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?

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?

It was interesting that one of the groups who spoke against the measures in Bill 26 was the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, an organization focused on protecting faculty. In a statement, they called the legislation “a narrow and punitive vision for addressing the serious problem of assault and harassment.”

On the other hand, organizations like the PEARS Project, a by-survivors for-survivors student organization of the University of Toronto, called for the need of Bill 26 to put an end to the harmful and ineffective practices seen at colleges and universities to deal with matters of faculty sexual violence.

Speaker, through you, who does the member stand with? Student survivors of sexual violence or the faculty associations who think this legislation is heavy-handed?

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?