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.

Please continue.

Thank you for your comments, your observations, and also for sharing what I think are some very difficult experiences in your life, and in your professional life as well.

I’m very interested because, in speaking about the NDA aspect of this bill—it’s written in a manner that only precludes NDAs after a court or arbitrator has found wrongdoing. So it doesn’t eliminate NDAs altogether; it still allows NDAs. As it’s drafted, it allows an employer or an employee to sign an NDA any time until a decision is made. My question is, why would anyone even want to sign an NDA after such a decision?

I was very interested in listening to your story. I didn’t realize you were a former professor—so very close to your heart, some of the things we’re discussing today.

We need to talk about the survivors who have come forward, but for every survivor, there are many people who have not come forward; they just don’t have that comfort level. And my heart goes out to them for what they’re dealing with every day, day in and day out, because they’ve probably kept that a secret from their families and their professors, their college friends or their university friends.

As a former professor, my question to you is—I wasn’t sure if you’re in support of this bill or not, but my understanding is that this is another tool in the tool box for survivors, for professors, for institutions, for people to come forward. We want more people to come forward. Do you not think this is another tool to help institutions better address faculty and staff serial misconduct? And do you believe this will help students come forward?

I was listening and conferring a little bit with our subject matter expert on your bill too. I think the bill can be improved. The member for Toronto Centre is right here, poised to help you to talk to the stakeholder groups that can help you improve the bill.

What we need in this bill is dedicated funding to survivor groups. If somebody makes that bold step you were talking about, to put their claim forward, to challenge the alleged harasser, and lacks income as a consequence of that, we’ve got to support that person. We’ve got to make sure they have the resources to be successful.

And then on the use of NDAs, as you’ve mentioned—I think the member for Toronto Centre has a lot of ideas as to people you can talk to to make this bill better.

So if the bar the member is suggesting is that high, this is something—to the friends in government here—you can fix in this bill. If the goal is promoting safety, consequences are important, but resources to make sure people actually can be resilient, as a survivor, are also important.

What I’d say to the member, through you, Speaker, is, if the goal is to establish clear consequences—what I’m hearing the member for Toronto Centre saying is that non-disclosure agreements are still allowed with this legislation, short of a conclusive judicial process. That can be an absolutely agonizing wait for people.

None of us on this side of the House are opposed to consequences for people who have been independently investigated and shown to be engaged in sexual misconduct. You will not find a single person here disagreeing with that. But if we don’t have the requisite support for people who had the courage to come forward as survivors, the whole process falls apart. That’s where we actually do want to work with you to make this better.

It’s time for us to move into action mode. We’ve done the research, and now we need to work with the community experts. MPP Wong-Tam, MPP Andrew, MPP Stevens, myself and others know exactly—and I’m sure you do too—who we can get the money to to make the change happen. We’ve got to bring the money from a governmental level—from this House level—right down to the community so people have the resources and the strength and the support they need. That’s the goal.

What I’m telling you seriously—through you, Speaker—is that we want this bill to work. No one in this Legislature is supportive of a continuation of violence on campus or anywhere else—I am making that assumption—but we will disagree on how we allocate the province’s resources to make it happen. There’s a consequences-led approach—that’s one part of the puzzle—but there’s also a solutions approach at a community level. On campus and in our communities, these violence-against-women, gender-based-violence organizations are absolutely starving for funds. They are the other side to this that can help situations like at the University of Windsor or at Ottawa city hall.

We have to have a fulsome approach. I may vote for this, but it has to be a bill that accomplishes a serious approach to gender-based violence—and I want to believe in this House that there is a will to do that.

To my colleague from Ottawa Centre: You mentioned at the beginning of your comments what came out this summer in Renfrew county. The inquest made 86 recommendations for Ontario to prevent intimate partner violence, in that file. There were a lot of great recommendations from the report. However, the government did not act on them. Some might say that the government dusted these recommendations under the rug.

Also, last year I brought forward legislation that would give women more tools to avoid intimate violence—legislation resembling Clare’s Law—which the Ford government voted down.

To my colleague from Ottawa Centre: What do you think can be done to strengthen Bill 26 to help survivors who could fall or might possibly be falling through the cracks?

Thank you for the comments.

Prior to being here, I followed the circumstances in Ottawa very closely, and what came out was very disturbing. I also followed, back home—the University of Windsor had a case with the NDAs back in 2019.

To me, it is vital that we go down this step. Just from your comments, it sounds like you’re not going to be supporting the bill, and I wonder whether the status quo is preferable to passing this bill and further improving it later on.

Questions?

It’s always a pleasure to rise in this House and give my two cents, my remarks, on the important legislation.

What we’re debating today is Bill 26. As a father of two children—a daughter who is in grade 12 and is applying to post-secondary school, as well as a son who is actually enrolled in an Ontario post-secondary program, in university—this topic hits very close to home.

I had the opportunity to attend the 2022 university fair, and that was a reminder that the path in further education for our young Ontarians, our leaders of today, remains bright. At the same time, like any other parent, I’m always concerned—and this, I believe, requires oversight nonetheless. When I was at the university fair, I actually saw first-hand students with ambition, drive, bursting with excitement, getting ready for the next chapter of their life. That is why it is extremely important for us as legislators, as the family, as the parents, as Ontarians, to come together and make sure these leaders of today and tomorrow have the support they need.

That is why Bill 26, Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act, 2022, aims to provide students with a safer environment which is inclusive and helps promote personal and academic growth.

Madam Speaker, we were having a conversation, and we talked about soccer moms, hockey moms—I was talking to my wife, and she brought up another term, “snowplow parents.” I asked, “What is a snowplow parent?” She said, “Well, if you think about winter—what does a snowplow do? It clears the snow so that when we’re driving, we do not slip; we do not skid; we have a safer path to move forward.”

I think that’s exactly what we’re doing here—we’re going to give our children a safer path so that they can concentrate on what they want to do best to succeed in their life. This is what Bill 26 is doing.

What we’re doing in this bill—the Ministry of Colleges and Universities is proposing legislative amendments to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act and the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005, that would enhance institutional sexual violence policies at publicly assisted colleges and universities and private career colleges, particularly with respect to faculty and staff sexual misconduct towards students. And how are we going to do that? Well, we’re making sure the amendments are in line with the government’s commitment to ensure students have access to a safer learning environment.

I absolutely believe that every student deserves the chance to attend post-secondary education without impediments.

I want to share with fellow Ontarians and our youth that your government is making sure we are putting steps in the direction—so that you have a bright future. When we talk about investments—we’re making sure we have 30,000 long-term-care beds; we have four hours of home care. We have 86,000 child care spaces we want to build. We want to build over 1.5 million homes. We want to make sure we are building subways. We are making sure we are getting investments in electrical vehicle manufacturing. We are making sure that we are investing in the construction of highways. We are expanding broadband and natural gas so that more and more opportunities can come. In order for us to do this, we want to make sure that our youth are ready to proceed and succeed in their life. We want to make sure the $158 billion the government is going to be investing in the next 10 years—we are making sure that the future of our youth is strong. That is why we are making sure we are bringing these bills—so that they have a better career and a better education.

I want to share some data with you. According to Maclean’s, a survey conducted by the Student Voices on Sexual Violence committee, completed in 2018, reported that 23% of Ontario university students experienced non-consensual sexual contact. Furthermore, in Ontario’s 2018 Student Voices on Sexual Violence survey, more than 70% of Western University students reported sexual harassment. There should be no room in post-secondary education for sexual harassment or violence of any kind—not only at Ontario universities; in fact, anywhere in this world.

When we’re talking about the bill, when we’re talking about Ontario, I want to echo the Honourable Minister of Colleges and Universities, when she said this bill would strengthen universities’ ability to address sexual violence and misconduct towards students. I want to echo the words of Charlene Senn, the Canada research chair in sexual violence at the University of Windsor: “Every day—on our campuses and off—women are still being confronted by men attempting to sexually assault them. I believe the” bill “will allow our government to strengthen Ontario universities to address the real-life problems Ontario students face daily.”

By preventing the use of non-disclosure agreements, universities will be better equipped to address instances where faculty leave an institution to be employed at another institution and their prior wrongdoings remain a secret. We want to make sure there are proactive measures, such as requiring institutions to have codes of conduct regarding faculty and staff sexual misconduct. It’s a step in the right direction to addressing such issues.

Madam Speaker, research conducted by Statistics Canada says that one in 10—about 11% of students who identify as women at Canadian post-secondary schools were sexually assaulted in a post-secondary setting in 2019, compared to 4% of students who identify as men. The majority, 71% of students, witnessed or experienced unwanted sexual behaviours either on or off campus, or in an online situation that involved students or other people associated with the school.

By supporting this bill, it is clear that this side of the government, the caucus members on this side, are taking such concerns with the utmost seriousness and will continue to work for our children, for our students.

Our government believes in acknowledging the past and making sure we take corrective action for the present and for the future. I endorse the proposed amendments in the Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act, 2022, to formally change what was formerly known as Ryerson University to Toronto Metropolitan University, and the changes to TMU’s senate composition, by making room for representation for its new law school and medical school. The Ministry of Colleges and Universities collaborated with the council for equality of opportunity, which provided key identifiers to help Ontario’s minorities acquire and excel in post-secondary programs. Both proposed changes are crucial to establishing a course that Ontario, its students and its universities can feel proud of, and we can be the envy of the world.

Universities and colleges are an important place in providing personnel for the labour market—and I was talking about all the investments we are doing. We are in a situation and a stage where we actually have close to 400,000 jobs going unfilled. Those are the paycheques which are not being collected—and it is the utmost requirement for us to make sure that students have the time and the availability to focus on what they have to do to succeed in their lives. That’s why we are making sure that this bill helps and supports those students.

As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, I want to talk about some of the things that we’re doing with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. Through programs such as the Ontario Postsecondary Access and Inclusion Program, introduced in 2018, to address non-financial barriers in post-secondary education—we have continued to achieve and thrive and make sure we’re helping these students. The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario conducted a scan of similar access programs across North America and explored available data related to access and student outcomes in Ontario. We found that through this program, we are able to help students from historically under-represented fields, through important interventions and different approaches—for example, Bursary for Students with Disabilities provides funding on a provincial scale with students who have permanent disabilities. This guarantees that in Ontario all students can attend university and receive grants up to $2,000 per year, to ensure that they have the financial means not only to remain in their program of choice but also to excel.

The government remains committed to ensuring equitable access to education across the board.

At Ontario Tech University, the Silicon Valley company Verkada highlighted how impressive Ontario students were—especially Reese Daniel, an intern from the school, where she actually had the opportunity and has shown leadership in the field.

Madam Speaker, in order for us to do what we’re doing through this bill—recent media reports have highlighted incidents of faculty sexual misconduct towards students. For example, in August 2021, the ministry consulted with stakeholders to obtain a better understanding of the instances of faculty and staff sexual violence on campus and to determine a policy response. Ensuring that all students feel safe on campus is a key priority for this government and all caucus members. That is why the government is introducing policies that will enhance institutional sexual violence policies at publicly assisted colleges and universities and private career colleges. The ministry has consulted with over 100 stakeholders, including representatives from post-secondary educational institutions, labour groups, student groups, private career colleges, faculty associations and community organizations. This policy will apply to all publicly assisted colleges and universities and private career colleges—and the ministry has taken a similar approach as it has with the previous sexual violence provincial policies.

By having this bill, if passed, institutions would be required to have their employee sexual misconduct policies in place by July 1, 2023. On the same date, the new legal consequences for employee sexual misconduct would come into force.

To conclude: The proposed bill is a step in the right direction for the current generation of Ontario scholars. The bill, again, implies—an inclusive space ensuring and taking discrimination of any form will not be tolerated. Our government wants to provide every Ontarian with equal access, protection and inclusion to post-secondary education. The proposed amendments continue that trend, and I’m proud to say that I endorse all these changes.

I urge all members of this chamber: Let’s come together, work together and build a better Ontario.

It points out how we really need to have good, strong process at a campus level.

I will say what people behind the most recent Queen’s University campaign I cited said recently, when they noted some of the complaints that came through the Instagram campaign. Some university officials said that it was too difficult to track down individuals, and that maybe they should consider drinking less at campus events—and the year is 2021 when these comments are being made, not 1991.

Further debate?

My question is to the government with regard to their bill, Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act.

This government says they care for survivors and want to create conditions to make it easier for survivors to come forward and to get justice. So I’d like to know why the government is sitting on billions of surplus dollars, including $2.6 billion that they could be using to support post-secondary schools as we speak, right now, to hire those caring folks who support survivors, who support people who are trying to navigate the system to get the justice.

I’m wondering why the government is sitting on $23 billion in shortfalls to health. Whether it’s the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre, whether it’s any organization that’s helping survivors—that is part of our health care. Helping survivors is part of our health care; it’s part of education; it’s part of children, community and social services. Why is the government claiming to care about those who have survived sexual assault but they’re cutting the very sectors that are there to help survivors?

Thank you to the member across for his comments.

Contained in this bill, Bill 26, the NDA language is very clear that it only is precluded after a court or arbitrator has found wrongdoing. So the bill still allows an employer, a union or an employee to sign an NDA at any time until a court arbitrator decision is issued. My question is, why is your government allowing this massive loophole to exist? Why are you not banning all NDAs?