elements to be included in the policy and what steps would be taken if an institution fails to comply.

The funding announcement did include $23 million to enhance mental health supports; $8 million of that was for the Postsecondary Mental Health Action Plan, so that is $8 million that will go directly to post-secondary institutions over the three years of the funding. Let’s do the math, Speaker: $8 million over three years is $2.7 million per year; $2.7 million per year over 47 institutions is $57,000 per institution in direct student supports for mental health. And we know how dire the crisis in student mental health services is in our province. We’ve heard those stories. We saw the horrifying news of student suicides in this province, and so we know that there is a crisis in mental health services in Ontario.

But interestingly, one of the reports that this government commissioned and was released in January of this year was from Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario about best practices in student mental health. One of the findings that they noted is that “long-term planning is complicated by current funding structures and institutional systems, which impede efficiency, impact service provision and contribute to staff turnover.

“About half of interviewees mentioned challenges due to funding structure, citing issues with unpredictability and short spending periods” and “one-time grants for mental health.” They also said, “Institutions struggle to keep pace with rising demand for mental health services due to staffing shortages.”

Finally, they said that the mental health challenges that they see on campus are deeply affected by social determinants of health, specifically “lack of affordable housing, food insecurity and general affordability challenges.”

Speaker, one of the things that this government could be doing, alongside that $57,000 per institution for the next three years to support the implementation of a student mental health policy, is expanding student financial aid. We know that one of the biggest contributors to anxiety and depression among post-secondary students is financial stress.

The College Student Alliance also found that the biggest barrier to seeking mental health treatment is financial, the second is long wait-lists and the third is a lack of available resources. So what’s needed is an investment. It’s an investment in the mental health supports that we have in our communities so that students can access treatment. What we need is an investment in OSAP funding.

Again, going back to 2019, it was a busy year for this government, but they also made a $700-million cut to student financial aid. And then, later, in 2020, they clawed back an additional $400 million in the funding that had been provided by this government. So they could reverse that cut. They could put that funding back into student financial aid. They could convert all loans to grants, which is something that the NDP has been calling for.

The second big piece of the government’s legislation is the requirement for colleges and universities to have anti-racism and hate policies that would address and combat racism and hate, including, but not limited to, anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Again, the minister can issue directives specifying the elements of the policy and the steps that would be taken for non-compliance.

We have seen several high-profile incidents of hate on our campuses. At Queen’s University, back in 2019, there was a pride flag stolen and there were public death threats made to the LGBTQ community. There was a horrifying stabbing at the University of Waterloo back in June. Last summer, a gender studies professor and two students were stabbed. And in particular, after the October 7 attack in Israel, we know that the atmosphere on our campuses has become particularly tense, and many, many students are feeling unsafe.

There is no common reporting mechanism to collect data on incidents of hate and discrimination that students may be experiencing on our campuses in this province. We know that Hillel Ontario is collecting data on students’ experiences of anti-Semitism if they make the effort to go online and report to Hillel. We know that the National Council of Canadian Muslims is collecting data. But there is no common system in our institutions to collect that data. If this policy does that, that will be important so that we can really understand the experiences of hate and discrimination on Ontario college and university campuses.

But what’s going to be so important, Speaker, is that the development of this policy—and I’ve heard legitimate questions asked of me, like, there’s a ministerial directive as to what’s supposed to be in that policy; who determines what’s in that ministerial directive? Who is the minister going to consult with on the content of that directive which will then inform the policies that are going to be in place on our college and university campuses in Ontario? It is critically important at this very fraught time in our world, as we see more than 30,000 people who have been killed in Gaza, as we see 100 hostages still in captivity, as we see those tensions continuing to increase on our campus, that this policy not be used to divide, that it be used to bring campus communities together.

I do want to give a shout-out to Western University and the Western University student council. There was an incident on campus back in October where a poster was removed that was specifically about the hostages. A joint statement was released in the aftermath of that, signed by Hillel Western, Israel on Campus, the Muslim Students’ Association and the Palestinian Cultural Club. The statement acknowledged that students have been feeling unsafe and commits to ensuring that Western is a safe place on campus “where the debate of difficult issues can be conducted respectfully and with an understanding of the real impact on affected communities.” That is a lesson that I hope this government will study and learn from and make sure that the policies that are being required at our colleges and universities respond to the lived experiences of those who will be affected by them.

My question is to the Premier. Speaker, Londoners are facing waits for MRIs that in some cases are nearly 10 times the provincial average. Dawn from London West has waited 18 months for an MRI, well beyond the target 28 days. Tom learned in April of this year that he needs an MRI, and he finally got an appointment for February 2024—again, clearly nowhere near the 28-day target.

Without adequate health care staffing and resources, wait time targets are meaningless, and the result is 11,000 Ontarians who died while waiting on wait-lists for surgeries, MRIs and CAT scans last year. Why is this government more focused on improving profits for insider health care investors than in reducing wait times in Ontario?

Point of order, Speaker.

My question is to the Premier. In late August, the Premier appointed Sajjad Hussain to the Species at Risk Program Advisory Committee. Mr. Hussain is a developer with no apparent credentials with respect to species at risk. He has also been accused of unlawfully misappropriating millions of dollars from his company for his own personal use.

Why did the Premier appoint Mr. Hussain to this government committee when he knew, or should have known, about these disturbing allegations?

Was Mr. Hussain’s donor record the reason for the Premier’s willingness to overlook the very serious allegations against Mr. Hussain?

Point of order, Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, and it’s specific to schedule 2.

Earlier this fall, a number of lawyers from every law firm in the city of London sent a joint letter to the Attorney General about the crisis in civil litigation trial backlogs in London. Trials of over two weeks have been told that there’s no prospect at all of being heard until 2024. As the minister would know, these civil cases affect many of the business concerns that you are supposed to be interested in: business disputes, banking, bankruptcy, employment and labour, contract disputes, property disputes etc. Those lawyers called for the appointment of two more Superior Court justices in the region and two more justices in London.

Is schedule 2 the answer to London’s crisis and court backlogs—to increase the time for retired former provincial judges to serve?

My question is to the Premier. Speaker, Kate recently moved to London and wants to get flu shots for her two kids. She can’t get the shots in a doctor’s office because she can’t find a family doctor. She can’t get the shots in the pharmacy because her youngest is under two. Since our local health unit doesn’t offer flu clinics, she must either wait hours in a crowded walk-in filled with sick people or drive outside the city.

She ended up booking in Guelph and says, “Sad and ironic that it is the pediatric hospitals that are overrun, and this was the only way to get a scheduled appointment for the age group that is filling up the hospitals.”

Speaker, why is this government not pulling out all the stops to help kids get their flu shots?

Speaker, where is this government’s plan to make it easy for parents who want to get flu shots and COVID vaccines for their kids?

Point of order.

Thank you very much, Speaker. This is my first opportunity to see you in that chair, so I want to offer you my congratulations. It’s great to see you there.

I’m pleased to rise to offer a few minutes of comments on this bill, this budget that is before us today, on behalf of the people I represent in London West.

This week and last week I have been raising stories of people from my riding who are experiencing first-hand what the crumbling of our health care system means for them. Our home care system is broken.

I raised the story of Robin Floyd; her son was discharged from surgery with a drainage tube. He had to wait nine days before he had a home care appointment.

I raised the story of Kim Fowler, who is exhausted trying to care for her mother, who is at home with dementia and COPD—cannot get admitted into long-term care, PSWs regularly don’t show up. Kim is frantic with worry about what will happen if she herself gets sick and cannot get the care that she needs and her mother deserves.

Today I raised the story of Jane Berges; her husband Don was discharged from hospital and admitted to a private sector long-term-care home that did not have the capacity to care for him properly. He fell out of the bed in the long-term-care home, was readmitted to hospital and tragically died.

I hear regularly from constituents who do not have access to a family physician, whose only recourse if they or a family member are sick is to use our overcrowded and stretched-thin emergency services.

And yet this budget that is before us today does nothing to address these pressing problems in our health care system. It does nothing to repeal Bill 124 and make sure that our front-line health care workers are compensated fairly, they get the wages that they deserve and the benefits that they surely have earned. It does nothing to deal with violence in health care workplace settings. It does nothing to fast-track internationally educated health professionals at the rate that they need to be fast-tracked.

I hear the government talk about their plan to stay open, as if that plan is to ensure that the health care system is going to be there when people need it. But one of the most important things that this government could do if they want to stay open, if they want our health care system to be there for Ontarians, is to legislate paid sick days. We heard today from Dr. Moore that Ontarians are supposed to stay home until their fever clears, until their symptoms have improved—60% of Ontarians don’t have access to paid sick days. They can’t stay home if it means losing a paycheque, if it means not being able to pay the rent or put groceries on the table. And we know that for racialized workers, for Indigenous workers—they are highly more likely not to have access to paid sick days.

The other issue that is of grave concern to people in London West with this budget is the absence of any appropriate measures to lift people out of poverty. The minister talks about the LIFT tax credit, but more than 200 advocacy organizations have told this government that what we need is to double social assistance rates. Instead, we see a paltry 5% increase for ODSP and nothing for Ontario Works. That ODSP increase will mean $58 more a month, which locks people into legislated poverty.

There’s no mention of rent control for the many London West constituents who don’t know that when they move into an apartment that was built after November 2018, there’s no rent control whatsoever. They are being hit with double-digit rent increases, unable to know how they’re going to afford to continue to live there.

There’s no mention of the climate crisis and the need for strong climate action. There are many, many gaps in this budget that make it impossible for me to support it if I am doing my job on behalf of the people of London West.

My question is to the Premier. This government’s failure to deal with the health care crisis is not just affecting hospitals; it’s hurting patients who rely on home care as well.

This month, Robin Floyd’s son, who is vision-impaired and has a heart condition, went for surgery at London Health Sciences Centre. After being discharged with a drainage tube, he was told that a home care nurse would come the next day to check the incision and drain the tube. After countless phone calls and endless frustration, Robin finally managed to get a home care appointment nine days after her son had his surgery.

Does this government believe that that is an appropriate standard of care?

Kim’s story is not new and not unique. The VON told me they can’t meet 50% of the referrals they get. Why is this government completely ignoring the long-standing problems in home and community care?

Yes. My colleague the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s was another name that was put forward.

I heard the government House leader suggest that somehow we were disparaging the members who have been named in this motion for appointment as presiding officers, and I want to say that nothing could be further from the truth.

I read the comments from the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s, and she recognizes that the member from Ajax—she congratulates her on being a hard-working member and acknowledges the historic moment that is before us with a Black woman stepping up to the position of Speaker. That is a signal to Black girls, as was discussed in the debate, a signal to Black people across this province, that they too can serve in the position of Speaker. Now, I do acknowledge the Honourable Alvin Curling, who had previously served in that position, but this is the first time that a Black woman will serve in that chair.

But it’s not about the member for Ajax. It’s not even about the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s. It’s about the process, the history, the need for working across the aisle, the need for partnership and collaboration so that we can make things better for the people of this province.

I read the feedback on the point of order that was provided by the government House leader and some of his comments as to why he decided to disregard the names that were put forward by the official opposition—the only recognized party in this place—why he decided to disregard those names both in the appointment of presiding officers and also in the appointment of committee members. He quoted some percentages, somehow making the claim that the appointments that are included in this motion are more representative of the people of this province. He said the NDP are presently at about 24% of the seats in the House, the government is about 67%, the Liberals at 7%, and he somehow claimed that he’s applying these proportions to the names that are in his motion.

But if the government House leader wants to throw out percentages, I also want to remind this government—as people across the province, in the aftermath of an election that saw an historic low voter turnout—that when only 41% of 43% of eligible voters in this province vote for this government, they are sitting in those seats with the support of 18% of Ontarians.

So 18% of Ontarians have entrusted this government with the responsibility to govern fairly and wisely and responsibly, and what do we see? We see a first-past-the-post system that translates that 18% support into a government that holds 70% of the seats in this Legislature and yields 100% of its power. That’s what this government has done with this motion before us on presiding officers, with the motion last week or two weeks ago on the committee appointments. They have arbitrarily and unilaterally decided to exercise the power that first-past-the-post has given them: the power that they have gained because 18% of Ontarians of voting age have put them into office. They are exercising that power to unilaterally decide who is going to serve on committee.

I do want to respond to some of the comments that were made by the government House leader about, for example, the member for Waterloo. This government House leader suggests that appointing the member for Waterloo to the finance committee is somehow this government looking out for the interests of that member. But I want to remind the government House leader that the member for Waterloo had previously served on the public accounts committee. Again, she had been an exemplary Chair of the public accounts committee. The public accounts committee is a perfect fit for her responsibility as finance critic and that is the committee that she expressed interest in serving on. That is the committee that we notified the government that that member wished to participate in. And in this government-knows-best approach of the Conservatives across the way, this government House leader decides that’s not good enough. This government doesn’t care where the member for Waterloo wants to best exercise her skills, her talents, her duty to hold the government to account and ensure that that appropriate oversight is there. This government decided they were going to remove her from the public accounts committee and instead put her on the finance committee. They did that because they can, because they have 100% of the power. They have the ability to disregard the names that had been provided by the official opposition on those appointments and to put in place whoever they want.

Speaker, that is not a process of collaboration and negotiation that these extraordinary times demand of us. The government House leader today in his comments also pointed to the fact that they have added members to committee. They have unilaterally decided that certain members of our caucus should be added to certain standing committees of this Legislature. Again, I ask the government House leader: Wouldn’t it have been a better process of partnership, a better process of collaboration, if the government had come and had said to the official opposition, “Look, we want to add members to these standing committees. Let us know which of your caucus members would like to serve in that role”? That would have been the appropriate way to deal with the addition of seats on those committees. But, no, that is not how this government operates. And we saw that.

We saw that in the 42nd Parliament with changes to the standing orders at a pace that we have not seen before. The government House leader changed the standing orders more times over that four-year period—actually, it was three years that he was in that role. But there were more changes to the standing orders in that three-year period than there were in the entire 15 years up to the election of this government. And each time those standing orders changed, it was to concentrate power more and more in the hands of the government. It was to limit the ability of the official opposition, limit the ability of all non-government members to be able to have any influence on the legislative agenda that this government is pushing through.

Speaker, the government House leader is quite correct: We will not be supporting this motion. It has absolutely nothing to do with the names of the people who are listed in the motion; it has everything to do with respect for parliamentary tradition, with respect for the way that this place is supposed to function, the way that the government House leader is supposed to engage with the official opposition.

I heard the government House leader talk about the fact that nothing is secret when he meets with the official opposition. You will have read the story in the Toronto Star—all of us read that story—about the meeting that was held between me and the government House leader when he suggested that the official opposition caucus vote unanimously for the preferred candidate that he wanted to see in the chair of the Speaker or else we would not be able to get our recommended candidates for presiding officers and our recommended appointments for Vice-Chairs of committees. He suggested that somehow I was being dishonourable by going public with this threat. I don’t think that threats are a good way for this place to operate. I don’t think that that’s a good way for the government to move its agenda forward. But that is the approach that this government House leader has chosen to take, and we won’t support it.

Point of order.

Standing order 1(a) sets out that the business of the chamber and committees shall be regulated through the standing orders.

Standing order 1(b) outlines that the purpose of these provisions is “to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a manner that respects the democratic rights of members....”

Standing order 1(c) calls on the Speaker to provide guidance on where the standing orders are unclear.

I am requesting your guidance to navigate what we perceive to be a conflict between standing order 110 and standing order 115(a). The intent of standing order 115(a) is to ensure that the distribution of committee memberships is done in a fair and impartial manner that respects the outcome of elections by allocating committee seats to the respective recognized parties in proportion to their representation in the House. By setting aside committee seats explicitly for a recognized party, surely the principles of democracy require that that recognized party be able to determine which members fill those seats.

Instead, with this motion, the government has given itself de facto control over which MPPs are appointed to committees. The motion ignores the official opposition appointments that were communicated by me, on behalf of the NDP caucus, in a letter to the government House leader on July 19. In some cases, this motion actually removes the members we intended to nominate as chairs or vice-chairs—information that was also communicated to the government—from their respective committees.

I should also point out that our appointments were made after extensive consultation between our interim leader and members of our caucus out of respect for the democratic rights of members. And indeed, in our quick review of past committee appointment motions, we could not find a single example where a motion appointing committee members was brought before the House in a manner that did not follow recognized party recommendations.

Speaker, that is our concern with the motion before us today, and the reason for our request for your guidance. With this motion, the government has unilaterally assigned which MPPs from the official opposition will fill the committee positions that are expressly assigned to the official opposition. One can only imagine the uproar that such a motion would have caused, the indignation and outrage that we would have heard from members across the way—even the government House leader—if this was moved when they were on this side of the floor.

And while the standing orders do not explicitly authorize the recognized opposition parties to name their own members to committee, it is important to note that, in the same fashion, the standing orders do not explicitly give the government such power, either. In fact, in instances where the standing orders intend for the government to have discretion, such discretion is unequivocally provided for. One only needs to look to the next clause, standing order 115(b), where the standing order clearly states that the committee preferences expressed by independent members are not binding on the government.

Historically, committee membership motions are done via unanimous consent because they are brought before the House through a process of collaboration and respect. The fact that I am forced to rise on this point of order shows that no such consensus or respect exists.

Given the unprecedented application of standing order 110 as contained within this motion, it is, at a minimum, incumbent upon the government to convincingly demonstrate to the House why this new interpretation supersedes generations of past practice and interpretation. Several decades of consistent application is neither accident nor coincidence, Speaker.

If this interpretation of standing order 110 is allowed to stand, what is to prevent the government from simply assigning the same two MPPs from a recognized party to every committee, if the standard is narrowed so that only the language of the specific provision matters and the intent, past practice and impact of relevant standing orders are rendered silent when the rules are used in ways they were never designed or intended to be employed?

At a minimum, standing order 110 was not designed to give the House unfettered control over the committee appointments process. It is my hope that we do not establish such a dangerous precedent today.

Before I conclude, I want to offer a brief observation about the context for the motion that was tabled. As the Speaker may know, the official opposition was pressured to support one of the candidates in the recent Speaker election over another and threatened with government interference with our committee appointments if we did not support their desired outcome. This motion follows on the heels of that interaction.

With that, Speaker, I thank you for listening, and I look forward to your ruling on this matter.