I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and move its adoption.

No.

Responses?

Enough transit?

Ontario’s projected deficit in 2022-23 is $12.9 billion. This is an improvement of $6.9 billion from the 2022 budget. Eliminating Ontario’s deficit while delivering on Ontario’s Plan to Build is a critical part of our government’s long-term vision for this province. After unprecedented spending in response to the pandemic, now is the time for governments to show restraint, to act cautiously and responsibly. Irresponsible spending today will only make inflation more painful and drag out the economic downturn.

The economic road ahead will not be easy, and Ontario is not an island, and we will not be immune to it. But there is nothing we cannot do together, no challenge that we cannot meet, no obstacle we cannot overcome. Whatever the economic uncertainty may bring, our government has a plan. Just like Bill Davis did so many years ago, under the leadership of Premier Ford we are building a stronger province. And no matter the obstacles we may face, we are steadfast—because one thing I am sure of is the strength and resilience of the people of this great province.

Together, let’s get it done. Let’s build Ontario.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of His Majesty’s official opposition to respond to the fall economic statement.

Budgeting is about priorities. The fall economic statement is a key opportunity to communicate with Ontarians. What the government is communicating today is that they don’t share our priorities of health, of education or of cost-of-living relief for low-income families.

This government’s economic update comes on the heels of a multi-billion dollar surplus. Instead of taking the opportunity to invest in our hospitals, they sit on billions. Amid a health care crisis, which is real, this government has not allocated a single new penny. We have seen cancelled surgeries across the province, ER closures, code reds in all of our communities, long waits. And now, for the first time in the history of the province, there is a shortage of pediatric ICU beds for children. Every single pediatric unit is full.

Just this morning, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health said the province’s health system is facing extraordinary pressures.

Despite the crisis before us, the government is projected to spend $6.2 billion less on health care than what is needed through to 2025.

I’m not sure if the members of the government in the House have seen the pictures of children and babies on ventilators, but I would urge you to pay attention to what is happening in our health care system.

As staffing shortages plague our hospitals, the Ford government touts that they have added 11,000 new health care workers since 2020, but informed reports say 47,000 new health care workers need to be hired per year for the next three years to maintain current service levels. And yet this government stubbornly holds on to Bill 124, which is wage-suppression legislation, which is driving health care workers out of this province. Health care workers are increasingly reporting exhaustion and burnout, and more and more health care workers are considering whole profession changes.

On the education front, over the last few weeks we saw the government lowballing CUPE education workers and imposing a collective agreement on them with meagre increases, well below inflation. The fall economic statement continues this trend of underspending. Comparing the document before us to the non-partisan Financial Accountability Officer’s report from October, the government will be short $1 billion in education through 2024-25. What does that mean for our kids? And what does that say about a government that doesn’t respect education workers and that doesn’t understand the damage that was done to our students and to our system throughout the pandemic?

The cost of living: Instead of addressing the housing affordability crisis, this government has downgraded its projection for housing starts in the coming years and has refused to fully reverse the $100-million cut to the housing program. The government has failed to accelerate public funding for affordable and non-market housing to ensure an adequate supply of new homes. We should not have people in Ontario living in tents. There has to be an investment in truly affordable housing.

There were some encouraging parts, I do want to say. We were absolutely relieved that there were improvements to ODSP, where future increases will be tied to inflation—and increasing the allowable earnings from $200 a month to $1,000 a month. That is a good move and something that we have tried to get the government to pay attention to. But Ontario’s ODSP rates have not kept pace with inflation. An inflationary increase is welcome, but it’s not enough to combat the skyrocketing costs of rent, of heating and of groceries—and the gas tax will not help these folks.

A troubling trend that we have observed in the last two budget cycles, and this is something that I think everyone should be paying attention to in Ontario, is that this government is underestimating revenue—you just heard it—and it overestimates the deficit. This has been observed by public accounts, by the FAO, by the Auditor General—and the government’s own summer budget. For 2022-23, the government is projecting a deficit of $12.9 billion, $7 billion lower than the outlook published in the summer budget, but in the same period, our Financial Accountability Officer has predicted a $100-million surplus. Where is the transparency? Where is the trust on the dollars?

Mr. Speaker, this fall economic statement is disappointing because it does not recognize the current state of affairs that the people of this province are experiencing. It is a missed opportunity to invest in the people of this province.

It is an honour to stand here today and speak to just how important the well-being of our students is to our province and to our government. Led by the Minister of Colleges and Universities, our government is committed to ensuring students have access to a secure and safe learning environment. We’re taking necessary action to protect our future.

As the Minister of Colleges and Universities stated, campuses across the province—from the GTA to rural and northern Ontario—are not only places of learning; they are centres of employment and economic growth for the communities, cities and regions they call home. Our colleges, universities, Indigenous institutes and private career colleges are key drivers of economic growth, prosperity and competitiveness. Post-secondary institutions are pillars of their local communities and leaders in preparing the people of Ontario for the jobs of today and for the jobs of tomorrow.

Speaker, I consider myself incredibly fortunate to not only represent the riding I grew up in but to represent a riding built on diversity. There is nothing the people of Brampton cannot do, and that is in large part due to those who decided to move to Brampton and make it their home. Often, what attracts them is our post-secondary education system. Our system is in great standing on the global stage. Not only has it done an incredible job at attracting international talent, but these institutions constantly produce skilled talent that keeps our province competitive on the national and international stage. Brampton is home to Sheridan College and Algoma University, and it will soon be home to the Toronto Metropolitan University school of medicine and a number of other post-secondary institutions.

Attracting Ontarians to the region from around the province, and many from around the world, it is our responsibility to ensure that our colleges and our universities are set up to protect those same students. Some of these young students are coming from countries on the other half of the world. They say goodbye to their friends, brothers, sisters and parents. In some cases, they’re saying goodbye to their partners and their children as well. They make an enormous sacrifice. Not only do the students make this sacrifice—but also the families of these students, who put their trust in our province to protect them and ensure they have every opportunity to succeed.

Speaker, we have taken recent steps to strengthen supports for post-secondary students reporting sexual violence or harassment. Our government understands we have to also specifically address sexual misconduct by faculty and staff towards students. That’s why we’re proposing legislative amendments that would require publicly assisted post-secondary institutions and private career colleges to have specific processes in place that address and increase transparency of faculty and staff sexual misconduct. If passed, these changes would better protect students who fall victim to faculty and staff sexual violence. This will be accomplished by strengthening the tools available to institutions in order to address instances of misconduct against students; for example, deeming sexual abuse of a student to be just cause for dismissal.

Speaker, let me be clear: No student should ever have to see the face of someone who commits sexual misconduct walking around the campus. If this horrendous act is ever committed, the guilty have no business near any school or near any campus. Schools need to create a welcoming environment for students, and Bill 26 will help us do that. Students are not dedicating hours upon hours of their days and weeks to fail. They want to succeed. Providing them with a safe environment and as few distractions as possible will not only help each individual student, but it will strengthen our province. Successful students are successful leaders of tomorrow’s workforce.

I’ve said this before in this House: Ontario thrives off its diversity. Ontario is a place where it doesn’t matter where you come from, who you love or how you choose to worship God; everybody deserves the same opportunity to succeed. We have attracted the world’s most amazing people, who have helped to build this identity in this province. However, we need to continue to work to maintain the dignity of our system.

We have a shortage right now of nearly 400,000 in the skilled trades labour workforce—good-paying, life-changing jobs that we need to fill.

I was fortunate enough to recently join the Residential Construction Council of Ontario’s third annual Addressing Racism in Construction webinar, where I delivered a keynote address. I mentioned that if we’re going to meet our goal of building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years, we need 100,000 additional construction workers alone. A lot of these roles are being filled internationally. People are bringing their families to Ontario to start a life anew. This is great for Ontario, as we also combat the labour shortage, but the shortage is going to get worse before it gets better.

Our government understands the importance of attracting international talent. However, it’s important to ensure Ontario is a welcoming place for these individuals who in many cases go on to become new Canadians. We need to let them know that their children are in good hands. If we’re going to be a welcoming society for people, we need to create a home that makes people feel welcome when they get here. We need to assure parents that their children will be safe in middle school, safe in high school, and safe in their post-secondary endeavours. Attracting this talent includes building the infrastructure to support a sustainable lifestyle, making them feel safe here and giving them every opportunity to succeed.

I’m proud of our Minister of Health’s recent announcement that Ontario’s nursing college can now start allowing internationally educated nurses to practise while they work towards full registration. This should mean thousands of more nurses to support our health care system, while giving those who are ready to support an opportunity to do so. That’s just one change introduced by our government that could potentially help nearly 6,000 active international applicants in Ontario.

Bill 26 will also introduce legislation preventing the use of non-disclosure agreements to address instances where an employee leaves an institution to be employed at another institution and their prior wrongdoing remains a secret. This is a change that is long, long overdue. There’s absolutely no reason that any case of misconduct or harassment should go hidden. There should be zero tolerance. That’s exactly what our government is fighting for. We are fighting to keep our students safe.

Students deserve to be taught by good people and separated as far as possible from crooks. There should be no opportunity for anyone to reoffend. That is out of the question.

Speaker, the thought of a creep lurking around job to job, given their history, is something that sends shivers down my spine.

Another key component of Bill 26 is a requirement for institutions to have codes of conduct regarding faculty and staff sexual misconduct. Setting this out in writing should leave no doubt or question on the expectations of faculty and of staff.

Speaker, our government has a plan to protect our students so that they can make the most out of their post-secondary careers. No student should have to worry about sexual misconduct from staff and faculty. That has no place in our schools and, frankly, no place anywhere in our province. All post-secondary institutions have a responsibility to provide a safe and supportive learning environment and are expected to do everything possible to address issues of sexual violence on campuses.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities is committed to supporting our students. The ministry held extensive consultations with over 100 stakeholders with the knowledge and background to ensure we can implement the necessary changes and do so successfully. These stakeholders included representatives from post-secondary institutions, representatives from labour and student groups, private career colleges, faculty associations and community organizations. They are the ones on the front lines with our students.

Our government’s actions to date include strengthening the policies that protect post-secondary students who report incidents of sexual violence or harassment on campus. The next step is for a separate process for faculty and staff misconduct towards students. These changes will not only help protect students in cases of faculty and staff sexual misconduct but will also allow the institutions to better address complaints when they arise.

The changes also build on the new regulatory amendments that our government introduced last fall to protect students from inappropriate questioning or disciplinary action when they report acts of sexual violence. Going through some of the horrid instances some students have experienced is enough. The questions they face need to respect them as they go through the after-effects of the crime that was committed on them. These are some of the hardest times for a victim, and it is important for them to be treated in a respectful manner—in the way that they deserve—throughout the investigation.

With these legislative amendments, we’ll ensure that all post-secondary students in Ontario can feel safe not only on campus but all around.

Speaker, I’d like to tell a story, and unfortunately, it’s not a unique one. It’s a story that breaks my heart, but it’s one that is important that we share. I won’t be naming the specific institution because calling out actors isn’t what’s important here. Doing the right thing is what’s important. A professor at a school in the Niagara region was accused of sexually assaulting one of their students.

Students who become victims aren’t just students; these victims are somebody’s sibling; they are somebody’s child; they’re our friends or colleagues; they’re people who just wanted to learn and don’t deserve what happens to them.

In this specific instance, the university’s internal investigation was able to confirm the allegations against this professor were indeed true. Before he committed his crime, he tried to give alcohol to the student. It was found that this professor made unwanted sexual comments and sexual advances.

Speaker, students have the right to feel safe when they approach their professor in school. They have the right to ask questions, participate, and if they still don’t understand something or need some extra help, they deserve to be able to go to the professor’s office hours and have that extra time. A student should not need to bat an eye when going to their professor for help. A professor’s job is to teach. But if tools like non-disclosure agreements can hide predatory histories of staff and faculty when they move to a new school, how can a student trust that they will be safe?

Speaker, in the specific story I referenced, after nearly three years away from teaching, the professor was welcomed back to teach again at the school. The school announced—again, nearly three years later, after finding he was guilty—that he had the right to return to his teaching position at the university under the faculty’s collective agreement and a recent legal arbitration decision. I’ll note that after public outcry this school in question eventually did the right thing, but it makes you wonder about the cases that don’t receive the same kind of public attention and the same kind of public backlash.

Bill 26 would have ended this before it got worse, and it will end the cases that don’t receive the same attention. That’s why this is such an important piece of legislation that we’re debating here today.

Introducing guidelines and hoping staff and faculty don’t reoffend isn’t fair to our students. It’s not fair that they’re put in a situation where their learning isn’t their number one priority; instead, they ask themselves, “Why is my professor such a creep? What if something happens to me? Am I safe where I am today?” I know that is not what we want our education system to be. Just the idea of allowing a predator back to teach classes resulted in protest and severe discomfort for students. At any point when the priority isn’t learning, something is not right.

Bill 26 will ensure students are able to focus on what matters most: their education.

I’m proud to speak on behalf of our students on a bill that will bring so much good to Ontario. Again, I commend our Minister of Colleges and Universities as well as the Minister of Education for their amazing and important work to ensure that our students, no matter what age, are put first.

Speaker, there’s another element to this legislation, on a bit of a different note but still with a very significant impact, particularly for residents in my riding, in Brampton. Our government is committed to working with Toronto Metropolitan University, for the first time ever giving Brampton students an opportunity to become Brampton medical students and eventually become Brampton doctors. Statistically, a significant percentage of students choose to stay in the city where they studied and practise. For a city like Brampton, which has been growing so quickly and, like so many other parts of the province, has been experiencing a health care crisis, a medical school is exactly what the doctor ordered. I hear it from my constituents all the time:

Brampton needs more doctors and better health care infrastructure. That’s why I’m so excited that under the leadership of our Premier, our government is getting it done for Brampton. We’re getting it done with the Toronto Metropolitan University. We’re getting it done by delivering the Peel Memorial Hospital. I’ve been working closely with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities as well as the team at TMU to move things along sooner rather than later.

It has been decades since the GTA saw a medical school, and it is our government that is making it happen.

The Brampton medical school is a huge win for the city. The economic impact will be extraordinary. A new school means students and faculty. This means more economic activity in the surrounding region. In Brampton, the growth around Sheridan College, for example, saw nearby businesses see massive growth. We see it with the recent changes to Algoma, the growth at Algoma—where they’ve grown to 3,000 students who are learning in the heart of downtown Brampton. We’re seeing that from many of the small business owners who had a tough time throughout COVID—that this experience of having the campus nearby, of having young people spending money, going to their businesses, going to their shops, very much kept them afloat. And the economic impact of having so many bright, talented young people in our city cannot be overstated.

With the influx of students that we’ve seen in Brampton, we have been booming, and that is exactly what we need to do as we build our economy—creating more jobs. And creating more jobs, we know, will create a stronger province. It’s crucial that we get things moving quickly.

This starts with the strong efforts of the Toronto Metropolitan University to begin a new chapter with their recent name change. Our government introduced legislative amendments so the university can legally change its name to Toronto Metropolitan University. This is an important step to allow the school to move forward and to allow people in our province to heal. The change in name supports our government’s efforts to ensure that Ontario has a post-secondary system that embraces accessibility and inclusivity, and that promotes success for all learners, including Indigenous ones, so they can find rewarding careers.

We’re also introducing amendments that would allow Toronto Metropolitan University to change the composition and increase the size of its senate to reflect the addition of two new faculties, one of them being the Lincoln Alexander School of Law, the other being the soon-to-be-established school of medicine in Brampton, Ontario. This will ensure the senate has representatives from all faculties at the university.

From hearing from the team at Toronto Metropolitan University, I can say these changes are big. Everyone involved is excited to be another step closer to opening the doors to medical students in Brampton. Brampton is ready.

For far too long, as Brampton has continued to grow at an exponential rate, the infrastructure support has remained stagnant. But thanks to our Premier, our government is ensuring Brampton is getting the recognition it deserves so that my constituents, so that new Canadians who want to make Brampton their home, so that families and our students can all live in a city where they don’t have to worry about long waits for health care, where they don’t have to worry about endless congestion on the roads, and where they don’t have to worry about their kids not going to school.

Our government has made it clear since day one that we will always put our students first.

And I would remind my colleagues in this chamber that one of the first things I said in my inaugural speech is that outside of this chamber, there’s not a Progressive Conservative Ontario and a New Democrat Ontario and a Liberal Ontario; it’s just Ontario.

Folks in downtown Toronto are concerned about getting good-paying jobs in a booming manufacturing sector.

Folks in my riding are pretty worried about the climate and their local environment.

We all have a duty, as legislators, to put our constituents first and support good pieces of legislation.

I think what we have here, from the tremendous leadership of our Minister of Colleges and Universities, is a good bill. This is a great piece of legislation that will protect students, establish accountability—so that some of our heinous perpetrators of terrible, terrible crimes will receive the accountability that they should. It will also move forward the legal name change for Toronto Metropolitan University, which is a crucial step for the success of the university, certainly in my city, in Brampton—in Toronto, as well—but also a crucial step for so many as they continue to heal from the wounds of the past.

I would end my comments by congratulating the Minister of Colleges and Universities on putting forward an excellent piece of legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Calandra is seeking the unanimous consent of the House that, notwithstanding any standing order or special order of the House, the order for second reading of Bill 35, An Act to repeal the Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022, may be called today; and

That when that order is called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

That the order for third reading of Bill 35 shall then immediately be called and the question shall immediately be put on the motion for third reading of the bill without debate or amendment; and

That no deferral of the second or third reading votes on the bill shall be permitted; and

That if there is a recorded vote, it will be limited to a five-minute bell.

Agreed? Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Calandra moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 35, An Act to repeal the Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022 / Projet de loi 35, Loi abrogeant la Loi de 2022 visant à garder les élèves en classe.

Mr. Calandra has moved second reading of Bill 35, An Act to repeal the Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Mr. Calandra moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 35, An Act to repeal the Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022 / Projet de loi 35, Loi abrogeant la Loi de 2022 visant à garder les élèves en classe.

Mr. Calandra has moved third reading of Bill 35, An Act to repeal the Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1340 to 1345.

Mr. Calandra has moved third reading of Bill 35, An Act to repeal the Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 3, 2022, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 26, An Act to amend various Acts in respect of post-secondary education / Projet de loi 26, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’éducation postsecondaire.

I rise to respond to the fall economic statement. With all due respect to the Minister of Finance, I believe this statement fails to meet the moment. You would not know that Ontario is in an affordability crisis, reading this statement—especially the most vulnerable.

While I support the increase in the income allowance for ODSP recipients, the bottom line is, for those who cannot work, this statement will mean they remain living in legislated poverty.

Speaker, nothing in this statement talked about food affordability, the excess profits of food retailers, the need to protect our farmland, the need to bring in a grocery code of conduct, or the need to house people—the growing number of homeless we’re experiencing in our communities—and the need to invest in permanent supportive housing.

Quite frankly, when the government talks about a building progress report, the report needs to talk about whether we are building to be climate-ready. When we build on the farmland that feeds us, the greenbelt that protects us, the wetlands that support us, we are not building to be climate-ready. That is not how Bill Davis built. He built a province that laid the foundation for the greenbelt—not paving over it.

The ayes are 100; the nays are 0.

I am seeking unanimous consent that, notwithstanding any standing order or special order of the House, the order for second reading of Bill 35, An Act to repeal the Keeping Students in Class Act, 2022, may be called today; and

That when that order is called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading; and

That the order for third reading of Bill 35 shall then immediately be called and the question shall immediately be put on the motion for third reading of the bill without debate or amendment; and

That no deferral of the second or third reading votes on the bill shall be permitted; and

That if there is a recorded vote, it will be limited to a five-minute bell.

I would like to thank the member from Brampton North for the great debate about the bill, Bill 26.

Formerly, from my past life as an IT professor who taught at colleges and different institutions, I understand the importance of protecting students. I understand the importance of a feel-safe environment where students can learn and feel safe to approach their professors and faculty—to make sure that they are protected by different regulations.

I would like to pose a question for the colleague from Brampton North: How do you see those changes impacting the safety of the students against sexual harassment?

I listened to the remarks by the member from Brampton North with interest, and I agree with a lot of what he said.

What I’m about to ask is a serious question; it’s not a gotcha question, it’s not a “playing politics in the chamber” question. We’ve been following the research about gender-based violence really closely in our city, and I like the fact that you’re talking about emphasizing support for survivors. But I also want to ask: What is the plan for perpetrators? People don’t learn to objectify other people and dehumanize other people genetically. These behaviours are somehow taught and reinforced. What is the plan, with this bill, to reach people, particularly men, who take a position of power and abuse that position of power? How do we reach them beyond consequences, no NDAs, threats—what’s the plan for education, particularly now on campus, when so many men are drawn into behaviours that are threatening to women?

I want to follow up on the question that was just asked of the member for Brampton North. I appreciate his concern to ensure a safe environment for faculty and staff in addition to students. But I am curious to know why this legislation specifies that non-disclosure agreements are only prohibited when the act of sexual abuse involves a student of the institution and why it doesn’t apply to staff.

We know that many employees at post-secondary institutions and at workplaces across this province are subject to sexual abuse and are often pressured to sign non-disclosure agreements when they don’t feel comfortable doing so. Why does this bill not prohibit those NDAs when there is sexual abuse of staff as well?

I thank my colleague for the question. It’s an important question.

I think we all agree here in the chamber that supporting survivors of sexual violence and sexual harassment should be the number one priority of us as legislators here.

I’m very happy to highlight some of the other good things that are happening in this bill. For instance, if passed, these changes would strengthen the tools available to institutions in order to address instances of faculty or staff sexual misconduct against students, i.e. deeming sexual abuse of a student to be just cause for dismissal, and preventing the use of a non-disclosure agreement to address instances where an employee leaves an institution to be employed at another institution and their prior wrongdoing remains a secret.

There’s a lot of very good material in this bill. I will certainly be voting for it myself, and I urge my colleague to do the same.

The kinds of changes that we’re putting forward in this bill—it makes you wonder how these weren’t in place already. The idea that you could have somebody sign a non-disclosure agreement when they’re an abuser, on the faculty or the staff, and you have some of these vile individuals being able to hide in plain sight so that students don’t know the history of the people who are teaching them—I think it was a massive oversight that I’m proud our government is taking steps to correct.

We hear all the time that young people are vital to the success of our province. We need to be giving our young people every tool in the tool kit to allow them to succeed, and a safe place to learn is the bare minimum to do so.

We need to make sure that we’re building an inclusive society where nobody feels entitled through their position of power or authority to treat anybody any differently, and especially to engage in some of the heinous types of sexual harassment and sexual violence that we’ve been seeing.

An important piece of this bill that I think my colleague would agree with is around the accountability measures, so that you can no longer allow a non-disclosure agreement to be signed that protects somebody who committed one of these acts at another institution. They can’t just sign up and work at another institution. I think that’s an important piece. Another big piece of it, frankly, is to allow it to be just cause for dismissal.

I hope that these changes impact the safety of our students.

I think having a safe place where people feel secure is fundamental for everybody’s success, whether you’re part of faculty, whether you’re on the staff, or whether you’re a student. When people can have trust in an institution that not only the authority figures but also their colleagues are being held to a standard, I think that creates a healthier work environment for everybody involved.

The instance that I pointed out in my remarks, where a faculty member at a school in Niagara region was found guilty and was able to work there three years later—not only would that make the students feel unsafe, but I imagine that would make the other faculty and staff feel unsafe as well.

I think more transparency and more accountability is better for everybody.

This is the first time that I have been able to do a question-and-answer when speaking to a bill, and I want to thank the opposition for being very thoughtful in their questions, and the colleagues on our side of the House for being thoughtful in their questions as well.

This is an important bill. It’s going to make our campuses safer. It’s going to help protect students. It’s going to make a better environment for faculty and for staff. I really do hope that everybody in this House votes for this bill. It is a very good piece of legislation; I’ll be voting in favour.

I thank you very much for the debate today.

I want to also thank the minister for bringing this really important bill forward.

To anybody, all across the board—it doesn’t matter what political stripe you are—sexual harassment, sexual violence has no place in our society.

As leaders in our community and as parents, we must talk to our children, making sure that they know that no is no and that consent is important; we all have a responsibility, as legislators.

We also have a responsibility, as parents or aunts or uncles or grandparents, to make sure our young people grow up to be good citizens in society.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward, Minister.

And thank you for the debate today.

We know that Bill 26 has a strong focus on faculty and students. Can you talk a little bit about how it’s not just good for students but it’s good for the faculty and staff as well?

The member from St. Catharines.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, I would thank the member from Brampton North for introducing some valid points about Bill 26. However, within this bill, it addresses sexual assault—but in my community, the biggest gap in supporting survivors is not in the rules, but in their ability to get sexual assault evidence kits to receive their justice.

Can the government elaborate on whether or not they think hospital response programs like the ones in Niagara will get extra support to ensure all survivors are supported?

Further debate?

It’s an honour to rise to talk about this subject in this House.

I think you’re going to find when it comes to issues of gender-based violence and intimate partner violence, there’s a lot of agreement in this House. Where we need to focus the mind, I think, is on strategies about what we do.

The good news is that there has been a lot of research published lately on gender-based violence. Where I’m from in Ontario, the Renfrew county inquest that just happened into a serial murderer who wreaked havoc in that community, funded by this government—$150,000, by the way, from this government to support that work, an important investment, and what it has yielded is a significant amount of recommendations for us, to think about how we get in front of this.

It pains me to say this, but when I was a faculty member at Nipissing University in 2005 and I saw the way—particularly men—in a seminar class I taught, that third-year undergraduate students at Nipissing University were treating women in small group activities, and when I saw things in the hallway between staff and students, it disturbed me at a deep level. And I asked myself that question one asks: What is the choice one makes when one is a bystander to these sorts of things? I guess because I come from a position of education and trying to understand how behaviours develop, I always ask the question—I would pull someone aside privately, to give them that respect, and say, “What motivated you to say that to her in that small group conversation—to not just disagree with the point but to belittle the person? What was that about?” Eventually, what I was able to unearth through interactions like that is animosity and anger—I’m not a therapist, but I’m married to one—and when I was able to see that, I was able to try to reach that person and say, “You’ve got a lot of anger, and I’m not sure why it’s manifesting against women colleagues here in this class, but that’s not going to help you succeed in this course. I really encourage you to seek out some of the supports we have here on this campus that are paid for by the public so you can figure out how you get ahead of this, because this is going to become a problem for you in your studies at this university if this pattern repeats itself. That student put up with that in that small group, and she didn’t need to. She had every right to call you out and stand up to you. And if it doesn’t change, I’m going to be approaching her and you so you resolve this matter.”

That’s how I dealt with just one interaction—and we’re talking about low-level, lateral violence, relatively speaking.

But what the government is talking about with this legislation are, in some cases, lethal acts of gender-based violence. And that’s what I want to talk about today in the time I have to speak to this bill.

I want to talk about the first place I went to do post-secondary education. I’m the first person in my family to go to post-secondary education. I went down the 401 and went to Queen’s University in Kingston. I didn’t really know what I was going to study. I just decided I was going to pick the courses and choose my own adventure, figure out where I was going to go. I ended up doing a lot of politics—shock—and a lot of sociology.

Two years before I got there, there was an incident that shaped me even then, as a high school student, known in Ontario history as the Gordon House incident. I think it’s important that I talk about this incident because, certainly, it has informed my approach to gender-based violence and how we help not only survivors but perpetrators.

In 1989, in October, Queen’s University ran something—it’s very common; I think I just heard the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore talk about it—a “no means no” campaign. It was meant to just put it to students—as the member for Toronto Centre said several times, with legislation that they’re bringing forward—a consent-based culture for intimacy on campus. The reaction at Gordon House, which is one of the residences at Queen’s University, from some folks, particularly men in that dorm room, was to hang banners outside the window reading things—I’m just going to pause for a second for people watching this, listening to this. If you’ve had experiences of violence in your life or a friend—I’m just going to give you a warning: Some of this stuff is difficult to hear, but I think it needs to be said.

For the campus’s “no means no” campaign, there were some people at Gordon House who hung banners outside their windows that read, “No means tie her up,” “No means more beer,” “No means harder.”

I’m embarrassed to tell you, Speaker, that I was a grade 11 student when these things were happening, and I remember thinking at the time, “Well, there’s going to be an investigation. Something has got to happen. There has got to be a conversation about this.” There was nothing of the kind.

The president of Gordon House went on to say that the incident wasn’t terribly important because, really, what happened was that the incident upset a small minority of feminists and that it shouldn’t be a crime to offend people. That’s what one person said.

The university itself did not convene any restorative justice process to try to understand why people felt the need to hang these banners—what was in their minds, what they were reacting to, how to have a conversation about this. Nothing happened whatsoever.

I showed up there in 1991, as an undergraduate student, and I talked to some of the people who lived through that. I asked them, “What did you do to get the university’s attention?”

Well, my goodness, 50 people—largely women students—did a sit-in at the principal’s office, at David Smith’s office. They demanded funding for a consent-based culture on campus, beyond just some kind of ad-and-pamphlet campaign, so students could understand what a consent-based university culture would look like, what it would mean. They had to get into the local media. They had to speak their piece. There was an acronym for this group of 50 students. I’m not allowed to say one of the words of the acronym, because it’s not parliamentary language, but I think people can figure it out. The group was called ROFF, Radical Obnoxious—F—Feminists. They were people who were fed up with the lack of activity on campus. And what did they demand? They demanded not just consequences for people hanging those banners, because rather like we just heard in the debate, one can have consequences for unacceptable behaviour, and that’s fine, but if there’s no investment in preventive measures—education to help bring along, particularly, men who believe you can objectify someone and you can control someone, and that you can therefore humiliate them with that perceived power you may have—penalties are pointless. You’re always going to be dealing with the outcomes of bad decisions. So those folks at ROFF sat down, and they got the university’s attention.

It was one of the reasons I wanted to go to Queen’s, because I thought, “There’s a community of students who aren’t just going to wait for politics to happen. If they see something that’s not right, they’re going to take politics into their own hands and they’re going to say, ‘This is unacceptable. You’ve got to change it.’”

Something I’m embarrassed to say, as well—embarrassed, disgraced, upset; there are a bunch of words I could use. I talked about the Gordon House incident in October 1989. What is the incident that we are going to be commemorating across this country, as we do every year, on December 6, 1989? The École Polytechnique massacre. And what is the origin of the École Polytechnique massacre? It is a man who believed that his future had been compromised because of a feminist agenda that discriminated against his ability to go into engineering, and the way he was going to resolve it, in his one maniacal moment, was to walk onto a campus with a weapon and murder people.

I would submit to you, Speaker, as we think about this issue of why we need not just a consent-based culture on campus but a consent-based culture in Ontario, and what we do to create it, that these are the bookends of the spectrum. You have flashpoints, when you see an incident where someone felt motivated or inspired to put out hateful speech, threatening, essentially, rape culture on a campus, with zero response until the students at that university rose up and demanded better. And then, on December 6, 1989, you had the lethal incident where somebody took it upon himself to do something that one would want to believe no human being would ever want to do. I want to submit to you that these things are related.

I want to fast-forward to 2021, because my alma mater, Queen’s University, has said since the Gordon House days that they want to resolve this issue, but it’s not resolved. I think that for the administrators at Queen’s—where I used to work at Nipissing University in North Bay and where I also worked at Carleton University—this continues to be a work in progress. Queen’s has run a campaign on its Instagram page called @consentatqueens. You can check it out yourself. What they have found in the course of that work is that more and more students are coming forward to talk about what is happening to them on campus—that things are being put into their drinks; that suggestions are being made to them live in class, in front of everybody else, not even hidden. It was in 2021 that Queen’s authorized, with student participation, this online campaign.

We have a daughter and a son in our home. I have no doubt that our daughter is going to go on to do incredible things. In our place, we joke about her being 14 going on 40; she’s ready already.

But I think about the environment, as the member for Brampton North mentioned, that people are walking into right now. Turning on any one of our devices, as we have to do in this job at any given time, will expose you immediately to issues of objectification of women and implied behaviour about how men are supposed to behave, dominance culture. And there are things we can do to fix that.

I want to suggest there’s a link between this bill, Bill 26, and a private member’s piece of legislation my friend from Orléans put forward in the last session—and I understand he’s putting it forward again. MPP Stephen Blais, the member for Orléans, has asked this government to consider the ability for municipalities to remove city councillors, sitting elected office-holders, when they are independently investigated and proven to be engaged in acts of sexual misconduct that fall short of the Criminal Code. This is what has happened in our city. It’s one of the reasons why the issue of gender-based violence has seized our community.

Former councillor Rick Chiarelli was investigated not once but twice—twice—with 35 women coming forward and detailing some of the most egregious, ridiculous, creepy forms of behaviour you can imagine a political adviser doing in an office. From the time those women consented to go through that process of forming their complaints, do you know what they had to deal with? They had to deal with a mental health crisis themselves, job loss. They paid the economic price for Mr. Chiarelli’s behaviour. They had to deal with the anguish of the hate piling on them on social media for having the courage—the three of them who were public—to speak out publicly. For the 32 others who weren’t speaking out publicly, they carried the weight of that question of “What is going to happen to this gentleman?”

What our whole city saw is that Councillor Chiarelli was able to maintain his seat. The most the city of Ottawa could do, under the Municipal Act, was to deduct his pay.

Folks may have seen it; you may have missed it—at the last sitting of city council for Ottawa, which just happened, the last act of that city council was former councillor Rick Chiarelli standing up to give his farewell speech on Zoom and the entire council meeting that was present in the chamber getting up and walking out. Some people who had served multiple terms as councillors chose that decision; it was better for them to get up and walk out than to give their farewell speech to their residents in the city of Ottawa. That’s how fed up we are back home with Councillor Chiarelli—independently investigated twice, involving at least 35 people, probably more.

MPP Blais is asking the government for its help to work on a reform to the Municipal Act that would say that in independently investigated cases of sexual misconduct, a decision can be made to remove a sitting office-holder, that is subject to judicial review. The person can get the decision judicially reviewed, and if it’s overturned, they get their position back. I would suggest to the member for Brampton North and others promoting this bill that if what you want is a sense of serious consequence, that is exactly, I would think, in keeping with what you’re talking about right now. I would love to see, in this session of this Parliament, this legislation come to pass across all party lines.

We’re talking about campus environments here with this bill—very important. We all know, and I know personally from being a professor, that there is absolutely a power imbalance between the person who gives you your grades, which have a big impact on what you do with the future of your life, on what you actually end up doing in the work world—there’s a lot of power in that person. So the question I have is, what do we then say to that office-holder if we allow for further impunity? If what this bill is intending to do is remove that impunity from people or challenge it, I would encourage the government—because, as I understand it, they haven’t done that yet; the member for Toronto Centre can correct me if I’m wrong—to seek out conversations with people representing faculty and staff in the university and college sector, because those organizations also want to build a consent-based culture in this province. We don’t want to rush a product to fruition that might end up not achieving the objectives you’re trying to see.

Let me end with an anecdote from a leader back home, on gender-based violence. Another sad story that is manifesting itself, I think, in a positive way—Mr. Rafael Ready worked with the diplomatic corps, helping embassies set up all over the world. He lives in the member for Ottawa South’s community, just south of us in Ottawa Centre. In the summer, sadly, you may have heard, it was his family that had the heinous double-murder attempt that involved his wife and one of his two daughters. This was a situation of an offender who had been marked, who had a history of violence, and there wasn’t requisite support to make sure that this family was safe. So what is Mr. Ready committed to do? Well, I happen to know Mr. Ready, because both of the family members he lost are members of the same karate dojo that my son trains at. I knew the two women he lost—wonderful folk. Mr. Ready has decided to take his grief, take his loss and mobilize it in a way to make sure that femicide is actually a part of our Criminal Code and that education about violence and violent behaviours, particularly among young men, is something we deal with immediately.

There’s a program the Ottawa Police Service runs back home called MANifest Change, and it tries to find ambassadors in communities across our city to really encourage positive behaviours. When they see these kinds of controlling, misogynist behaviours, they don’t say, “Okay, you’re a perp, you’re a creep, you’re terrible.” They ask the questions I tried to ask, as a professor, that I began with in my comments this afternoon—“What motivated you to say something like that? What’s going on? Why do you perceive that person to be lesser than you? Would you like your mom or your sister or your aunt or your niece to be treated that way?”—to get through to that person.

Mr. Ready is someone who has strength that I can’t comprehend, because at this moment of intense grief—he was out of the country when this incident happened, setting up yet another one of our diplomatic presences in Latin America. It took him seven days to get back home—seven days—but when he finally got back home and dealt with what he had to deal with, surrounded by the love in that community on Anoka Street, his next calls were to MPP Fraser and to me. He said to both of us, “What have we got to do to reach people, particularly young men? What are we going to do with the mental health crisis in our communities? I don’t want this to happen to any other families.”

So we return to Bill 26 and we return to Gordon House, and I guess we realize, as a chamber, that we really—despite good intent—haven’t moved far enough. We still aren’t funding programs to support survivors. We still aren’t thinking through how we reach perpetrators who are drawn in, however it may happen—violent behaviours towards others, particularly women. We still are thinking, I think, that just having severe consequences is enough. I think it’s important, but I want to submit to you—and I hope I’ve made the case this afternoon—that I don’t think it’s enough.

I think, inside every person, is the potential to change, for the most part. The amount of sociopaths we have in our society—the Paul Bernardos of our society—are a tiny fraction. Most people have the capacity to change; however they’ve been taught to dehumanize other people, they have the capacity to change. We fail ourselves, as a society, I believe, on campus and elsewhere, if we don’t mobilize the resources of this province to help them. The organizations that MPP Andrew knows very well—doing the consultation work that you’ve done, my friend—that are scraping pennies together to support survivors—or whether it’s what MPP Stevens was talking about, with the survival kits. These organizations need to have robust funding. They need to have support because what they can do is prevent Gordon House incidents, prevent École Polytechnique incidents, prevent Councillor Chiarelli-like incidents.

We can build an Ontario, as the member for Brampton North said, where everybody feels safe and everybody feels heard.