Yes, in class. In Queen’s University in 2019, there was a Pride flag stolen and death threats.

So, yes, there is a need to strengthen these services on campus. But again, the big question is, does it require a new ministerial directive for a new policy to be put in place that will be dictated by the minister? I would say that we heard from many of the deputants that the answer to that question is no, that what is needed, again, is funding to support the education, the training, the efforts that are already under way on our college and university campuses to deal with racism and hate, because our post-secondary campuses in this province have to be places where people feel safe, but where they feel that they can freely express their opinions on issues so long as it does not cross the line and become hateful.

We do know, as the minister said, that many students are not reporting racism and hate on campus because they feel that there won’t be an adequate response. But what you need to be able to respond adequately is staff. You need fully staffed and funded equity and diversity offices to do the follow-up that’s necessary and to engage in that broad-base campus training to improve safety of our campuses and make sure that all students feel safe.

Again, just as with the mental health policy, what we heard from the people who appeared before the committee was not that colleges and universities lack racism and hate policies, it’s that they lack the funding to appropriately deliver these policies that will support students.

What happens when you don’t have that adequate funding? I want to share a couple of quotes from deputants who appeared before the committee. One said, “Our equity, diversity, inclusion and justice offices are just as depleted as the mental health units in this sector. For example, having two EDI staff in a campus with a student population of 20,000 students is equivalent to treating a deep wound with a Band-Aid and no antibiotic cream.”

You have to appropriately fund the offices that have the expertise to respond to racism and hate as systemic problems and do that hard work of dismantling racism and hate if you are going to adequately protect students.

Here’s what another deputant said: “There’s a massive funding issue at post-secondary institutions right now, and we keep saying it over and over again. We have equity offices that are willing to do this work, that want to do this work. Our group has spoken with people who do this work on campuses, and they are dramatically underfunded. They want to get the word out. They want to hire experts, people who are specifically trained in culturally specific mental health supports. They want permanent employees who can do this work, and they don’t have the funds.”

We heard from the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the NCCM, as well as from some of the B’nai Brith and CIJA and the other organizations that appeared before the committee about the importance of faith-based supports for students. What NCCM said is that there are a growing number of faith-based supports on campus, but he pointed out that these people may start doing these services based on the initial funds raised—he was referring to trained Muslim psychotherapists who have both a faith identity and a track record of serving the Muslim community. But he said they could “start doing those services based on the initial funds raised, but if their services get interrupted, which often has happened, it’s one step forward, two steps back—there are so many students who are left in more difficulty than when they started, because of the interruption of those services.

“There needs to be a long-term strategic investment in this area, in mental health supports broadly, and to also have wide consultation with various faith-based communities....”

Speaker, when this legislation was announced, the government also announced a funding package to accompany it. That funding package included a total of $23 million to enhance mental health supports, but of that $23 million only $8 million was allocated to the post-secondary mental health action plan, and that was over a period of three years. So you’ve got $8 million over three years for direct support for the post-secondary mental health action plan, which when you do the math, means $2.7 million per year for the post-secondary mental health action plan, which means $57,000 for each of the 47 colleges and universities in this province in direct student supports.

So, in the face of everything they know about the underfunding of mental health supports based on the current levels of funding that are provided, this government made the decision that they’re going to mandate this new policy and they’re going to give every college and university about $57,000 per year in direct student support to improve campus mental health services. I asked people who appeared before committee: Do you think that’s going to make a difference on your campus? Every time I asked that question, they said, “Absolutely not, absolutely not.” In the face of the kinds of pressures that are experienced on our campuses, that’s a drop in the bucket.

Now, on the racism and hate policy, with the government’s funding announcement that went along with this bill, there were no additional dollars for implementation. And we know that moving forward with a new policy, training people on a new policy, implementing a new policy requires significant dollars. Yet as our universities and colleges are in the midst of the most serious financial crisis that we have ever seen in this province—they are literally on the brink—this government decided to mandate this new policy for anti-racism and hate, which replicates policies that already exist, and to provide no additional funding.

I just wanted to go a little bit deeper into the financial context that our post-secondary sector finds itself in right now. For the last four decades, Ontario has been at the bottom of the list in terms of per student funding that is allocated by each of our provinces in Ontario. Since this government came to power in 2018, it has gotten worse; it has literally brought our post-secondary institutions to a state of such crisis that the government had to strike a blue-ribbon panel to look at how to ensure the long-term sustainability of the sector, because there are very serious questions about whether our colleges and universities are going to be able to survive in this fiscal environment. That blue-ribbon panel came up with a recommendation that what this sector needed was $2.5 billion in permanent base funding just to keep the sector afloat. And that, Speaker, was before the federal government announced its cap on international study permits, which has generated another huge financial hit for our colleges and universities in Ontario because this government was quite happy to see colleges and universities actively solicit international students because they brought with them much greater tuition dollars and it took the government off the hook. It let the government avoid its responsibility to publicly fund our institutions.

We know from the government’s budget this year that the impact of the federal government cap on international study permits on the college sector is going to be $3 billion—an additional $3-billion revenue loss over the next three years. We don’t know the total revenue loss that universities are going to face because of different kinds of reporting, but we do know that in the college sector, for those 24 colleges, they’re looking at the removal of $3 billion in revenue.

What we’re seeing are program cuts across the board, and I am positive that we are going to be hearing more and more about program cuts in every community in the province. This morning, I asked about Fleming College in Peterborough, which just announced that it was slashing 29 programs because of the loss of international-student tuition dollars. That’s more than one in five programs in that college. Queen’s University said that they are cutting programs in arts and sciences. University of Guelph said that they are cutting 16 programs; 10 of them in the science field. This is because of the very real financial pressures that institutions are facing.

The implications of those pressures are felt by students because the institutions have to cut programs, they have to cut staff; oftentimes they do that by not filling vacancies, by not replacing retirements, by moving to short-term contracts instead of permanent positions. In fact, when OPSEU appeared before the committee, they told us that in 2021-22, there were 231 full-time counsellors employed in the college sector. That was a 5% reduction from the total number of full-time counsellors that was reported the year this government was elected in 2018-19. So at a time when student needs are increasing, the number of full-time counsellors available in our post-secondary institutions is decreasing because of the very serious fiscal crisis that our institutions are facing.

Speaker, as I said, the big question for me, the big question not for the government members on the committee—although hopefully they were thinking about this—was, since these policies already exist in most if not all of our institutions, what can we do to strengthen them? Can we use this legislation to improve the student mental health services and anti-racism-and-hate services on campus? We felt yes, there is an opportunity to use this bill to strengthen those services, but you have to make sure that the policies that are mandated by the legislation are going to be effective. And how do you do that, Speaker? You require a broad process of engagement. You talk to students; you talk to faculty; you talk to staff; you talk to the people in the community about how best to support students’ mental health needs and how best to address racism and hate on campus.

Actually, I’m going to quote here from the Centre for Innovation in Campus Mental Health. She said, “For a mental health policy to be truly effective, there has to be significant consultation on that campus. It can take a year to two years for a mental health policy that truly embodies the needs of that school to ... come into fruition.” And she pointed out that, when you have that fulsome consultation process that leads to effective policy, there are costs involved in developing the policy and then additional costs in implementing the policy. But this government has refused to make the investments that the sector requires.

Again, we had other deputants who said—

Interjection.