Good morning. Let us pray.

Prières.

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 2, 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.

As I join the debate this morning on Bill 26, I am reminded of how I celebrate with all members of this House and all members of our communities the great legacy of the late Honourable Bill Davis, former Premier of Ontario, who was recognized in this House just a few weeks ago. His great legacy was the community college system, which now stands proudly beside our great university system across the province of Ontario.

I can say that members of my family have had the benefit of post-secondary education through both the college programs and the university programs. In my riding of Durham, we have Durham College and Ontario Tech, a college and a university that work together, with thousands of students in both post-secondary institutions having diplomas and degrees from both institutions. That is part of the proud legacy of Premier Davis, and that is our future: diversity of students and diversity of programs, grounded in education and educational principles of the past, but preparing for the jobs and careers of tomorrow. And we attract, of course, students internationally at our colleges and universities.

As a student here at the University of Toronto, in my undergraduate studies I walked through Queen’s Park daily and was proud to do so. We’re right here, as a neighbour of the University of Toronto’s St. George campus. Then, of course, Osgoode Hall Law School at York University is where I attended after undergrad. I remember my days as a student, but I also had the privilege of being an adjunct instructor at Durham College, teaching evidence in the faculty of justice and emergency services, and then an adjunct, also, at Queen’s law school, teaching advocacy and insurance law.

When you have that opportunity to teach our students at college or university, it brings you back to your days as a student, and it’s such a wonderful opportunity to see the idealism of our young people. Our young people deserve a place to learn, to come together and to be safe and free. That is why I speak today in this House about the importance of moving forward to pass this government’s bill, the proposed Strengthening Post-secondary Institutions and Students Act, 2022, Bill 26.

This bill confirms our government’s commitment that was made to all students, leading up to the June 2, 2022 election this year. This commitment is to ensure that they have access to a secure and safe learning environment while attending any post-secondary institution across the province of Ontario.

This legislation, if passed, would amend the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act and the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005, to help protect students in cases of faculty and staff sexual misconduct and harassment, but also to allow the institutions to address complaints more efficiently when they arise. These changes would better protect students who experience faculty and staff sexual violence, on and off campus.

The proposed changes would do so in three ways:

—strengthening tools available to institutions in order to address instances of faculty or staff sexual misconduct against students; that is, deeming sexual abuse of a student to be just cause for dismissal;

—preventing the use of non-disclosure agreements to address instances where an employee leaves an institution to be employed at another institution, their prior wrongdoing thereby remaining a secret; that would be prohibited and prevented; and

—requiring institutions to have employee sexual misconduct policies that, at a minimum, include the institution’s rules with respect to sexual behaviour that involves employees and students of the institution, and examples of disciplinary measures that may be imposed on those employees who contravene such policies.

Within this proposed legislation, the bill would also amend the Ryerson University Act, 1977, and the University Foundations Act, 1992. This would change the name of Ryerson University to Toronto Metropolitan University—TMU—and it would change the size and composition of TMU’s senate.

As important as amending these acts are, I would like to return to the first points I mentioned earlier, because for far too long there has been a culture of sexual violence and harassment on college and university campuses. This is unacceptable. I listened carefully to the members speaking from the opposition benches earlier this week, yesterday in particular, and it seems that we share that great concern. That’s why I look forward to the members opposite supporting this bill, because the members opposite and this government know that students deserve better.

Therefore, we are proposing these legislative amendments that would require publicly assisted post-secondary institutions and private career colleges to have specific procedures in place that address and increase transparency—transparency of faculty and staff, transparency with respect to sexual misconduct—requiring institutions to have specific codes of conduct.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud parent who has seen both my son, Brendan, and my daughter, Meaghan, graduate from their respective universities—and Brendan graduated from a private career college, the College of Sports Media, in 2018. Both have gone on to thrive in their chosen professions: Meaghan as a lawyer, a barrister and solicitor, following in my footsteps, and Brendan as a story editor at TSN. I pause with great concern about all young students, however, who may not have been so fortunate because of the trauma that they may have endured as a victim of sexual violence or harassment. I also pause to raise concerns about the anguish endured by parents as they watch their children relive those experiences at the expense of a delayed or postponed education because of the trauma they endured while at school.

The status quo is no longer acceptable, and our government is prepared to act by giving post-secondary institutions the tools they need to address instances of sexual assault and sexual misconduct. To address this issue, then, our government held consultations with more than 100 stakeholders, including representatives from post-secondary institutions, labour and student groups, private career colleges, faculty associations and community organizations. Our government has heard from experts and stakeholders the best ways to address this ongoing and serious problem. These 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.

We all have a role to play in creating learning environments where students feel supported, protected and safe, and with these amendments, we can and will take action to change the atmosphere and culture of sexual misconduct and harassment.

The nature of this legislation is to support students and change the culture of behaviour within colleges and universities for decades. With this change of culture, members of this Legislature will recall that back in April, following many years of consultation and feedback, the recommendation was made to change the name of Ryerson University to Toronto Metropolitan University. In concurrence with this recommendation, our government is introducing legislative amendments to allow the university to legally change its name, along with the institution’s composition and size of its senate, to introduce two new faculties: the Lincoln Alexander School of Law and the soon-to-be established faculty of medicine. These legislative amendments will not only support our government’s efforts to ensure Ontario has a post-secondary system that is inclusive and promotes the success of students but also help Toronto Metropolitan University begin a new chapter in its history. These faculties are hailed as much-needed steps towards addressing Ontario’s post-secondary educational needs.

The naming of Toronto Metropolitan University’s new faculty of law after a renowned and respected public figure—that being the Honourable Lincoln Alexander, who was the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario from 1985 to 1991—naming the new faculty of law at TMU after Lincoln Alexander does indeed do justice and respect not only to him but to the school and to our community at large.

The opening of the new faculty of medicine is consistent with our government’s commitment to improving and investing in Ontario’s health care by training and accrediting new doctors who will practise their profession in much-needed service areas throughout Ontario.

And this, of course, has a geographical component to it. Continuing with the trend that we’ve seen where post-secondary institutions have campuses at various locations, TMU’s faculty of medicine will be located geographically in Brampton, and that is consistent—near my riding, for example, Trent University, based in Peterborough, is located in south Oshawa, that part of Oshawa that I share with the member for Oshawa, who, I hope and believe, along with her colleagues in the official opposition, will support this bill.

With that, Speaker, I conclude my submissions in support of Bill 26, and I look forward to any questions and to further debate.

Questions and answers?

I thank the member for his remarks. A question to the member: This government has a proven history of creating policies which continually build on previous legislation. Bill 26 is no different. It builds on regulations that the minister put in place earlier this year. So my question to the member is, can you please outline how this legislation will build on previous regulations passed by our government to better support students in post-secondary education?

Thank you to the member from Durham for your presentation. I do want to say, as a member from Waterloo, we have the University of Waterloo, we have Wilfrid Laurier University and Conestoga, so I meet regularly with students and faculty of all those institutions. I think there is a component of this bill that perhaps doesn’t recognize how much courage it takes to come forward when you have experienced sexual violence. When that courage is displayed, it needs to be honoured.

There is certainly a lack of resources on campuses to deal with the counselling that is required to deal with the mental health fallout that often falls from not feeling safe on campus. If we do have the shared goal of ensuring that staff, faculty and students feel safe on our campuses, can the member for Durham address the lack of resources that currently exist and where this legislation does not apply?

I appreciate the comments from the member for Durham. I also appreciated your comments yesterday about the charter rights, with regard to another bill.

You started your comments talking about the legacy of Bill Davis, and there is a very strong legacy in our education system with Bill Davis, but there’s also a strong legacy of standing up for human rights. When this government brought forward another bill implementing the “notwithstanding” clause to strip Ontarians of their charter rights and freedoms, he took a strong public stand, asking this government not to do that. Again this government has got a bill before the House using the “notwithstanding” clause. I would ask you to honour the legacy of Bill Davis and not support using the “notwithstanding” clause in this House. And I would also ask you—

Thank you to the member opposite. I believe the member who has just asked the question is coming near to her 10th anniversary as a parliamentarian, if my knowledge of history is correct, so she would have had the opportunity to join a Parliament with a minority government in 2013, I believe, and then would have been in the opposition under both a Liberal government and a PC government.

Having been here for 10 years as a parliamentarian—and me as a private citizen before being here, I think we both are familiar with the need for supports, the need to address this problem, the need to end practices that see offenders going from one institution to another, the need for transparency. I submit that this bill addresses all of those things in a very positive, constructive and necessary way.

No doubt the member has seen, in her time over the past decade as a parliamentarian, that previous governments either failed to address it or did not address it sufficiently. We are building on what we started in the previous mandate to go forward further.

—strengthening tools available to institutions in order to address instances of faculty or staff sexual misconduct against students; that is, specifically deeming sexual abuse of a student to be just cause for dismissal;

—secondly, preventing the use of non-disclosure agreements to address instances where an employee leaves an institution to be an employee at another institution and their prior wrongdoing remains a secret; of course, such a person would create greater risk at the new institution; and finally

—requiring institutions to have codes of conduct regarding faculty and staff sexual misconduct.

I was quite happy to hear you make reference to Bill Davis and to his legacy. He was instrumental in bringing the network of colleges that we have, the network of public colleges, the network of government-funded colleges that we have. Yet, in this bill, the government introduced publicly supported colleges. That’s not the vision of Bill Davis. The vision of Bill Davis was for the government to fund a college.

How do you explain the disconnect?

Questions?

I just want to acknowledge and thank the member for Durham for his remarks and comments. Bill 26 is very close to the heart of each and every parent. As a father of a son who is in university and a daughter who is in high school and going to university next year—for every parent our asset is our children, and we’re always worried about them, that they’re safe. That’s exactly what this bill is doing. Bill 26 is proposing changes that, quite frankly, are long overdue. Protecting students in colleges and universities is so important. That’s why I’m glad to see this government is making this a priority.

My question to the member from Durham is, can the member please outline how these measures will specifically support students and survivors of sexual violence?

Meegwetch, everyone. It’s always an honour to be able to stand up and speak for the people of Kiiwetinoong. It’s a riding that’s very rich: rich in our ways of life; rich in our identities, our languages; but also rich in community and rich in resources.

This morning, I want to be able to focus my talk on schedule 3, which amends the Ryerson University Act. The schedule of Bill 26 changes the name from Ryerson University to Toronto Metropolitan University.

While we have this official piece of legislation to change the name of this university, it’s important for everyone to know, to talk about and honour the work that happened to make this name change happen, and why the Indigenous community at TMU spent years working to change the university’s name.

TMU, formerly Ryerson, was named after Egerton Ryerson. He played a key role in the design of Indian residential schools in Canada, a system that contributed to the genocide of First Nations people. TMU acknowledged that for years they did not understand the concern of the community people, of the Indigenous people who worked and went to school there, at TMU, about the name. There was also little desire to accept responsibility to address these concerns, and there was also a reluctance to acknowledge the harmful role played by the University’s namesake, Egerton Ryerson.

I want to share some words from the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission describing Indian residential schools. I want to quote this: “Canada’s” Indian “residential school system for” Indigenous “children was an education system in name only for much of its existence. These residential schools were created for the purpose of separating” Indigenous “children from their families, in order to minimize and weaken family ties and cultural linkages, and to indoctrinate children into a new culture—the culture of the legally dominant Euro-Christian Canadian society, led by Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. The schools were in existence for well over 100 years, and many successive generations of children from the same communities and families endured the experience of them. That experience was hidden for most of Canada’s history, until survivors of the system were finally able to find the strength, courage, and support to bring their experiences to light in” multiple “court cases that ultimately led to the largest class-action lawsuit in Canada’s history....”

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission “heard from more than 6,000 witnesses, most of whom survived the experience of living in the schools as students. The stories of that experience are sometimes difficult to accept as something that could have happened in a country such as Canada, which has long prided itself on being a bastion of democracy, peace, and kindness throughout the world. Children were abused, physically and sexually, and they died in the schools in numbers that would not have been tolerated in any school system anywhere in the country, or in the world....

“For over a century, the central goals of Canada’s” Indigenous “policy were to eliminate” Indigenous “governments; ignore” Indigenous “rights; terminate the treaties; and, through a process of assimilation, cause” Indigenous “peoples to cease to exist as distinct legal, social, cultural, religious, and racial entities in Canada. The establishment and operation of” Indian “residential schools were a central element of this policy, which can best be described as ‘cultural genocide.’

“Physical genocide is the mass killing of the members of a targeted group, and biological genocide is the destruction of the group’s reproductive capacity. Cultural genocide is the destruction of those structures and practices that allow the group to continue as a group. States that engage in cultural genocide set out to destroy the political and social institutions of the targeted group. Land is seized, and populations are forcibly transferred and their movement is restricted. Languages are banned. Spiritual leaders are persecuted, spiritual practices are forbidden, and objects of spiritual value are confiscated and destroyed. And most significantly to the issue at hand, families are disrupted to prevent the transmission of cultural values and identity from one generation to the next.

“In its dealings with” Indigenous “people, Canada did all these things.”

That’s a quote from the report. I share that because, Speaker, it was because of the role that Egerton Ryerson played in this cultural disruption and genocide that the name of Ryerson University had to be changed.

In 2017, the Ryerson University Indigenous Students’ Association called on the school to remove the statue of Egerton Ryerson and to change its name. The student-led campaign from 2020 pushed for the school to change its name out of respect for Indian residential school survivors. They asked the university to “change the name of Ryerson University to a name that does not celebrate a man who supported and created the structures of colonial genocide.”

While Ryerson did not develop the Indian residential school policy, he did recommend the 1842-44 Bagot Commission to the Department of Indian Affairs. That commission recommended “manual labour schools where Indigenous children were separated from their parents to achieve the assimilation” of Indigenous peoples—a legacy that has had a negative effect on Indigenous people in Canada for all the years since.

Ryerson’s role in the development of residential schools was also identified in 2015 in the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, volume 1, part 1.

In 2010, Ryerson University acknowledged the legacy of a painful past, and the Aboriginal Education Council there identified Ryerson’s “role in shaping the concept of the residential school system and the system’s devastating impact on Indigenous people.”

Another step to acknowledge this past was taken in 2018. There was a plaque that was installed on the statue of Ryerson on campus. The plaque was meant to contextualize the role Ryerson played in upholding the residential school system. The plaque read, “This plaque serves as a reminder of Ryerson University’s commitment to moving forward in the spirit of truth and reconciliation.

“Egerton Ryerson is widely known for his contributions to Ontario’s public educational system. As chief superintendent of education, Ryerson’s recommendations were instrumental in the design and implementation of the Indian residential school system.

“In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported that children in the schools were subjected to unthinkable abuse and neglect, to medical experimentation, punishment for the practice of cultures or languages and death. The aim of the residential school system was cultural genocide.”

That plaque concluded with two quotes, one by Chief Sitting Bull: “Let us put our minds together to see what kind of lives we can create for our children.”

The other quote that they had on there was from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: “For the child taken, for the parent left behind.”

After this, in 2020, the president of Ryerson University established the Indigenous-led Standing Strong Task Force, which made a number of recommendations to change the university for the better. Their primary recommendation at that time was to change the name of the university in the spirit of reconciliation. But the discovery of the 215 changed the timeline suggested by the task force. At this time, there was an outpouring of grief nationwide after the discovery of the 215 in Tk’emlúps.

On May 27, 2021, the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc Nation confirmed the unthinkable loss that was spoken about but never documented by the Kamloops Indian Residential School. With the help of a ground-penetrating radar specialist, the truth of the preliminary findings came to light: the confirmation of the remains of the 215 children who were students at the Kamloops Indian Residential School.

I remember at that same moment, in June 2021, the statue of Ryerson at Ryerson University was pulled down by demonstrators. I actually was there. I happened to be in town, and I saw it come down. Part of it, I watched, and then the next day, I went to visit the residential school here in Brantford.

Mohawk Institute.

At that same time, I spoke in this chamber about the collective grief that Indigenous people were feeling last year. It was a great open secret that our children lie on these properties of former schools, an open secret that Canadians can no longer look away from. In keeping with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s missing children project, every school site must be searched for the graves of our ancestors. Canada must demand apologies from those who helped commit these heinous crimes.

I understand that this name change is only one symbolic step. But we as the government need to do the work asked of us by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the survivors of residential schools and their families. Meegwetch.

It is now time for questions.

Mohawk.

Good morning to everyone in the House. The member opposite spoke to one component of the bill; there are certainly multiple components. I know recently the member from Kitchener Centre, who is the critic for colleges and universities, discussed sexual violence in this Legislature previously and certainly brought up situations at post-secondary colleges, universities etc.

So my question to the member opposite is: We’ve heard from you that you seem to be supportive of the name change for Ryerson, so based on that and other components related to sexual violence on campus, can we assume, then, that you will be supporting this government legislation?

I want to thank our friend from Kiiwetinoong for that incredible offering for us this morning. I want to thank you, actually, my friend, for all of the teachings you have helped us try to grapple with in the four and a half years I’ve been around this place.

You mentioned as you closed that the renaming of the university you spoke about is symbolic. I have heard people say in the past when we’ve raised these issues in our community that we shouldn’t just focus on symbols, that symbols are unimportant. But it struck me, from what you were telling us, that symbols really are important.

At home, we have but we have a parkway we’re trying to rename from the Sir John A. parkway to the Kitchissippi Highway, inspired by the great Albert Dumont, our city’s poet laureate and Algonquin leader. We’re having this debate at home. I’m wondering if you could just help us understand a little further why, in your view, symbols are important.

Thank you to the member from Kiiwetinoong for your comments today. We are all so fortunate to have you in this House, to have your voice and your experience as a residential school survivor in this House. Every time that I hear you speak, everybody in the House is paying attention, and especially in these quieter periods in the House, that’s not always happening.

You mentioned at the end of your speech that renaming Ryerson to Toronto Metropolitan University is one step and that there’s room for improvement in this bill. What else should this Legislature be doing in order to get to true truth and reconciliation about the residential school system?

I appreciate the words this morning from the member opposite. I can say that one of the great things I’ve come to understand and respect about sitting in this Legislature is that we listen and we learn. We can’t listen and learn enough, and I think we all need to take heed of that thought, so again, thank you very much.

That being said, just looking back at a little history, the member opposite from Algoma–Manitoulin once said, “The effects of sexual violence cannot be understated....

“The official opposition supports legislation and policies that keep people safe and provide effective tools to do so.”

Speaker, through you, does the member opposite still support, or does he support—what is the position of the opposition, and will he support Bill 26?

Certainly one of the things that we need to start looking at is implementing the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation report. I know sometimes I hear “reconciliation” so many times. Sometimes I feel that word is overused, overused because we make it look as if we’re doing something without really doing anything. And I think it’s important that we put some resources towards actioning those 94 calls to action. Meegwetch.