Thank you to the member from Ottawa West–Nepean for the presentation. I know you spent some time on schedule 3, where the name of the university is changed to Toronto Metropolitan University. When we talk about Indian residential schools across the country, where it instituted systemic racism—how it impacted First Nations across Canada—I know we talk about the decades of systemic racism, the decades of systemic oppression.

I know that a name change is a very, very small step. When we talk about the 94 calls to action, do you think this government has gone far enough to be able to implement those 94 calls to action?

Thank you, thank you.

So I’m officially today in my seventh year of service here in the Legislature, and I’m very thankful to the good people of Niagara West for sending me here and for the issues that we are able to debate. But at that time, one of the questions I got a lot in the fall of 2016 was if I was going to pursue post-secondary education. It’s no secret that I was quite young when I first entered this House. I was just 19 years old and people were a little bit concerned that I wasn’t going to be able to pursue some of the opportunities that I had been planning for. Of course, that would limit my future opportunities as well, in being able to pursue some of the areas that I’m passionate about. I had a lot of people when I was first elected, even during the campaign, come to me and say, “I hope you’re going to still go to school, Sam. I hope you’re not going to give up on getting a degree or wherever you’re going to end up going,” and I said, “No, I’m going to make sure I do.”

So starting in January 2017, a couple months after I was elected, I went to Brock, which I lived far closer to at the time, and I entered there in a degree for political science and economics. Over time, my wife and I met and married; we have a son, Sullivan, and I moved closer towards the Hamilton side of the riding. It just made more sense, given the proximity, to transfer to McMaster. And so since that time, I’ve been taking a course a semester almost every semester. Right now, I’m taking a philosophy course.

Over the past six years, I’ve had the opportunity to interact with so many amazing people in this building and amazing people in my community in my role as MPP. But one of the things I don’t really talk about too much because it’s something, I guess—people always get so curious about what it’s like and then I have to go into a whole conversation about what it’s like to be an MPP while being in university for political science and what that means. I could tell you a few different stories. But I’ve had also the amazing opportunity to be able to be in a classroom in a very practical sense and to speak with students—students who, bluntly, don’t know that I’m involved in politics. For all they know, I’m just another undergraduate student like they are. Of course I am, but I’m part-time; I’m one course a semester. I don’t go in a suit and tie. I usually am wearing a sweater, I’ll wear some jeans, and I have my notebook out. I’m wearing contacts, actually, this afternoon. I usually wear contacts, not glasses. People recognize me a lot more with glasses, and then things can get a little spicy in a first-year political science course.

But the reason I talk about this, Speaker, is because over those conversations with those post-secondary students, even as recently as last week—to hear their joy and optimism about where they are here in Ontario, in our post-secondary institutions, at McMaster University, a world-class university—with no disrespect to anyone who has gone to any other institution—there’s a belief in what they’re participating in on that educational journey, and an optimism—dare I call it a “youthful exuberance,” and it feels a little strange saying that—a youthful exuberance about the potential that they’re being able to provide to their community, to the world, to our province. They participate in those studies with such enthusiasm, they talk about the issues, and one of the issues that has come up multiple times over the course of my studies is this very conversation that we’re having about sexual violence and sexual harassment on campus. I’ve heard stories from my colleagues, not just here but fellow students in class, about either situations that, perhaps, were just made to feel uncomfortable, or actual stories of tragic sexual harassment and assault on campus—something that is completely unacceptable and that I know each and every single one of us in this chamber condemns, and rightfully so.

Now, in those conversations, unfortunately what I heard was that those were terrible interactions and terrible tragedies that occurred, often between students. But one of the things I’ve noticed in participating in the classroom discussions—and I’m now a little bit older; I’m 25. I’m almost finished my studies. I’ll almost have a degree in about a year, hopefully, if, Lord willing, things continue the way they are. But so many of these are young students, they’re 17, maybe 18, maybe 19 or 20 in some of the first-year courses, and the respect that they have for the faculty that they’re interacting with, you can see the awe in their eyes and this view of, whether it’s the TA or the professor—not that they’re unquestioning; of course they’re questioning and they have those discussions in a healthy and vigorous way, but you can see they very much trust the people who are teaching them and are there to teach them.

I know that for the vast majority of those staff members, who I have so much respect for, the work and the reason they’re there is to be able to help craft and provide insight and knowledge and learning to students who are excited to learn more about the world and their contributions to the world. That is, I believe, a position of sacred trust. It’s one that—everyone who has had the opportunity to teach is someone who has had the opportunity to help craft and shape the future of our world in an amazing way.

I believe one of the sayings—I’m trying to figure out which one it is here. I believe it’s on one of these pillars, and the saying, when translated from Latin—I can’t see them all right now—one of the sayings is, “By teaching, learn.” So there’s a real recognition in this House as well in the inscriptions on our pillars of the value that teachers bring, and I believe that applies also to post-secondary education.

But then to have, in that type of setting where a student is looking up to, admiring, respecting their faculty member, their professor, their TA—to have a terrible destruction of that sacred trust by an act of violence, an act of disrespect, a tragic breaking down of that trust in unfathomable ways that creates often lifelong trauma, that creates lifelong hurt, that creates damage to that person in terrible, terrible ways, is something that I, having sat in those classrooms and still going back to those classrooms—I was thinking about this, actually, just last week when I was in class. Thinking about this legislation, it reminded me of the vital importance of having measures that keep those students safe, that protect them and that bluntly punish those who break those sacred bonds of trust. I believe that that is why we are having this debate this afternoon.

I’m thankful to speak to the Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act. I fully support this legislation, because I understand and see the value that strengthening our protections for students in post-secondary education will bring. Those who go to a college campus, a university campus, whether they’re involved in an apprenticeship or wherever else, are opening themselves up in a vulnerable way to learning, and, to learn, you have to break down some of the barriers, some of fences that you might have in your own heart, your own mind, when you’re thinking about your perception of a particular issue or a particular career path. Everyone has presuppositions; they have philosophical underpinnings to how they view the world, and those are good; it would be false for any of us to say that we don’t have a particular lens that we view the world through, but we also need to make sure that we’re able to reduce those fences to learn from others’ experiences, to learn from lived experience, to be able to have empathy and to be able to grow.

To think of students who are in that process of learning, of opening themselves up to that knowledge from someone who they believe can teach them, and then to have that trust shattered by a despicable act of sexual violence or harassment or abuse, necessitates a response from all of us as legislators. And I know there has been good work done on all sides of the House, actually, I believe, on this. I think of work brought that’s been brought forward by all-party committees of the Legislature. I think of work that’s happened from members of the opposition, as well, on fighting sexual harassment and violence. I think of the work that’s happened by so many members of our team and, as much as I don’t regularly give praise to former Premier Kathleen Wynne, one of the issues I believe she was strong on was with regards to this, culturally, recognizing the damage it causes.

So I think it’s important for all of us, as we consider this legislation, to perhaps not get too bogged down in minutia and legalese, if you will. I know I’ve heard some concerns raised by members of the opposition, and I respect that. I think it’s important that they’re able to share. They’re the opposition, after all. But I don’t believe that the members of the opposition are going to allow those mild concerns that they might have around some legalese within the bill—they might have some phraseology concerns—are going to prevent them from supporting, as I know every member on this side will, legislation that will protect students and that will ensure that, when they come onto that campus—as I saw them again this September.

I hate to go on a little aside, but for a couple of years, most of my courses were online, and there was some benefit to that, I would say, in that I was able to multi-task a little more and able to do some other things at the same time, not having to drive into McMaster. But when I was back in September—I know people have this with me, so it feels very strange saying this—I was struck by how young they were, right?

Interjections.

To the member opposite, I appreciate your comments today. It was interesting to learn that you’re currently an undergraduate student at McMaster University.

Every campus in Ontario has a sexual assault issue—sexual harassment and violence, and 2SLGBTQ students are disproportionately affected by sexual harassment and violence. I’m wondering—because you are an MPP and a student, you are a leader on your campus—what will you do to curb sexual harassment and violence on your campus? Will you join the gay-straight alliance on your campus and will you help out with the sexual assault centres?

Questions?

Thank you to the member from Niagara West. I would like a little bit more context, because when the member takes off his glasses, he’s like Clark Kent. I would like to know what the students are saying to you as a fellow student and what you’re hearing directly from the students about the issue that we’re speaking about now.

And I know; I know. You can laugh. I get that a lot. But frankly, again, these are young people, for the vast majority. They’re 17, they’re 18, maybe 19. They’re coming onto campus. Their joie de vivre, their appetite for learning, is limitless. The best courses are first-year courses, before they become a little bit jaded by the time they get to third or fourth year and they don’t engage as much. But the first-year students, they’re there to learn, they’re there to discuss, they’re there to experience post-secondary education, and I can’t imagine how devastating and how destructive an act can be to someone coming in with those expectations.

And that, then, is a call to all of us to take that seriously, to act not just in this way—this is an incredibly important piece of legislation that builds on the work that’s been done in a non-partisan way, and I know that any member in this House would be the first to say that it’s not the end, that there is more work that should be done. I, frankly, don’t know exactly what that is. If I did or if we did, then I know we would bring it forward. But I know that that’s something all of us share, a belief in always doing more, being better and serving—serving those who we strive to represent, including those young people who are seeking to improve themselves and to contribute, to make a difference in our communities.

And that’s why I’m speaking in favour of this legislation this afternoon, Speaker. It’s because when I think of the people that I go to school with and the people who have gone to school and have experienced, unfortunately, the terrible trauma, the déjà vu, if you will, of having been abused or having been harassed or having been assaulted by someone who is in a position of authority, in a faculty position, and then going back onto that campus, seeing that person at the front of class, teaching, speaking with authority—I can’t imagine what that would be. And I recognize, Speaker, that I’m not someone who is in a position that likely will ever experience that. I pray no one in my family will experience that; I pray that no one I know will experience that. But there are many who have.

So then it’s not enough for us just to say, “Well, the existing processes are good enough. It’s good enough, what we’ve got. Yeah, it’s not perfect, but it’s good enough.” There’s a flavour of that in what I hear. Defending these unethical NDAs—the approach of the past, frankly, in approaching these sensitive and important topics, is not good enough. That’s why this legislation is needed and it’s why I support it.

I would just ask all members to think either of their family members—or perhaps, if not family members, those they know, those they interact with. Think about the university or the college in your community. So many of us have them. There are so many amazing colleges and universities in this province that do fantastic work. Think about when you go there—we’ve all been there, right? They invite us. Perhaps it’s a new facility opening. Perhaps we get asked to speak to a class. Perhaps we’re invited to visit a high school and share about our life as an MPP or the policies that our government is providing.

When you look out upon that group of children or young adults or teenagers and think about the terrible statistics that have necessitated this type of action, the fact that so many have experienced terrible abuse or trauma from those in positions of authority—consider that when casting your ballot, and vote yes. Vote yes to a safer university campus. Vote yes to a safer college campus. Vote yes to supports in place that provide opportunity, that encourage growth so that that eager and enthusiastic group of students who I see when I go to campus don’t have the devastation and disappointment of experiences that I pray none of us will ever see.

Speaker, in conclusion, I strongly support this legislation. I will be voting for this legislation and I ask all members of this House to join me in doing so. Thank you very much.

Whether it’s this legislation or other legislation, I’m committed to working and listening. It’s so important to ensure that we’re listening to those who have had lived experiences. Whether it’s in seminars or events—I frankly don’t get to quite as many events on campus as I would like to, just given the other requirements of the job—I’m going to continue to listen and have those help inform my work and advocacy here as an elected member as well. My thanks to the member for the question.

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

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

First, I want to inform the member that the only instrument I can play is a couple of spoons. That’s about it. I take that from my dad. As a young boy, we used to go to camp and Dad would play spoons to a variety of Johnny Cash songs.

My question I do have for the member is—I don’t want to see “you, them, us.” I’m looking at him as an individual who is within the university environment; that’s what I’m looking for. I don’t want to say this is a good idea or you’ve got a good idea. All I’m asking the member is, would there be any benefit to having a consent awareness week passed through this legislation? Would it not bring benefit to all of us to have that opportunity to have a discussion? Let’s forget where the idea comes from. I just want to know from his experience that he’s had within the field and while in school, would there be a benefit to everyone?

Further questions?

My thanks to the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. It’s not just the glasses. The glasses are part of it, but I can’t wear a collared shirt. I find that with collared shirts, people will recognize me as well, so I have to wear T-shirts. A sweater is preferable, maybe a Mac one.

What I’m hearing from students—and it’s unfortunate—is a bit of a feeling that they are on their own and that governments historically haven’t had their back. I think that, again, is just why this type of legislation is so important. This type of legislation says, “No, we have your back.” It says to young people who I hear from in seminar—again, they don’t know I’m a member; they’re just talking about their experiences or their frustrations with the system. They see a piece of legislation like this, and I believe that they know then, “Okay, there’s a government that’s listening. There’s a government that’s taking action. They’re not using students as pawns. They’re not using them as bargaining chips in negotiations or in contract talks; they’re listening and they’re taking action.” I believe that’s what I’m hearing from my colleagues on campus.

It’s not just saying, “This is the end of all harassment on campus”—it’s not. Despite the fact that the majority of sexual harassment on campus might be from student to student, that doesn’t excuse or stop us from having to take action against that which is based in faculty. I think there’s always more that can be done. I know that our government is committed to always doing more, but this is a step in the right direction.

I would say that my understanding of the legislation specifically is that that’s not the process that this particular piece of legislation is intending to push for educational awareness around all these issues. This is specifically around that need to address sexual violence, specifically as it pertains to faculty members perpetrating acts against students.

But I also think that the member opposite does raise an important point, which is a call to all of us as individuals, whether we’re on campus or whether we are MPPs, to be able to raise awareness around these crucial issues. So I invite the member to promote the awareness of that, as well as myself and everyone else in this chamber.

I’m very proud to be rising today to speak about this bill and to speak on behalf of the good people of Toronto Centre. It is an absolute honour.

I want to begin my remarks by, number one, thanking everyone who came out to the deputations at committee. I thought it was important that they had an opportunity to speak to this bill. The bill, of course, was introduced and pretty soon it went straight to committee, so I recognize that there wasn’t probably a lot of time for everyone to respond, but for those who had a chance to come out, their input was incredibly valuable.

I want to pay particular attention to fact that my good colleagues from Ottawa West–Nepean and Nickel Belt did incredible yeoman’s work, trying to respond to a bill that didn’t have a lot of time on the floor and certainly wasn’t necessarily before us for a length of time, but I thought that just listening to the member from Ottawa West–Nepean provide her remarks was exceptional. She gave a master class in providing input throughout the “consultation” that was provided at the committee, but also just listening to her provide a surgical incision of why the bill’s areas could be strengthened was just exceptional. It’s hard to imagine that she just arrived here in June—so much respect to that.

I want to begin my remarks, I guess, largely about the things that are good. I really was encouraged to hear members of the government say that sexual violence, sexual assault and harassment should not be a partisan issue, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. Speaker. I couldn’t agree with that more. I want to be able to recognize that if this House was truly gripped to address the pandemic of sexual violence and gender-based violence in Ontario, then we should be able to work collaboratively across the aisle, work collaboratively at every single committee to advance amendments based on good practice and good policy-making.

Unfortunately, what I heard from the member from Ottawa West–Nepean was that didn’t always take place. So I’m trying to recognize what was said here about the opportunity to collaborate and build better legislation and work together to make sure it’s non-partisan, and then how challenging it was to then also recognize that good amendments that were put forward—oftentimes brought forward by the committee deputants—were then shot down by the government members. So clearly we still have a lot of work to do in reconciling what is said and what actually happens.

I want to try to bring the importance to this debate about what happens when we don’t do the good work together. We can get a little bit bogged down by language. “Sexual abuse” then morphed into “sexual misconduct,” and now there’s a call from the community that is most directly impacted—which is the students—to make sure that we use the right words and to use the language that students recognize as currently on the campus. What’s on campus are not sexual misconduct centres or sexual misconduct policies; what’s on campus are sexual violence policies, sexual assault centres. That’s the language that the students, as well as the post-secondary institutions, are using, and that’s certainly the language that we should be using to make sure that it’s consistent but also respectful to what their needs are.

Post-secondary institutions do not have minimum standards right now when it comes to design and implementation of sexual violence policies. They do have them, but they’re not entirely standardized, and if we’re going to make sure that the work that they are able to do and empowered to do is going to be procedurally fair and consistent, survivor-informed as well as trauma-informed, then we are needing some minimum standards. That’s exactly what the member from Ottawa West–Nepean was speaking about.

Now, currently, we have standards everywhere, minimum standards all over the place. We have minimum standards for judges in courts. We have minimum standards for police officers. We have minimum standards in training for nurses and doctors. But when it comes to investigations on campus, that still is not set out in any way that is going to be clear and consistent. The challenge of that is that, while you have a policy that is guiding all of the post-secondary institutions across Ontario, whether the ones that are publicly assisted or the ones that you request of privately funded institutions, if you don’t give them more guidance and specific minimum standards, you’re going to have policies that are all over the place and entirely inconsistent. Universities and colleges oftentimes look over each other’s shoulders, and they do borrow from each other, but it’s not enough, because they would have expected that guidance coming from this House that’s producing this legislation, that’s asking them to do this work.

When it comes to taking a look at how sexual violence intersects with the population on campus, I think what has been incredibly clear and that has been so oftentimes repeated—and it befogs me why the government House members cannot accept that—is that the relationship on campus goes in multiple ways. So it’s not always going to be faculty or teachers or professors assaulting students; most of the violence actually takes place, and the harassment takes place, among students, and there’s nothing here that actually addresses that.

Campuses are incredibly porous places. TMU—Toronto Metropolitan University—is a good example, or George Brown College, or University of Toronto—all within my catchment area and riding. Those campuses are incredibly open and porous. People come and go all the time, whether they be alumni, whether they be visitors, third-party contractors, as well as contract staff. It is not a stagnant place where you have binaries of, “You’re faculty, and you’re a student,” and nothing else—not to mention the sizable amount of administrators as well as guests who come in. This legislation before us, as proposed, doesn’t recognize the reality of the dynamism that exists in universities and colleges. So there’s another missed opportunity that I think could have easily been closed if there was more willingness on the behalf of the government side to actually listen to the experts and opinion makers and the thought leaders who came before the deputations.

And there is a portion around risk management that I’ve spoken about before: What happens when we don’t actually provide the post-secondaries with the necessary tools to do a good job of developing clear, consistent policies around sexual violence, making sure that the investigations are procedurally correct and consistent every single time? What happens is that, if those policies and procedures are not adequately and clearly communicated, there is a spottiness of expectation, execution and operationalization. What can happen? Students can protest. Actually, it’s been the students that have led the charge on campuses across Ontario and right across the country. They are the ones who have stood up and said, “We demand better,” and that they deserve better, to make sure that sexual violence and harassment are addressed on campus.

They’re the ones who have been defending their own integrity and autonomy of self, asking for the universities and colleges to do better. University and college administrators—their boards of governors—are actually turning to this government looking for guidance: “Show us how to be better at our job so we can be consistent.” Then the students will know everyone is looking after their best interests, and those who have been harmed, especially survivors, will know that there’s some consistent process for them to follow.

Sexual assault centres at post-secondary institutions all need support. We have seen repeatedly that there are now a number of quite alarming surveys and reports that have come out about the level of violence on campus, oftentimes facilitated through power dynamics or perhaps the person is not entirely informed around consent.

What we know is that 81% of sexual assault centres saw an increase in demand for their services during COVID, and 71% of post-secondary students—71%—have now witnessed or have been subjected to violence. Of that, only 41% are actually reported to the police. Therefore, what we know is that sexual violence and harassment on campuses are on the rise, especially during COVID. We also know that the request and demand for services are outpacing the actual service provision itself.

Not everything is going to be resolved through policing. We certainly know that. When you have people who know each other—and oftentimes the perpetuators are known to those who receive the harm—they don’t always want to go through that system. Which is why it’s so critically important that education, public awareness and consent awareness take place, because that’s the preventive piece.

Every single administrator, every president of universities and colleges is going to be asking for and clearly begging this House to show them the way when it comes to public education and consent. Don’t fail them. Because, Speaker, when we fail them, we leave them alone. When we don’t give them the guidance, they’re going to be making it up to the very best that they can, and it’s not going to be good enough and it’s certainly not going to be consistent.

We know that the rape crisis centres in Ontario are already underfunded. They have also seen an alarming rise in violence in the general community. What happens is that you have people who can’t get access to services on the campus and the wait-list is long. If you want therapy, the wait-list is long. If you want someone to accompany you to the police or to the hospital to administer the rape kits, that wait-list is long. We’ve heard questions in the House about that. But when the campus itself can’t provide the support for the person who is harmed, who is a survivor, then they go off to the sexual assault centres, which are also overburdened and also drawn out when it comes to their resources.

The Toronto Rape Crisis Centre has said that they have now seen a high in the past 33 years around sexual assault and that their funding hasn’t changed in 15 years. If this government was truly, truly serious about addressing sexual violence in Ontario, you would fund the sexual assault and rape centres. Just fund them so that they can actually do the work that you’ve asked them to do.

The demand for their services has continued to rise, with the funding being stagnated, and at the same time, the rate of inflation and the cost of service delivery have gone through the roof. Every year they’re facing funding cuts. They’re not being supported, which is of course something the Ontario NDP has been consistently, emphatically speaking about, the need to support our partners on the ground in the community who are doing this extraordinary and good work.

I want to be able to highlight the need for consent awareness, Speaker. I brought forward a bill—and it was actually my first private members’ bill. I was really proud to have done so. I gave it a lot of thought. I came to this House with a lot of—back in city hall, I should say, I probably passed more motions than any other city councillor in the past four years, and there are records of how that’s done. But it’s basically because I love to be able to push forward good policies and bylaws that will serve our community locally. So I came into this building with probably a dozen private members’ bills that were somewhat ready to go.

I really wanted to advance Consent Awareness Week because I thought that it was going to be, number one, important for us to have the conversation around consent and public awareness, but especially in light of what we’ve seen through Hockey Canada—the national scandal and shame that has buried that sport, our beloved national sport, around sexual violence, and then the deliberate cover-up using NDAs. And I thought, why not put forward what I thought was going to be a fairly straightforward bill that designates the third week of September, at the beginning of every single orientation period in post-secondary schools, as Consent Awareness Week? All that does, Speaker, is actually start the conversation so therefore we can engage as a citizenry in Ontario and talk about public awareness and sexual violence.

Much to my surprise, it was politicized: “Oh, it’s not our idea,” from the government side, “so therefore we’re just going to vote it down. We’re not going to accept it.” But at the same time, I’m hearing from the government side that sexual violence and sexual harassment should not be partisan. But why was Consent Awareness Week so critically important? Because, Speaker, in post-secondary institutions, the first six to eight weeks, statistically, is the highest time for sexual assault and violence on campuses. If we want to prevent sexual violence, if we want to stop it in its tracks, if we want to not be punitive but be proactive, then that was just a great example of how that bill could help.

That bill could still be put into this legislation. You can’t be talking about strengthening post-secondary institutions and strengthening the safety of students and faculty and all members of the campus environment and not have consent education. It is a clear and obvious omission that everyone can see who is outside of this building, who has been working on these issues on the ground for decades. But in the absence of government leadership, Speaker, universities and colleges, many of them across the country, are already putting forward consent awareness education. They’re doing it in an inconsistent fashion. In some, we have work happening in November; some are doing it in September, but can you imagine how powerful it would be if the entire province—not just the campus environment, but the entire province—spent some time talking about and promoting good education around consent awareness? It would revolutionize how we address sexual violence and harassment in our province. It would make these conversations available to everyone in a healthy and proactive fashion, and it would also be entirely accessible to all: boys and girls, men and women, those in power and those without. We would be able to build healthier, stronger human relationships because of it.

I want to be able to spend just a few minutes to talk about the Toronto Metropolitan University. I am so incredibly proud to be, first, their city councillor for almost 11 and a half years, 12 years, but I’m incredibly proud to represent them as their MPP. They did an extraordinary amount of work in a very difficult time when they undertook the process of reconciliation. I know many of the community members that actually were asking and calling for the name change, and I know that they did not do that lightly. I also know that it was on the heels of the discovery of children—buried children, skeletons, residuals left over in the school campus environment—of the Indian residential schools.

And in 2021, our nation was rocked to the core. I remember very clearly: How could this happen in this country? We had all heard stories, I suspect, especially in light of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We had heard the stories, but there was also an element of disbelief: “Oh, that happened a while ago. It probably wasn’t as bad as some of the speakers who came forward”—who spoke to the commission and shared their trauma and shared their stories and basically bared their souls to say, “We have been harmed as a community, as Indigenous people, First Nations and Métis and Inuit people across the country.”

I remember my grief, but the collective grief of Canada when we said we were going to do something about it. So we now have the national day. But then we have an institution like Ryerson University, which has stepped up in extraordinary ways—and to have a very public conversation in Canada’s biggest city, recorded by Canada’s largest newspapers, on how they were going to tackle reconciliation and to right the path of justice.

It was a privilege, Speaker, to actually see the campus community develop their task force to engage the conversation that involved 10,000 Ontarians to provide insight and value to what could be a better name. And I think that they have done an exceptional job. They’ve also set up, I believe, a really respectful protocol and template for the rest of us, including cities and towns that are now faced with their own conversation of how to take action on reconciliation. I’m sure that even here at Queen’s Park, there are probably places and spaces and monuments and designations that need to be reconsidered in light of the reconciliation conversation, and I’ll look forward to that. But I really want to thank Toronto Metropolitan University for leading the way.

In closing, Speaker, I just want to acknowledge that this bill actually does some very important things. Do I wish it would go further? Absolutely. But I’m going to take the government at its word that when the issues of sexual violence and new policy come up, that they will support it, and I’ll look forward to having their support on Consent Awareness Week.

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

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

Thank you for the question. I don’t know if I am fully aware of the specific case that you’re speaking about, but I think this is a great example of why we need to have consistent policies and protocols at universities and colleges so that there is no need to second-guess. Protocols and policies actually set out a very clear framework for investigation and due process. As long as it is survivor-centred and trauma-informed, I think we’re going to get to better outcomes. That’s what I would offer you: that if we have those good policies in place, we will follow them.

Questions?

Thank you to the member opposite for her remarks. Earlier this week, we saw stories of a professor who has remained in their role despite being found guilty of committing acts of sexual misconduct. During committee, we heard testimony from groups and even comments of the opposition that those found guilty are removed and that there’s no need for the punitive aspects of Bill 26. However, articles like this show why these measures are long overdue. So I’m curious what the member opposite believes should be done with faculty and staff who have been proven to have committed acts of sexual violence?

I’d like to offer my congratulations and thank you to the member for Toronto Centre for her wise remarks, both on this bill in response to a really bizarre attack on the faculty members who are working really hard to keep people safe across our post-secondary sector and for her kind words to me personally.

The member mentioned the need to be trauma-informed and survivor-specific in their remarks. We heard from witnesses last week at committee how important that is to getting the response to sexual violence and harassment right. But we also know that many people on campuses across the province aren’t fully aware of what those terms mean and how they would be implemented in a policy and what that would actually look like in practice, which is one reason why I think minimum standards are so important and why students are calling for those minimum standards to be implemented. Does the member agree that that could be a way of making sure that policies are survivor-centric and trauma-informed?

In these situations involving post-secondary institutions and the faculty that often teach in them and the relationships between those people who, I will just say, are in a superior role and the students, who I will describe as being in an inferior role and even sometimes a dependent role, oftentimes there is a power dynamic. The power dynamic differs from relationship to relationship. Oftentimes we describe these relationships in legal terms. We might call them something related to a fiduciary relationship, and in common, everyday terms we might describe them as a relationship of trust or respect. Difficulties arise when individuals involved in those relationships cross the line one way or the other.

I would just like to invite the member to comment on how the member perceives those relationships and what might be included in this particular act which might help define those relationships and prevent the crossing of the line, if I may put it that way.

Yes, thank you so much to the member from London West for the question. What we heard—and I think what every study has shown us now, especially the ones that are created in the university and college climate—is that it’s actually the faculty, the students and the administrators; everyone is asking for consent education. Creating that culture of consent is how we actually prevent the more costly approach of reaction to sexual violence and harassment when it takes place.

One thing I would say is that not every act of sexual violence or harassment is going to lead to rape. It’s not. So being able to step up and intervene before it happens is actually a much more caring and compassionate and less costly way of responding.

I’m not here to defend rapists or abusers, and neither should any of us.

You will not find a single administrator or president of a university or their governors or even their student leaders that will reject minimum standards when it comes to how they approach, define sexual violence and harassment, and the response and protocol for investigations. Every single one of them will support it.

I would also say that the other thing that’s absolutely critical, because we’ve heard this language used before, is it has to be survivor-centric and it has to be trauma-informed. The bill does not get to the heart of that and that’s why it could be strengthened and it should have been strengthened.

Thank you, my colleagues, for the overwhelming support for this wonderful bill. I’m very happy to rise today and talk about Bill 26, Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act. I want to congratulate the Minister of Colleges and Universities and say thank you to our government for standing up for the security and safety of our students in Ontario.

I’m a proud father of three children who have already attained their post-secondary education in Ontario. This bill is near and dear to my heart because of my son Pirathap, my daughter, Kethika, and my son Vernoth. They just graduated not too long ago.

As a parent, I always worried about the security and safety of my children going to post-secondary education institutions in Ontario. Similarly, students attending post-secondary institutions shouldn’t have to worry about their security and safety. If they are concerned about their well-being, then they are distracted from the main cause.

As a government, our priority is to support Ontario students and help them access high-quality education, education that will help them develop the knowledge and skills they need to get good-paying jobs and support the Ontario economy. But in order for students to flourish in post-secondary education and beyond, we first need to provide them with an environment that fosters success.

All students in Ontario deserve to learn in a healthy, safe and respectful environment, an environment where they don’t have to worry about discrimination or harassment while accessing their education, an environment where the safety and well-being of everyone on Ontario campuses is guaranteed.

Mr. Speaker, that is why today I am honoured to show my full support for the two initiatives outlined in the Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act, 2022.

What is the first part of the legislative amendments? As explained by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, the first set of amendments in the bill introduces changes that demonstrate our zero-tolerance stance for sexual assault, harassment and any other form of violence in our communities. The legislation seeks to help institutions better address faculty and staff sexual misconduct against students. This includes equipping the institution with stronger tools to address these instances, should they unfortunately occur.

Institutions would also be required to have a sexual misconduct policy that provides rules for behaviour between employees and students, and examples of disciplinary measures for employees who break these rules.

Finally, the proposed changes would prevent the use of non-disclosure agreements—what they call NDAs—which can sometimes be used to hide the prior wrongdoing of an employee when they leave one institution for another.

I also support the second part of the bill. This bill would also allow Toronto Metropolitan University to legally change its name from Ryerson University. The school adopted its new name in April after a backlash against Egerton Ryerson, an architect of Canada’s residential school system.

Mr. Speaker, now I would like to present to my fellow members some facts and figures related to the first part of the legislative amendments. My fellow members, do you feel safe if your daughters, sisters, nieces, granddaughters or any other female family members have to finish an assignment at university and stay there late? Students who experience sexual violence by faculty or staff at a post-secondary institution face significant emotional, psychological and academic impacts, but many students don’t report it to their institutions due to:

—lack of clarity about what types of behaviour can be reported;

—not knowing who the incidents should be reported to within the institution; and

—fear of any negative consequences associated with reporting.

Many students saw what happened as not serious enough to report; others cited a lack of knowledge about what to do or a mistrust in how the school would handle the situation.

That is why I am endorsing this bill. Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleagues from the opposition: Please support this historic change. Please, please support this historic change in our Ontario post-secondary school system.

Our government will always put the safety of students above the career goals of violent offenders. Voting against this bill is to turn a blind eye to a systemic issue of power dynamics and inappropriate behaviour in order to protect union brothers and sisters.

I now want to turn the attention connected to stigmatization, shame and cultural perspectives to sexual misconduct. It will be hard to listen to some content, but we have to take the bitter pill in order to solve this issue.

Getting raped, which is one form of sexual exploitation, results in an immense level of trauma for rape survivors. The victims endure the immediate physical and mental trauma of the actual event as well as many ongoing psychological challenges. As if these challenges are not enough, a strong and significant stigma of being raped persists in Canadian culture. Victims must deal with the added shame arising from the stigma-laden reactions of others that know about the rape.

Mr. Speaker, I could talk about rape. I came from a rape culture. I escaped from Sri Lanka out of fear of persecution. Rape was used as a hated weapon against a certain ethnic community, and I was witness to thousands and thousands of women being raped. So when I saw something happening here with rape and sexual violence, I couldn’t believe it when I heard about the incidents and all the numbers, all the heinous crimes taking place at our wonderful institutions.

A rape survivor, whose name is not shared for confidentiality purposes, who shared her experience with the stigma of rape says, “When I told people I’d been raped, I was faced with reactions of utter discomfort. Some people were scared to discuss it, some didn’t make eye contact, while others said the necessary things in order to move on and change the conversation.” She goes on to explain that these people didn’t even realize how they made her feel bad; rather, their reactions gave rise to strong feelings of shame and embarrassment.

This is utterly wrong, Mr. Speaker—wrong, wrong, wrong. We cannot blame the victim. It is not a victim’s fault to be raped or sexually exploited. The victim-shaming myths which cause re-traumatization in those who have suffered the unimaginable are real. These myths are often normalized as everyday platitudes that, even when said in well-meaning ways, can pose unnecessary harm to survivors and their healing journeys.

Research has shown the powerful detrimental effects of victim-blaming and victim-shaming statements. Studies have confirmed that when victims encounter negative reactions from professionals, family members and friends, this destructively affects the willingness of victims to come forward to disclose their pain, and only leads to further self-blame and uncertainty about their experiences.

In a study in 2005, “Shame is a negative and disturbing emotional experience involving feelings of self-condemnation and the desire to hide the damaged self from others.” In many cultures, sexual behaviour is associated with shame, especially sexual behaviour that violates social taboos.

I represent the most ethnically diverse riding in all of Canada, a beautiful riding called Markham–Thornhill. The victims of sexual misconduct, in certain cultures, would never speak out due to stigmatization. The sacred sanctity of marriage and social structures of families curb victims of sexual misconduct to speak out. Such victims live their lives in shame and silence secretly dreading the act they went through. How horrible it must be for the victims—how painful to live in silence and endure.

The secretive context in which sexual abuse takes place, condemnation of the victim by the perpetrator and explicit threats to keep silent promote feelings of shame. Victims of sexual misconduct face post-traumatic stress disorder. Strong negative emotions associated with traumatic events are aversive. They promote cognitive and behavioural avoidance, which in turn prolong PTSD symptoms.

Mr. Speaker, in light of all the facts and background, in conclusion, let’s thank the Minister of Colleges and Universities, the PA and the member from St. Catharines, for their hard work and standing up for women and girls and the university campuses and communities, and being their voice. Let’s thank our government, to be their voice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to share my time with my colleague from Whitby.