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.

My question is, 2SLGBTQ students are disproportionately affected by sexual harassment and violence. What should campuses be doing to keep 2SLGBTQ students safe?

Further questions?

Further debate?

I’m pleased to join the debate today on Bill 26, the third reading of the Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act.

Just by way of context, you’ll know that in the official opposition I was the education critic, and in that position I had the opportunity to visit many of the campuses across Ontario. In my own riding I have three educational institutions: Ontario Tech, Durham Trent and Durham College, and the proposed changes that are in Bill 26, I believe, will allow those post-secondary institutions and the students who are in those institutions to succeed going forward.

Now, interestingly, I was also in the standing committee when we discussed amendments, and the member for Nickel Belt was in the course of debating some of the amendments described this legislation as “life -changing” and also “generational.” I think those are two important descriptions when we’re looking at this legislation and what the effects can be, and will be, given the direction and intent and purpose that’s evident in Bill 26.

What’s clear, Speaker, as we debate the bill here this afternoon, is that campuses across the region of Durham, like Ontario Tech, Trent Durham in Oshawa and Durham College in my riding of Whitby, are not only places of learning but, importantly, centres of employment and economic growth for their communities, cities and regions that they call home.

The other aspect of Bill 26 which is important to get on the record is that it’s about also creating the right conditions for student success. It’s also about creating inclusive, respectful and safe environments for learning, and I think those are qualities that we all aspire to for the youth who are that are on campus, as well as faculty and staff.

What’s evident is that the proposed legislation seeks to help institutions like the educational facilities in my riding and other ridings in the region of Durham better address faculty and staff misconduct against students.

First, it will equip these institutions with stronger tools to address instances of faculty or staff sexual misconduct. For example, sexual abuse of a student by faculty would be just cause for dismissal, as it should.

Second, it would prevent the use of non-disclosure agreements, which can be used to hide the prior wrongdoing of an employee when they leave one institution for another. The parliamentary assistant to the Premier, when she spoke earlier in this Legislature, spoke about the effect and cause-effect of that. Also very important, preventing the use of non-disclosure agreements will help to limit instances where an employee leaves an institution to be employed at another institution and their prior wrongdoing remains a secret, unknown to faculty, staff and students.

Third, it would require institutions to have sexual misconduct policies that provide rules for behaviour between employees and students and examples of disciplinary measures for employees who break these rules. These measures will help address instances where faculty overstep a teacher-student relationship with inappropriate behaviour, such as an instance in 2016 when an independent review found that a professor gave alcohol to and made sexual advances towards a student.

Speaker, if approved, the legislation’s amendments would come into force on July 1, 2023. Taken together, these changes will require publicly assisted colleges and universities, as well as private career colleges, to have specific processes in place that address faculty and staff sexual misconduct on campus and to make those processes transparent.

At a fundamental level, no student in Ontario can reach their full potential unless they’re safe on campus and feel safe on campus. Our government believes that everyone should be able to pursue their studies on or off campus without having to worry about sexual violence, harassment or misconduct. Speaker, this is not something we merely believe in, but as a government, in fact, we’ve acted on.

The measures included in Bill 26 further build on our government’s actions to address the safety of students. What I’m alluding to there, Speaker, is about a year ago, in March, we brought forward a set of regulations designed to make the campuses safer than what they were. And by no means is that to cast dispersion on the robust work taking place on campuses across Ontario, including my riding, overall. But what it does is make sure that the checks and balances are in place to help our students who are aspiring to careers succeed in their studies to accomplish that.

I want to share with you a couple of comments from people who have looked at the legislation and one that resides with Ontario Tech University: “Ontario Tech University welcomes the province’s strong support for the post-secondary community’s commitment to eradicating sexual violence and maintaining healthy and safe learning, living, social and working environments for students, staff and faculty members with this bill....”

And, Speaker, I’m conscious of the time, so I’m going to go to my closing, if I could, please.

These proposed amendments, if passed, will benefit students by helping to create a safer, more respectful environment and campus community. Bill 26, I believe, provides measures to help position our post-secondary education sector for continued success for present and future generations, like my granddaughters, Annette and Sophia. The sexual misconduct measures will provide students with more protection—as they should—empowering them to achieve their full potential during some of the most formative years of their lives.

What’s clear with Bill 26 is that we’re building on past successes to help students feel safe and supporting our institutions to continue to uphold high standards. We will continue to work with our colleges and universities, student groups and other partners to make sure our world-class post-secondary institutions—like Ontario Tech, where I was last Friday, with my colleague MPP Dowie—support a bright future for the people in this province—importantly, the students, the staff and the faculty.

To those members in the official opposition, there are times in this place when we have the opportunity to make a strong decision to affect the lives of young people in our communities. Today is a day when you stand in your place and say yes and support this critical piece of legislation—

Thank you to my colleague from London for your wonderful questions. I could say the sexual violence and the sexual misconduct in post-secondary institutions is alarming. I listened to my children for the last decade, 10 years. One daughter went to Western University, and she talked about the horrible stories about the sexual misconduct and sexual violence taking place. It’s hidden. It’s always unreported. This is very sad.

Our government has been restoring the trust and accountability in government. We were elected with a mandate to fix 15 years of the Liberal government’s broken promises. They didn’t fix it. Our government is taking the bold action to bring the safe and—

It is now time for questions.

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

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

I listened to both members on your presentations, and I thought they were both very compelling. I did want to ask the member from Markham–Thornhill: I know you, as well, have had children go through post-secondary schooling. I’ve got two children going through that in the next year or so, so this is certainly close to home. But we’ve talked about the sector as a whole and I’m curious to hear more about, specifically, students. I know groups like OUSA have been calling for increased supports around sexual and gender-based violence for some time. Our government, of course, has listened and brought in the changes needed.

So Speaker, can the member tell us, from the student perspective, what the reception to this bill has been?

Thank you, Speaker, through you, to my colleague for that question. It’s a question and discussion that I’ve had on the campuses in my riding, and part of the discussion, in the context of Bill 26, is that in no way should it be perceived as an attack on our faculty or a way to limit their rights or anything else that people might want or suggest to believe.

In fact, many of the faculty and staff on these campuses see the necessity of these sorts of protections, because it keeps them safe and it keeps the students safe. The prime objective of the faculty on campuses, from the conversations that I’ve seen, is to make sure that the students are safe in every way possible, so that, as I indicated earlier, their aspirations that they have, in fact, can be fulfilled. That’s what I’m hearing.

I thank the member for his question—thoughtful as usual.

Our government has shown an incredible commitment to the protections of students on campus, and one of the most notable is, in some respects, the funding, but the non-disclosure agreements and dealing with those non-disclosure agreements, and what the effect has been historically, and what the checks and balances that we’ve put in place now—I think have been significant, Speaker.

Added to that is the work that each of the universities and community colleges have done to put in place their individual policies and programs and services to support their students as well.

I think, taken together—taken together—when the time comes to vote on this legislation, we can satisfy ourselves that we’re putting in place the supports that are needed to help students in our communities, our individual communities, succeed and be protected. That’s why we’re here today to debate the bill. That’s why we’re going to succeed together in moving this bill forward.

Further questions?

I recognize the member for Kiiwetinoong.

My question is to the member from Markham–Thornhill. Thank you very much for your presentation. I’m curious to know: The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance has noted that they have been calling for minimum standards; they have been calling for the development of policies that have some clear benchmarks. They have also been calling for consent awareness and consent education. Would you believe that it would support the legislation to have that included?

Thank you to my colleague the member from Oakville. We have already talked about the sector as a whole, but I’m curious that so many—your question about consultation: We’ve heard enough consultation the great work done by the OUSA, the Ontario union of students, and we’ll not forget about the other groups, like the PEARS Project and the York graduates’ society, that came to committee to provide their support and feedback for Bill 26.

You also have young girls and you heard about your children’s and your girls’ safety when they go to post-secondary education in Ontario. I think this is the right bill. This is a wonderful bill to come to fruition in our history in Ontario. Thank you for that question.

Meegwetch, Speaker. This afternoon, I would like to talk about schedule 3 of Bill 26, which amends the Ryerson University Act.

I know that we spoke about this earlier in second reading. We know the step that Bill 26 takes in the changing of the name of Ryerson University. We know that it’s only one step towards a fortified change. It is just that: one step.

We know Egerton Ryerson, the namesake of the university, was an architect of the Indian residential school system. We also know that not everybody knows that Indian residential schools instituted a system that was racist and that negatively impacted First Nations across what we know as Canada.

Indian residential schools stripped First Nations children of their cultural identity, their ways of life, their languages, but also, they inflicted physical and verbal harm. Not only that, they caused decades and decades of intergenerational trauma.

I think it’s important to acknowledge these issues. It’s important to know and understand the impacts of these Indian residential schools that are far-reaching for First Nations people and its nations. It’s also important to acknowledge and understand that they extend beyond a singular decade and place. These Indian residential schools, they impacted Indigenous nations. They impacted our nations for generations following, and need I remind this House, the last Indian residential school closed in 1997—1997, Speaker.

Following the decades of systemic racism, systemic oppression, facilitated by the government of Canada—and not only that, many churches across the country—we have to understand that First Nations came together to challenge their experiences in the courts. I talk about this because this schedule, schedule 3 of Bill 26, fulfills only one of the 94 calls to action from the truth and reconciliation report. And then, when I talk about the courts, the courts had previously mandated and allowed the abuse which survivors suffered from to occur.

But also, we have to understand that with strength and resiliency, survivors were able to have their collective experience recognized, which led to the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Throughout the years of hearing survivors’ stories, centering their voices, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission developed 94 calls to action. We have to know, Speaker, these calls to action are multi-faceted and work to redress the harm perpetuated by these Indian residential schools.

I’d also like to say that there are a few calls to action that I would like to highlight to acknowledge how reconciliation needs to go beyond just a namesake, beyond just changing the name of the university.

Call to action number 3 calls upon all levels of government to fully implement Jordan’s Principle. Jordan’s Principle is named after Jordan River Anderson, a young boy from Norway House Cree Nation, in his memory. Norway House is in northern Manitoba. The principle, recognized federally by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, issued that all First Nations children must have the same accessibility, the same availability of services as any other children in Canada.

Where I come from in northern Ontario, sometimes it feels like a different Ontario. Sometimes it feels like a different Canada. I say that because the First Nations in northern Ontario, in my riding—that accessibility, those human rights and that Jordan’s Principle are not being upheld.

Again, I talk about this because when you do only the minimal changes and not the systemic ones, it is the low-hanging fruit. I talk about that because every year, young people—as young as 13, 14 years old—leave their fly-in First Nation to attend high school in the south. Imagine: I know in the fall we all come out and speak about how our college-age university students leave for school, but it’s different in the north. Grade 9 and 10 students are leaving for high school, leaving home, the reason being that there are no high schools. Not every fly-in First Nation has high schools available because of the unwillingness of the federal government and the unwillingness of the provincial government to step up and provide comprehensive funding for their education. That’s how oppression and colonialism work. That’s how the long-lasting policies of both levels of government, when we talk about Indian residential schools, continue on, because they have to leave home every fall to attend high school.

The lives of these children and youth are sacred. They lack the support they receive, due to being hundreds or even thousands of kilometres away from their families, from their siblings, from their ways of life; from their language, identity and community. And they pay in full with their lives. I say that they pay in full with their lives because, between 2001 and 2011 in my riding, there were seven First Nations children that lost their lives in Thunder Bay while away from home for school. That’s just a way—it has become a way of life.

I’m going to mention some names that we’ve lost because we have no high schools in northern Ontario. I’m going to mention their ages and why these are the one who had to pay with their lives: Jethro Anderson, year 2000—he was 15 years old; Curran Strang, 2005—he was 18 years old; Paul Panacheese, 2006; Robyn Harper, 2007, 18 years old; Reggie Bushie, 2007—he was 15 years old; Kyle Morrisseau, 2009—he was 17 years old; Jordan Wabasse, 2011—he was 15 years old. Sometimes these youth, these children, these First Nations students are referred to as the Seven Fallen Feathers, and I talk about them because that’s what happens.

I know this bill talks about how they want to change, but those are small steps. We need to do better.

Changing the name of the university is important, but reconciliation requires more than words. Reconciliation needs to have an impact with action. Call to action 12 from the TRC identifies that provincial governments need to “develop culturally appropriate early childhood education programs for Aboriginal families”—this despite the fly-in First Nations schools already being inadequately funded, being limited in resources and infrastructure.

I always talk about this. We know that there’s no clean drinking water in 14 First Nations in my riding. A First Nation like Neskantaga is on its 28th year of boil-water advisories. First Nations are expected to do more with less. I’ve seen how they’re treated. I’ve seen how we’ve been treated. We do not matter. That’s how the systems are built.

For example, when a government does not value education workers in First Nation communities, they do not value children’s education. It is the government’s obligation under TRC call to action 12 to support “culturally appropriate early childhood education for Aboriginal families.”

Call to action 16 identifies supporting post-secondary institutions “to create university and college degree and diploma programs in Aboriginal languages.” Reconciliation includes supporting programs that add language revitalization and education initiatives. We are losing our languages at a very fast rate. In 50 years’ time, in 100 years’ time, if we lose a language, I don’t know where we go. We can’t go back to another country. We are here. This is where we’ve been for thousands of years. You cannot continue to make it look as if you’re doing something without really doing anything. It has been done for years, and it has become a way of life for people.

It’s 2022. It’s not too late to look back and realize the inappropriateness of the name “Ryerson” at a university. Again, he was an architect—a school that’s supposed to protect, but a system that took away children from their loving families, a system that took away from their communities and destroyed the fabric of our nations. Schools where children died—even today, we are trying to locate our children and to bring them back home.

Even TMU acknowledged that, for years, they did not understand the concern of the community’s people, of the Indigenous people who worked and went to school at TMU—about the name. The neglect to acknowledge the harm behind the name shows how far the work has come and needed to come.

Work has always been placed on Indigenous people to advocate. We’re always the ones trying to reconcile. I’m always trying to reconcile—why am I the one trying to reconcile? Why, as First Nations, are we trying to reconcile? It should be the government; it should be up to the settlers of these lands to reconcile.

Reconciliation goes beyond namesake. Meegwetch for listening. Reconciliation is more than a name change.