I thank both the minister and the parliamentary assistant to the minister for their comments this morning. This is a bill that I think we can all support. The end goal is really good.

There is one part of the bill that we have tried to amend, and that has to do with education. Does the parliamentary assistant believe that if we were to make education on sexual harassment for everybody attending college and university mandatory, that, over the years, as more and more students become educated on this topic, it would have a long-term effect on decreasing the amount of sexual harassment we see not only in colleges and universities but throughout our society?

I listened to the member’s comments about the term “sexual misconduct,” and I’m sorry; I have to ask this question very legitimately: if the member actually Googled that term, it is not made up. It happens to appear in the Canadian Armed Forces lexicon. The reason that it would be used is because “sexual misconduct” refers to all nature of behaviour, not just what would be termed criminal, such as violence or harassment.

So my question would be, why is the member advocating that we would use a term or terminology that would significantly, by definition, limit the conduct that this would apply to, when “sexual misconduct” is a term used frequently to include not just criminal acts, but also everything down to sexist jokes, sexist comments and that type of thing? I’m legitimately baffled, and I would love to hear an explanation from the member.

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

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

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?

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

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.

I want to thank the member from Markham–Thornhill for the question. We are all agreed that we need to deal with sexual harassment and violence on campus, and this bill just doesn’t go far enough. There should be much more. There should be an education component and there should be supports for survivors built into this bill. That’s what was asked for at committee by many, many organizations and experts. Unfortunately, it didn’t get incorporated into the bill, which is a real lost opportunity.