Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 4, 2024, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 157, An Act to amend various Acts in relation to the courts and other justice matters / Projet de loi 157, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les tribunaux et d’autres questions relatives à la justice.

Speaker, it’s an honour to be here before you today and speak on behalf of third reading to the Enhancing Access to Justice Act. Our government commends itself for successfully bringing in the Community Safety and Policing Act because—before I go too much farther, I’m sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Our government commends itself for successfully bringing in the Community Safety and Policing Act because it truly does benefit the police who serve Ontario and the people of all walks of life in this province. We know this monumental legislation will be a living document and therefore be something that will adapt to policing through generations.

Although it is not perfect, the Enhancing Access to Justice Act we are vouching for today will amend some of the gaps and loopholes that can be found within the CSPA. Some of these changes will revolutionize the level of public safety in such a positive way that Ontarians will be able to see immediate change in their communities. This act, if passed, is the key to CSPA’s success.

For example, the fire marshal changes: The act aims to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997. In almost 30 years, this legislation has not been touched, until now. We are taking key issues that fire stakeholders have been advocating for and making it happen. Under Premier Ford and the Solicitor General’s leadership, we are taking safety to a new level.

It is no secret that Ontario has undergone significant changes over time, necessitating adaptations, and legislation needs to address new challenges. Evolving issues and shifting circumstances underscore the need for legislation to remain pertinent and efficient in addressing contemporary fire-related needs and realities. Without doing so, we put ourselves in an outdated critical circumstance where old legislation does not correlate with current events.

We are devising a new mechanism to enhance enforcement and compliance with the act and its regulations. There exists a deficiency in the array of enforcement tools available under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, and our government is acting. The main objective is to bridge this gap by introducing new tools to promote adherence to the act and its regulations.

Many Ontario statutes, such as the Highway Traffic Act and the Municipal Act, 2001, incorporate administrative monetary penalties, otherwise known as AMPs, to incentive compliance. AMP frameworks allow authorized individuals to levy monetary penalties for violations of requirements outlined in an act, regulation or bylaw.

What is interesting is that an authorized individual also may issue an AMP upon discovering a violation. This is something that will bring more public safety into effect, because we can respond to violations in real time. AMPs are viable as they foster compliance without necessitating the initiation of legal proceedings. Enhancing access to justice is just that, without backing up our courts and going through an entire lengthy process to ensure that the violation is reprimanded.

Currently, there are no provisions whatsoever for an AMP framework under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997. This needs to change because of the vital necessity of AMPs to partake in fire situations. I am proud to say that we have listened. The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and other stakeholders who long advocated for such a compliance tool will be getting this through the Enhancing Access to Justice Act, if this bill is passed.

In response to sector feedback, Bill 157 and this amendment to the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, enables future development with fire stakeholders, furthering public safety even more so. We need to be listening to those who do this job every day, and our government knows how much value our front line adds to keeping Ontario safe.

This amendment furthers our commitment that the government will engage in consultations with municipalities regarding this AMP framework. This is an opportunity to discuss the different avenues and opportunities that AMPs can have for every specific region. These include identifying violations for which administrative monetary penalties could be issued; determining the penalty amounts and ranges; enforcement and collection procedures, including administration in unincorporated Ontario; and establishing a framework for assessing associated impacts during the regulatory process.

The proposed amendment does not alter existing requirements under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997. Changes can have unforeseen consequences, potentially leading to unintended outcomes or negative impacts. By not altering the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, our government mitigates the risk of these unintended consequences. We are simply adding to it.

I want to be clear, Madam Speaker: Through this act, our government can refine and enhance existing laws to improve their effectiveness in achieving their intended objectives. This will inherently expand protections or streamline processes to better serve the people of this province. It is evident that the front line often relies on the consistency and reliability of legislation around them. Altering something without justification can undermine trust and confidence in its integrity, and we are here to have their backs.

This amendment within the proposed Enhancing Access to Justice Act epitomizes a more efficient and streamlined justice system. AMPs are more efficient and cost-effective to administer, alleviating unnecessary burdens on the courts and simplifying the process for all involved parties. Concurrently, they effectively deter violations of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, and its regulations, conduct that will not be tolerated in Ontario any longer.

Both the public safety and justice systems aim to prevent and deter crime and misconduct. This is why we have come together on this issue to get to the roots of the problems faced at a legislative level. Effective legislation, regulations and interventions contribute to maintaining public safety by deterring individuals from engaging in any unlawful activity. Whether civilian, fire or policing, we know justice systems uphold the rights and freedoms within communities. For this, protections in the frameworks are essential.

Ensuring justice means protecting all parties from harm, discrimination and injustice, which, in turn, promotes our goal of maintaining public safety by fostering a sense of security and trust in the legal system. This is why we are here today, because the Enhancing Access to Justice Act approaches focus on repairing harm caused by deeming behaviour and reintegrating offenders back into society in a fair way. By addressing the underlying loopholes in legislation, we are upholding the principle of accountability.

More importantly, judicial decisions and legal interpretations can shape the implementation and understanding of laws. With the integration of tools and resources, we’re allowing for new opportunities to minimize accusations and misinterpretation of a violation. Amendments being discussed in the House today are necessary to clarify legislative intent, reconcile conflicting interpretations and address unforeseen consequences arising from court rulings. Holding individuals accountable for their actions through AMPs not only serves the interests of justice but also reinforces public trust in the legal system, which is essential for the province of Ontario and for its citizens to have faith in their fire service and the justice act.

The Enhancing Access to Justice Act is something that needs to be passed for the benefit of Ontario. This is a piece of legislation that, if passed, will ensure that the CSPA will be performed in a just way so that there’s no room for mistakes. Our commitment to public safety is so deeply embedded with the public that we will pull out all the stops to ensure everyone stays safe.

With that, I will be sharing my time with the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

The member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

I’m honoured to join in this debate today on Bill 157, the Enhancing Access to Justice Act.

With the Premier’s leadership, our government is dedicated to creating a safer Ontario. Bill 157, if passed, furthers our commitment to law enforcement initiatives aimed at deterring criminal behaviour; probing accusations; capturing perpetrators; and bringing justice to Ontarians that are affected by broken laws.

Our signature framework, the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, also known as the CSPA, will have its gaps closed. If passed, this bill will be implemented April 1, 2024. As we prepare for this date, it is important we address crucial topics within this legislation to ensure it serves its purpose to the strongest capacity.

As we debate the third reading of the Enhancing Access to Justice Act in the House today, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight some of the amendments that the Solicitor General’s office is responsible for crafting. One of the most important parts of this legislation is how terms are defined. We want to make sure the language for this bill is crystal clear, because misinterpretations, both in courts and out on the streets, are not acceptable.

Our justice system needs the confidence required from well-crafted legislation to adequately perform duties by judges all the way to the front-line officers working in our community. The laws, regulations and directives need to be clear in both official languages, and that is what this legislation does. This standard of accurate bilingual legislation is something we hold dearly in the government, under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford. Critically accurate translation is essential in preserving the original meaning and intention behind a word. This attention to detail is crucial for front-line workers and courts as it maintains the authenticity and style of the CSPA.

Each situation is unique and no two public safety confrontations are alike. Variables such as environment, involved parties and response can be influenced by the precise definition of terms both in the courtroom and on the street. These contextual factors shape the dynamics of a situation and affect its outcome. This is why we are not only ensuring consistency in this regulation but also providing clear definitions for terms.

Let’s begin with the term “special constables” and translation. Special constables play a critical role in ensuring the safety of Ontario’s communities and public areas. Premier Ford, the Solicitor General and all my caucus colleagues have the utmost respect and support for our front-line officers.

Interjections.

Currently, the French translation of the Ontario statute states “special constables” as “agent spécial.” This term, “agent spécial,” is also displayed on special constable uniforms, crests and badges. Not only does this differ from the French translation of “special constable” used in Quebec and New Brunswick, but it can also create confusion in public spaces. The term “special agent” will be eliminated entirely, and “special constable” will be defined in French as “constable spécial” with the help of this act.

This is especially important because “agent spécial” is utilized in addition to the CSPA, which underscores the need for action to address this inconsistency. If passed, the amendment will change the term in all Ontario statutes within the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, coming into force on April 1 of this year. There is no room for confusion when it comes to law. That is why we’re eliminating the inconsistencies in the French terminology.

Next, I want to discuss the coroner’s amendments. I’d also like to thank our chief coroner, Dr. Huyer, who attended all the committee hearings just to hear what people had to say. I thank him for his work.

Madam Speaker, the terminology is a big part of the Enhancing Access to Justice Act and so is the groundwork. The Enhancing Access to Justice Act is updating legislation that will, if passed, allow the Office of the Chief Coroner to run more efficiently. The chief coroner oversees the provincial death investigation system, ensuring that deaths occurring in Ontario are appropriately investigated to determine cause and manner. We are extending tools through death investigations that help to identify public health and safety risks, trends and patterns related to causes of death. This information can inform public health policies, interventions and initiatives aimed at preventing future deaths.

Our government’s amendments to the Coroners Act will specifically improve the timeliness of construction-related death investigations. This will help save lives because as these investigations become more efficient, more data can be used to help inform public safety precautions and possibly prevent these accidents from happening in the future.

Speaker, I think we can all agree with the Solicitor General when he says that everyone deserves to go to work and come home safely. We can all agree with that sentence.

Without construction workers, we are not able to build infrastructure in Ontario. We had a lot of deputants from the construction industry who were very supportive of this amendment in the bill.

In a time when Ontario needs a government to step up and get it done, we cannot afford to lose workers on the job or have future potential workers leave because of unsafe workplaces. Nobody here wants that. Our government has a strategic plan to build more homes in Ontario, which we cannot do without these strong men and women out on the job. The harsh reality is that working in construction has a great amount of risk, and workers are faced with dangerous situations every single day.

In my own riding on Etobicoke–Lakeshore, we have development projects worked on by hundreds of construction workers every day—we just need to drive down the Queensway—everything from condos being worked on by electricians to houses being framed. We need them more than ever to continue their work. And they deserve to feel safe.

During a public health crisis, natural disasters or other emergencies, the chief coroner’s role becomes indispensable. They are the ones who take charge of coordinating and supervising the response of the death investigation system. Because of this, the responsibility of deploying resources, coordinating efforts with other agencies and ensuring the timeliness and appropriate handling of deceased individuals falls upon their shoulders.

As of now, the Office of the Chief Coroner investigates every single death related to construction incidents. However, this process is often time-consuming, leading to delays in providing answers to grieving families. Currently, it takes approximately three years for an inquest to be scheduled, which may be perceived as inactivity, especially by a loved one awaiting closure. This delay can cause frustration, particularly in cases where there are no imminent deadlines due to an investigation of natural—sorry, I can’t read this. The delay can be frustrating, particularly in cases where there is no imminent deadline due to the investigative nature of the incident. Additionally, this process can only commence once all regulatory investigations and prosecutions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act have concluded.

Through the Enhancing Access to Justice Act, we aim to isolate construction fatalities to potentially identify root causes that could prevent further deaths. This was also brought to our attention during the committee meetings.

The proposed Enhancing Access to Justice Act includes an amendment to the Coroners Act that, if approved, would mandate coroner-led annual reviews for accidental construction-related deaths. This amendment alters the current practice of conducting single mandatory inquests for incidents resulting in one or multiple deaths. The review process will involve industry representatives and experts, with a coroner’s inquest remaining an option where and when appropriate.

We are also introducing the concept of having families becoming a significant role in the mandatory review process. We want to allow the families, if they wish, to request an inquest if they require additional review. Actively involving family members in these situations will help build stronger bonds and deepen relationships within the community. Spending time together, engaging in meaningful conversations about incidents will foster trust between family members and the coroner’s office. This is crucial in a province like this, because our government is stepping up to the plate to ensure that Ontarians get closure and partake in understanding a situation that is life-changing.

While our goal is to prevent all construction-related deaths, the proposed amendment would lead to a comprehensive examination of safety issues within specific construction sites and the industry as a whole.

These recommendations, if passed, will make a difference to families who need closure. These will help expedite processes when necessary and help bring people home when it’s necessary. At the end of the day, all we want is people to come home safe from their job. That’s all we can ask. The government of Ontario wants a safe Ontario where accountability is key.

I want to thank both the speakers for their speeches today. My question revolves around construction workers. I know there are some impacts in this bill that may be of use to them. Unfortunately, in my career, I’ve witnessed two construction deaths on projects that I have been involved with.

Our construction workers are building roads, highways, schools, hospitals and homes and, really, I know that our government wants to support the safety and well-being of construction workers across the province. So one aspect that has received attention in this bill, especially by the industry and many of my constituents, involves the recommendations for construction-related death investigations. Madam Speaker, may the members please explain what those changes could look like?

My question is to the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore. Just this week, we learned that the Metrolinx project at the Mimico station has been cancelled, which means local residents have been waiting 10 years now for the GO station to be upgraded and for over 2,000 homes to be built in the area. Now what they’re looking at is a hole in the ground.

To the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: What is your plan to ensure that your residents get a station upgrade?

Thank you to the member for that question. Having worked in the construction sector for a number of years before I came to this place, I certainly understand the importance to the families, to the companies and, of course, to society as a whole.

One of the goals in the upgrade is that we want to know that workers are able to come back home safely at the end of every day, as my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore said. This review would identify issues, trends and ensure recommendations that come from an inquest are provided on a timely basis, not four years, not 10 years after the incident. It currently takes approximately three years, as the member said, from the time of a death to complete an inquest. That’s way too long. Sometimes there are delays for a legitimate reason because of ongoing investigations. This will encapsulate all that—and hopefully, no more than 18 months from the time of an occurrence for a report.

Thank you to the members for their debate this morning.

We definitely have seen a court system in crisis. We’ve seen many cases being thrown out due to the lack of staffing in the courthouses, and we know that this is due to—

Well, it has nothing to do with this bill, but I’m happy to respond about the Mimico GO Station because it’s very important to my community. It’s a 10-minute walk from my house, and I take it all the time.

The Mimico GO Station—we are working with the Ministry of Transportation. What I’d like to see is—the company is no longer utilizing the location. So we need to find somebody else to build that GO station. There is a GO station; you can use it. What I’d like to see is us opening up some of the parking so more people can have some parking at this moment. But right now, what we do need is someone to take over the property. Metrolinx is dealing with it. I’m on top of it. My team is on top of it.

I appreciate the question, because I’m able to get that out to the constituents in my area, because it is extremely important that we’re able to take transit when we can and where we need it. But my goal is to get some more parking over there. So thank you for the question.

Once again, you have to look at the judicial system as it is. They are impartial. Every judge is impartial. That’s why they take their job.

This bill is actually extremely important because we have seen more trends of hate-related crimes, human trafficking and car theft. Car theft is rampant. Most recently, police services, including the Toronto Police Service, have reported an increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, hate crimes driven by, obviously, the conflict in Israel and Hamas—against Israel and Hamas.

We’re proposing changes to the Victims’ Bill of Rights that has made changes in regulation to allow more victims to sue convicted offenders for emotional distress and related bodily harm for more crimes, including terrorism, motor vehicle theft, hate crimes, religious officials who have been targeted or people who are disrupting religious worship, as well as far more sexual offences and human trafficking than in the past—

I love it, folks, when the NDP—they can’t say anything bad about a piece of legislation, so when we’re debating that piece of legislation they talk about anything else other than the piece of legislation. I’m looking forward to their full support on this bill that we’re discussing today.

What I wanted to ask the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore about, because I know what a fierce advocate she is for victims and access to justice: I was wondering, getting back to the bill that we’re actually talking about—they could just not stand up and ask questions at all if they don’t want to talk about this—what it means to her and what it will mean for victims of crime, some of the changes that we’re making in this piece of legislation.

A question for the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore: Recently, the Premier made some disturbing statements about his desire to increase political influence over judicial candidates. His comments have caused alarm in the legal community and lowered the public’s trust in Ontario’s justice system. During committee, this government could have taken a step to reverse this damage by voting for an NDP amendment that would improve the independence of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee.

Does this member agree that this government should be doing everything it can to improve public trust after the Premier’s disturbing comments?

We’re going to move to questions.

Next question?

Point of order.

It’s an honour to rise today to talk to Bill 157, the access to justice act. I’m going to talk about two different aspects of access to justice. Access to justice is a fundamental democratic right. It’s actually enshrined in our democratic Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are a number of legal rights. Number 11 is actually about access to justice, so I’m going to talk about that. I am the critic for democratic reform, so I am taking this issue from the democratic rights perspective.

There have been by this government a number of attacks on our democratic rights in this province. Because of those attacks—including the changing of the rules of Toronto’s municipal election; they changed the rules midway through the campaign—when that came back from the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that Canadians do not have the right to democratic municipal elections. Most people don’t know that. That’s why I keep repeating it in this Legislature, because people need to be aware that we do not have the right to democratic municipal elections.

This is something that we need to get restored, because I think for the last 160 years that we’ve been a country, when people go to the polls in a municipal election, they’re assuming that the X that they mark on the ballot is the highest law in the land and that it cannot be overruled, but that’s not the case in Canada. That’s not the case in Ontario. That’s something that we need to restore.

The other action from this government is that once they got that—that was in 2021 that the Supreme Court decision came back—once they got that decision, they passed what were called strong-mayor bills. And those strong-mayor bills stripped the majority of municipalities of the right to majority vote democracy. So in the majority of municipalities, the majority of Ontarians do not have the right to majority vote democracy any more.

The other thing that this government has done that’s an attack on our democratic rights is that they have introduced three bills in this Legislature that utilized the “notwithstanding” clause. It’s a bit of a euphemism, the “notwithstanding” clause. The “notwithstanding” clause is from section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I was talking to my colleague from Humber River–Black Creek and he said that when I speak, I often sound like a friendly professor. That’s the attitude that I’m trying to have today, the friendly professor, because I really want people—

Interjection.

I just want people to be aware of how important our democratic rights are and how they’re being attacked and being taken away under this government, including our right to access to justice.

Section 33, the “notwithstanding” clause, actually reads that a provincial Legislature or the federal government can pass a piece of that “shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this charter.”

Section 2 of the Charter of Rights: What they’re doing is they’re saying a provincial Legislature can pass a piece of legislation that overrides section 2, which is our fundamental freedoms: our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion, our freedom of conscience, our freedom of association. All those fundamental freedoms have been overridden by this government three times, with three separate pieces of legislation.

Sections 7 through 15 of the charter include our equality rights. Section 11 is our rights in legal proceedings. Specifically, in section 11 it says the right to an independent and impartial judge. We have a charter right to an independent and impartial judge if we have to go before a court. This government has passed three pieces of legislation that strip Ontarians of that right.

Now, what’s most concerning: Over the last couple of years, the Conservative Attorney General and the Conservative Premier have taken steps to strip us of that right to an impartial and independent judge. It started in 2019 when the Attorney General said that he wanted to appoint like-minded judges. He wanted to have judges who had similar values to his own.

Then, in 2020, we found out through the media that the Attorney General was actually interviewing Chief Justice candidates. These people were applying to be the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice, and the Attorney General was personally interviewing them.

Then, in 2021, the government passed Bill 245, which stripped the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee of their power. This Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee are the ones who make recommendations. They’re the ones who are supposed to interview judicial candidates. They’re supposed to make recommendations to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General is supposed to choose one or however many they need from that list. But instead, the government passed a piece of legislation that stripped that independent committee of most of their powers. So this government is now appointing the judges directly—

This part about this principle of having impartial and independent judges—I asked the Attorney General in question period a few days ago. I said, “When you were interviewing candidates for the Chief Justice position, what questions did you ask?” I was thinking about this because, last week, the Premier said that he did not want to appoint NDP or Liberal judges; obviously, he wants to appoint Conservative judges. The Attorney General reports to the Premier, so what questions is the Attorney General asking these judicial candidates in this interview process?

I asked him that. I said, “Do you ask the judicial appointments, ‘Which party do you vote for?’ Do you ask, ‘What donations have you made?’”

Madam Speaker, a point of order?

I will allow the member to finish her question, which needs to be about the bill.

Thank you to the member for Hamilton Mountain for the question. A number of the changes that are looked at here are going to make it easier for victims of crime, such as terrorism, vehicle theft, human trafficking and targeting of religious officials. They will also protect children and youth by banning the growth of recreational cannabis in homes that offer child care services and, even more important, limit interruptions to child protection trials that happen when a judge is appointed to another court. They will improve the safety and well-being of construction workers and also enhance access to justice for women who have been either trafficked and/or victims of intimate partner violence. These are all things that are intimated and expected to come from this bill.

The bill is definitely about access to justice. Access to justice means being able to get into court in a timely fashion. When we’re talking about women with intimate partner violence, we know that there’s underfunding in the system.

So what are they doing to ensure that there is actual true access to justice for these women who have fallen through the cracks due to a court system that is clearly not working for them?

Order.

Start the clock. The member for Spadina–Fort York can continue.

Yes, it’s back to that amendment to restore the powers of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. That’s what I’m considering about.

I also asked the Attorney General: Did he think that it was appropriate for a government that’s under criminal investigation to be appointing judges? And I will read his response. He said, “There were four candidates who applied to become the Chief Justice, and as I’m charged with making that decision—the establishment thought that maybe they should make the decision for me and give me a recommendation.” Well, that’s not what the establishment thought; that’s the role of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee that the NDP is fighting to have restored through this legislation.

The Attorney General said, “I thought that wasn’t really the appropriate way to go forward. I sat down with each candidate for an hour. Politics never came up. It’s not appropriate. The opposition may not understand. Judges don’t take direction and it would be foolish to try. It would be crossing a line.”

So I just want to harp on this for a second. The Attorney General, who was interviewing candidates because he wanted candidates, in his own words, with similar values and views to his own, and who is reporting to a Premier who wants Conservative and not NDP or Liberal judges appointed, said in these interviews, “Politics never came up. It’s not appropriate.” So there’s a contradiction. There’s a hypocrisy here, in that if we are to have access to independent and impartial judges, then he should not be interviewing them. He should not be asking them questions. In his own words, “It’s not appropriate.” His actions and the words of the Premier are not appropriate. So he should be saying to the Premier, “The actions, the words that you said were not appropriate.”

Interjection.

The other response that the Attorney General made to a question about these judicial appointments and the powers of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee was that he said that the Liberals appointed Liberal judges.

I used to be a high school teacher, and often kids do things that they’re not supposed to do. It’s part of being a teenager. And then when you call them in, they sit before you and you say, “Look, you did this thing. You weren’t supposed to do it. You broke the rules,” they’ll often say—their first response is often, “Well, Jimmy did it first.” Okay.

I’ve got to say, the Attorney General’s response that, “Yes, we’re trying to appoint Conservative judges, but the Liberals did it first,” it’s sort of like Jimmy’s response. The response that every teacher gives is, “If Jimmy jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff?” If the Liberals appointed partisan judges, should you appoint partisan judges? No. In the words of the Attorney General, “It’s not appropriate.” It’s not appropriate to be appointing partisan judges. It’s not appropriate for the Attorney General to be interviewing, having private interviews with candidates for the Chief Justice position.

And the most recent twist on this, on how we are going to get independent and impartial judges, is that yesterday the Attorney General said in the media that the judges become independent after they are appointed. So they go through a process where the Attorney General interviews them. He determines whether they have appropriate Conservative credentials. He determines whether they have values that align with his own. Then, after they’ve been appointed, they become independent. But what he’s missing there is that, in section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it doesn’t just say that the judge has to be independent. And I don’t know that you become independent after you’ve been vetted, chosen and hired by somebody who’s asking you about your values and trying to align them with their own—

Interjections.

The reason that I bring it up here is that we’ve already seen bias, or evidence that seems to point to bias, in some of the tribunals and the tribunal appointments by this government.

There’s the Ontario Land Tribunal. The Ontario Land Tribunal is where community members or municipalities who think that a developer—or when a developer tries to build something that’s beyond what’s allowed within the official plan of a community, they can go to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The community members and the municipality can take them there. This government has appointed a bunch of those overseeing the tribunal, and the Hamilton Spectator said that 97% of the decisions are now in favour of developers. This is the kind of bias.

How independent are those tribunal appointees after they’ve been appointed if 97% of the time they’re actually favouring developers? It’s scary. It’s scary because it shows the kind of bias that can creep into a system if the government is making partisan appointments. We do not want to see that happen in our courts.

The other thing that this government has done, when we’re talking about access to justice: They cut our legal aid. When they got into power in 2018, one of the first things they did was they cut legal aid by 30%, or $133 million, per year. The shame of this is that it means that low-income people do not have access to a lawyer. Even the cut-off for legal aid is $17,000 per year. If your annual income is beyond $17,000 per year, you can’t even access legal aid.

When you think about all the challenges—whatever issue that people have to go to courts about, if they’re being renovicted or demovicted or illegally evicted and they need to go before a tribunal, they’re not able to access legal aid if they make more than $17,000. Well, if you’re able to survive in this province on $17,000 per year, then you’re doing something incredible. You sure as heck do not have another $10,000 or $20,000 to hire a lawyer if you’re being illegally evicted from your place.

The government is talking about efficiency in this bill. The Enhancing Access to Justice Act is supposed to improve the efficiency of our court system. But the Chief Justice of Ontario George Strathy—this is from a newspaper article—said, “What we judges can say is that reducing legal representation for the most vulnerable members of society does not save money. It increases trial times, places greater demands on public services, and ultimately delays and increases the cost of legal proceedings for everyone.”

If the government wants to increase access to justice, the first thing that should be in this bill is not just a restoration of that 33% of legal aid funding that they cut but, actually, an increase in legal aid funding, so that people who need a lawyer can access a lawyer, so that they’re not going into courts without the proper documents, without proper representation, and they’re not clogging up our courts as the judge tries to navigate through somebody who is not prepared.

The other thing that the government needs to do in order to increase access to justice is to end the chaos that’s happening in our courts. I’ll give the case of Emily. This was in the media a little while ago. She was raped in her home. She took the rapist to court. She went to the hospital. She went to trial. She actually testified in the trial. You’ve got to think about the courage that it takes to go through all of those steps in order to have your day in court and in order to see justice.

What happened was, after she had already testified, the delays in the court case—and these were caused by staffing shortages in court and by the chaos created by this government in our court system—went beyond 18 months.

People have a charter right. The person charged has a charter right to have a trial within an allotted time, and that allotted time is usually 18 months. So when it hit 18 months, the judge threw out the case.

So this woman had gone through all of the trauma of having to relive that experience, of having to go to the police and go to the hospital and go to court and actually testify with the person that she’s complaining about in the courts, and then to have the trial thrown out on a technicality, on the fact that this government has not provided enough funding for our courts.

And one of the judges, Judge Jones, in this decision about this case said, “This case should serve as a chilling reminder that this inexcusable state of affairs must never be allowed to happen again.” He attributed it to the inappropriate funding for the courts, that there isn’t enough funding. And this government has actually just cut the base funding—in their fall economic statement, they just cut the base funding for our courts.

So when this government is talking about access to justice, they need to increase the base funding in our courts so that we have the staff in our courts so that trials can be heard on time, so that trials and cases like this are not thrown out.

They need to restore the funding for our legal aid services so that everybody who needs access to legal aid will have access to legal aid.

Most important of all, they need to restore the impartial and independent process for appointing judges. We cannot have partisan judges appointed in this province. It’s a violation of the rights of all of us under the charter to an independent and impartial judiciary.