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 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.

My question is for the member from Whitby. He addressed this chamber with his usual statesmanlike manner and the rest of us would do well to learn from his example and follow it more often.

My question to him has to do with the imbalance of the relationship between faculty members and students, sometimes described as maybe a fiduciary relationship but, in less technical terms, just an imbalanced relationship, a relationship where one person is more dependent on the other or perhaps influenced by the other. I would like to invite the member to comment on that relationship and ask him, how does he feel that this bill addresses that relationship and what this bill can do in those situations?

I really appreciate the debate today and the presentations from the member from Markham–Thornhill and the member from Whitby.

I personally had the experience of working for about 20 years at a community college in Ontario and, unfortunately, was aware of situations that this bill directly addresses, situations where an instructor was caught—and I’ll say bluntly, “caught”—and it still took a year and a half to go through the processes to make sure that that person was no longer in a position to teach. Unfortunately, I did find out that he had later taught at another nearby institution.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member from Whitby: This government has a history of creating policies that continually build on previous legislation. Bill 26 is no different, and it builds on the regulations that the minister put into place previously. So can the member please outline how this legislation will build on the previous regulations, as he mentioned in his presentation?

Questions?

I want to thank the member for his words today and his tireless advocacy as a survivor and on behalf of the Indian residential school legacy.

Madam Speaker, there’s been a lot of work done here. In my previous chapter, I was personally involved in a number of schools in communities in the Kiiwetinoong riding to either be seriously rehabilitated or replaced. All too often, we found or realized that part of the success in building those schools, part of the success around water, waste water treatment, was electrification, the capacity and the stability of it. I think we can agree on that.

The member opposite had an extraordinary opportunity in his community just a week ago to turn one switch off of diesel generation and another switch on. And his own chief admitted and said in jubilation that this was an extraordinary opportunity for, amongst others, school and water infrastructure.

Does he agree with the proposition that other corridors in northern Ontario, particularly the central part of northern Ontario that are not covered by Watay Power, offer us up an extraordinary opportunity for prosperity, to electrify those communities so that critical infrastructure like water, sewer and schools can—

I know that I spoke about this: When we talk about prosperity, I know that there can be no prosperity if we’re still in a place where we’re searching for our children. We cannot have prosperity if we have young girls, young boys—as young as 11 or 12 years old—dying by suicide. There is so much work to be done.

I think electricity is just one piece. I remember for a long time, in my home First Nation, we could not build, we could not expand, because we had our diesel generator over capacity for close to a decade.

I guess my answer is that we could do much better. If you could give us clean drinking water on Neskantaga, I think that would be part of the road to reconciliation.

One of the things that I think is important to talk about is those big issues, as well. I can point back to call to action number 45. It identifies the need to renew and establish treaty relationships based on principles of mutual recognition, mutual respect and shared responsibilities for maintaining those relationships into the future. I think if Ontario started to acknowledge that they are treaty partners—for the First Nations in Ontario, that would be very monumental.

Reconciliation should not have any strings attached to it. Reconciliation requires no-strings-attached support. It requires more of respecting treaties. It requires speaking with nations prior to doing things, because that’s called “free, prior and informed consent” with First Nations. No matter what legislation we talk about, we are the first people who are impacted when legislation happens without talking to First Nations.

I want to thank my seatmate, my colleague from Kiiwetinoong, for his beautiful speech. I know that talking about it is also very personal for him, because talking about the Seven Fallen Feathers, speaking about children, kids who went to school and had to go far way from their communities because they don’t have schools in their communities, and then losing their lives—it’s difficult.

I know that there are things over the past years that have been worked on, and I think the member did a great job of pointing out how these small steps—he called it low-hanging fruit; it’s something that he mentions to me all the time as well, the low-hanging fruit—don’t really do justice to it.

My question to my colleague is, what would it be—and I think this goes beyond that, because when you’re talking about the need for clean drinking water, the fact that you need schools and all of those things, there’s so much more to be done. Would you be able to just tell us, in terms of some of the concrete steps—you mentioned a few of the reconciliation calls to action.