Good morning. I want to thank the member for her contributions this morning.

One of the things that I like to emphasize is positive moves within time, and this bill has made changes under the Victims’ Bill of Rights, expanding the list of crimes where victims are presumed to have suffered emotional distress. Right now, under this section, that only includes assault by a spouse, sexual assault and attempted sexual assault. This is now proposed to be expanded to include human trafficking and certain sexual offences, including those committed against a minor.

My question to the member is, does the member opposite think that these modifications are a positive move?

Next question?

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Thank you very much to the member for that significant question. No, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that speaks to the recommendations that came from the Renfrew inquest. Not only is recommendation 1 from the inquest free of monetary obligations, declaring IPV an epidemic allows us to address it with the same type of urgency. But I would draw the government’s attention to recommendation number 4 in the Renfrew inquest, which is to create an implementation framework to make sure that everything in that inquest report can be implemented as quickly as possible. That can go into Bill 157; it would strengthen the access to justice bill.

I did say in my remarks that it is positive. There is some merit, but it doesn’t address the core issues that we have that are failing the justice system. By ensuring that there is not a requirement to meet the emotional duress, including those three categories, what it doesn’t do is actually remove the cost or additional charge in time that a victim of crime would have to go back to court for and have the resources to sue through another civil court system in order for them to access justice. That is why that section falls too short.

I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Toronto Centre on her very thoughtful comments on Bill 157. She talked about the changes to the coroner’s inquest rules in schedule 5; she has advocated, as have I, for the government to implement the findings of the Renfrew county coroner’s inquest on the murders of Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam and Anastasia Kuzyk several years ago.

So my question is, do the changes that are included in this bill require the government to implement any recommendations that may come out of a coroner’s inquest? Because we have certainly seen the government refuse to implement the number one recommendation out of the Renfrew inquest, which is to declare intimate partner violence an epidemic.

There’s just so much to unpack there, but I want to start by thanking the member for filling an entire hour on a whole variety of topics. There are things that I heard that are encouraging to me. I heard you say that unified Family Court is something that you would like to see expanded; we’re on record and the Auditor General has confirmed, even a couple of years ago—we’re waiting on the federal government.

And so I would just ask for the member to confirm that they will stand with us in the request of the federal government to expand unified Family Court here in Ontario, and that is something perhaps we can advocate for together.

Good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here with you in the morning. Thank you to my colleague from Toronto Centre for that long talk; it’s hard to do. We worked well together at city hall—we were seatmates for eight years—and I know how hard you work for your community and all of Ontario, so I appreciate that. Thank you.

Just with regard to this bill and your ideas for it, that it’s not going far enough: Can you give us maybe your top two suggestions for improving this bill?

I want to thank the member from Toronto Centre. You do an incredible job of representing your community, and you’re doing a great job here of advocating for access to justice for the people of Ontario.

What you described at the beginning of your remarks was a court system that’s in chaos, that’s in absolute crisis in this province, with people being denied access to justice. A rape case of a woman, Emily, who had the courage to bring forward her case to the courts—having it thrown out because there weren’t enough court staff to keep the courts open.

Can you describe with a little bit of detail, in the time that you have, some of the crisis that’s happening and some of the impacts that that is creating for people in Ontario?

I don’t believe that the member was listening as intently as he says, because I did highlight exactly what were the deficiencies in the bill and what I’d like to see improved. It tinkers around the edges, and it doesn’t go far enough. It certainly doesn’t address the challenges and the crisis we have in the court system.

As I’ve mentioned, the central theme of all my remarks today is that this bill is possibly passable but not praiseworthy, and I stand by that.

What I cannot quantify is the emotional harm that it re-creates for those survivors and victims of crime, and that, to me, is a tragedy, because they never got their day in court. They never will get closure on what happened to them, a very traumatic incident. And not to mention, Speaker, the accused: The accused will have that charge and that report hanging over their head forever, also without their day in court.

The top two issues that I would like to see in this bill—and it’s easy—are twofold: One is to adequately staff the courts, to do everything you can in all your powers to ensure that the minimum requirement of time constraints is met. The standard has got to be met. No more throwing out of criminal cases. That is one thing.

The second thing—I’ll add a third if I have time—is to fund legal aid. You need to be able to do it. People are being impacted by not having access to the judicial system that they so rightly deserve.

The third is to fix the tribunals.

Absolutely, I will stand with the government and every party in this House as we advocate for the unification of Family Court. It is unduly unfair to families who are trying to access and navigate two systems. It’s costly, it’s time-consuming and, of course, the emotional duress—it just doesn’t work. We have a proven record of it working when we unify, and that’s where we should be moving to.

Thank you to my colleague from Toronto Centre for the comments. I listened intently.

This is a very good bill that we’re putting forward, in my view—the Enhancing Access to Justice Act. A few reasons why I intend to support it are because it’s going to be making it easier for victims of crime, such as victims of terrorism, vehicle theft, human trafficking-related crime and hate crime, to sue an offender for emotional distress and related bodily harm; it will protect children and youth by banning the growth of recreational cannabis in homes that offer child care services—there are a lot of other good things in the bill. I want to know whether the member across thought these were good ideas and worth supporting.

We’re going to move to questions.

It’s always an honour to rise in this House to speak to the bills that are before us. Speaker, we’re speaking about Bill 157, Enhancing Access to Justice Act. I want to begin by summarizing the sweeping changes of issues that this bill touches for the Ontarians whose head might be spinning when they read about the bill. There are 19 schedules; it’s quite broad.

I’m going to say right now that the theme that connects my concerns about this bill is my disappointment that we have before us a bill that touches on so many issues, while simultaneously failing to meet the moment for so many of those issues that this bill plans to address. This bill is like using a teaspoon to shovel your driveway when what you really need is a snow blower, otherwise, you can’t get your car out of the garage. At this rate, we will probably get Rihanna’s sixth album before we get real action to fix Ontario’s broken court system and realize access to justice from this government.

In my speech, I want to outline what needs to change to enhance access to justice and to share what Ontario stakeholders have been asking us to do on a host of issues this bill comments on, from improving cannabis retail, to protecting survivors of sexual violence, to fixing the courtrooms and the administration of justice in this province. The theme that can tie this together is that this government’s bill is potentially passable without being praiseworthy.

Speaker, as the critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General, I take my responsibility very seriously. I have met many important stakeholders at Queen’s Park and in the community: stakeholders from the legal and adjudicative tribunal community; unions that represent workers in the corrections, law enforcement and court systems; victim services groups; the gender-based violence sector; human rights organizations; organizations committed to honest government and upholding our democracy; small landlords and tenants and countless others. I’ve accepted their invitations to attend meetings, AGMs, events, workshops and conferences, and I am so deeply grateful for the warm welcome they have extended to me since my appointment to this portfolio. They’ve had so many different opinions to share. Each and every single one of them want to improve access to justice, and in addition to my staff’s excellent note-taking, I’ve kept all of the communications.

Speaker, my presentation today is largely based on those meetings and conversations. It is my intention to bring their stories, their voices into the Legislature to help unpack all that is in Bill 157. Therefore, I want to open my remarks with schedules 6 to 9 and 18. I believe they are very substantial and worthy of further debate. My enthusiasm will be focused on rolling up our sleeves and getting to work to fix our broken court system.

Let’s set the stage for why these reforms need to happen, including the appointment of judges and aspects of our legal system.

Ontario courts and systems for administering justice are in full-blown crisis, and all members in this House know that changes are needed. Ontarians are repeatedly telling us they’re losing faith and that our justice system is not working. People are being released from detention centres and jails without supports to be integrated back into their communities and certainly without a pathway to housing, and innocent people are getting hurt. Public safety is being compromised because there are not enough resources in the courts to properly screen. People at high risk of committing violent offences again are being detained not long enough and those at low risk are being detained for far too long. Police officers and other emergency service workers are being put in the path of unnecessary risk.

We can’t fix our crisis in the courts by tinkering only on the edges. Having faster judicial appointments and a better system for coordinating federal and provincial family law is laudable, but it doesn’t come close to meeting the moment in this bill. Again, this bill is potentially passable without being praiseworthy.

I want to share a story from my riding of Toronto Centre about the crisis in the justice system. It is the crisis that this government is attempting to address without actually doing the real work to address it.

Toronto’s very new, expensive downtown courthouse was sold to the public as a means to expedite trials and to increase efficiency. Instead, due to this Conservative government’s failure to adequately staff the courthouse, there have been over 300 courtroom closures over a six-month period this year alone, Speaker, including 18 courtroom closures on a single day.

What’s more, workers have been injured at the downtown courthouse, including one who was seriously hurt when brand new shelves fell down and caused the worker to be hit on the head with metal and boxes. OPSEU, the union that represents court workers, wrote to the Premier and this Attorney General in 2021 to warn them of the health and safety risks associated with the new courthouse.

Speaker, anyone who can read this bill can see for themselves that the government has put absolutely nothing in Bill 157, not a single word, to address the staffing crisis in the courts. There’s nothing about clearing the backlogs, hiring or retaining the court staff required to keep those courtrooms open and processing trials quickly.

I’d like to give the government the benefit of the doubt and recognize that schedules 6 to 9 aspire to improve various court functions more smoothly and efficiently, but setting aside the issues contained in those schedules, these schedules unfortunately don’t go far enough, and they won’t actually help Ontarians waiting in line for justice. It will not get to see that their court hearings will become scheduled faster.

We have been talking about access to justice and the failures of the government as of late. We are definitely in a crisis. I think about this crisis often, and I keep coming back to a story that haunts me.

Emily, a young woman who was sexually assaulted in her home, bravely took her rapist to court, despite how difficult it was, only to have her court case delayed again and again because of closed courtrooms, until it was finally thrown out because it passed the 18-month timeline. She bravely spoke to Abby O’Brien of CTV News, and I want to directly now quote from this article:

“On Nov. 7, a sexual assault charge laid by Toronto police against the man Emily reported raped her in January 2022 was stayed and the case” has now been thrown out, the court documents show.

In her words, Emily said, “I crumbled ... It took so much even to do that first step of giving my statement to the police and going to the hospital. Then, a year and half later, I decided to go back to Toronto to do this trial, face this man, and tell my story. Now, it’s ... over.”

Emily’s experience is no anomaly. Under the Criminal Code of Canada, anyone charged with an offence has the right to a trial within a reasonable time frame. Barring exceptional circumstances, that time frame is 18 months in the provincial courts of Ontario.

Staffing issues at Toronto’s newest Ontario Court of Justice ... however, have caused delays and courtroom closures that, in some instances—where cases are being thrown out. The courthouse located at 10 Armory Street—not too far from here, Speaker—opened in February, taking over proceedings from six Ontario Court of Justice facilities in Toronto, a move that the union that represents many of those courthouse workers warned would cause hardships for both staff and those who are in the system.

In his decision, released on November 7, Judge Brock Jones said, “This case should serve as a chilling reminder that this inexcusable state of affairs must never be allowed to happen again....

“The emotional trauma associated with never knowing the outcome of a case on the merits will often be long-lasting and severe for both victims and accused persons.”

The judge identified the staffing shortage as the reason for the delays in the trial. “‘There is no reason this case could not have been completed ... had the courts been properly staffed,’ Judge Jones wrote. ‘Instead, two full days of court time were lost and the case adjourned.’” It is deeply unacceptable that this happened. Emily and the judge have said it all.

But this is far from the only time a very serious criminal case was thrown out in the courts due to delays. I am now going to share another article from CTV. This article involves a second criminal case—sexual assault of a minor. It’s one of the latest cases to be thrown out at Toronto’s newest courthouse due to the “staggering” number of courtroom closures fuelled by staffing shortages at the facility.

In September 2023, charges were stayed against a young person, identified only as C.L., accused of the sexual assault of another young person. The charges were stayed due to the closures of the courtroom.

C.L.’s trial was scheduled for March 23, the decision said, but four of the 12 courtrooms were closed that day and only 15 minutes of court time could be allocated to the matter. The next day, on March 24, five of the courtrooms in the building were closed, and the matter could only be addressed for one hour. The trial could not be completed in the given time and was adjourned until July.

At that point, it had now been over two years since the charges had been first placed on C.L. Citing his charter right to a trial within reasonable time and recognizing it had been breached, the youth applied to have the charges stayed—an application granted by the court in June.

Can you imagine, Speaker, experiencing a sexual assault as a minor, going through the legal proceedings that took two years and then having the whole thing thrown out because of delays—that this government could not have been doing enough to prevent? This is the stuff of nightmares, and this is why I am staying up too late. I recognize this probably keeps a lot of people up in Ontario.

Speaker, another criminal case thrown out in September, this time a charge involving impaired driving. The case was called “the tip of the iceberg” by a justice advocate who spoke about it. Schedules 6 to 9 are inadequate to address the iceberg of backlogged cases. Thanks to the excellent reporting from the Toronto Star and, in particular, Jacques Gallant, we have the excruciating details of how this impaired driving case was thrown out.

Ontario Court Justice David Porter, who stayed the impaired driving charges, said, “Staff shortages have continued on a daily basis, resulting in courts being closed almost daily, thus preventing cases scheduled to be tried from proceeding. The crown provided no evidence of what, if any, extraordinary measures have been taken to address this urgent” issue.

During the week of September 4, 14 courtrooms were closed on Thursday; 15 on Wednesday; six on Tuesday, the Ontario Court of Justice told the Star. “Due to the staffing shortages, about 1.5 hours of court time could be used for the first day of the two-day impaired driving trial this past June,” Judge Porter wrote. The trial was supposed to continue the following day but had to be adjourned until October because of the lack of staff, and the assigned courtroom was closed once again.

Justice Porter noted that the delay between the original trial date and the new dates “is solely attributable to the actions of those responsible for the administration of the courts.”

Alarm bells have been ringing since the new building started hearing cases. Before delivering a judgment in April, Justice Brock Jones said in court that “the burden on the staff is the greatest it has ever been,” and they are often expected to work well past regular court hours. “They need and deserve the level of resources and support required for them to do their job properly, and to reflect on their professionalism and dedication to the administration of justice,” the justice said. “They are the backbone of this courthouse. We cannot function without them.”

The only way that we can begin to make things right for Emily, C.L. and all the other survivors and victims of crime who have been denied their day in court, Speaker, is to make sure that no other survivor or victim experiences the indignity of having their case thrown out due to avoidable staff delays.

So what solutions will help Ontarians schedule their court hearings faster to avoid these tragedies; solutions that should be in a bill titled the Enhancing Access to Justice Act, but unfortunately are not; solutions that should include the hiring of enough support staff—clerks, court reporters, trial coordinators, judicial assistants etc. We need to bring all of those levels up. We need to reduce the strain on staff and keep all and every available courtroom open. Solutions that increase pay to incentivize the court staff to stay—because recruitment is not enough, Speaker, if we don’t retain them.

This government has failed to adequately staff Ontario courts, leading to the dismissal of serious criminal cases, including allegations of sexual assault. The Attorney General claims that the ministry continues to recruit and onboard staff. Still, the union that actually represents those court workers, OPSEU, has countered by saying, “Any new positions that have been created barely scratch the surface of the staffing needs, as many experienced court staff were lost during the amalgamation” of those courts.

Why is there nothing in the 19 schedules, Speaker, in Bill 157 to address the hiring and the retention of court staff to prevent further court delays?

This government could fund and commit to funding existing renovations in the courthouses or to build new courthouses in regions where there is not enough infrastructure, but they’ve chosen not to.

Speaker, you will recall that, in 2020, this government cancelled plans to build a new courthouse in Halton county one month before construction was due to start. After that project was cancelled, the Halton County Law Association wrote to the Premier and the Attorney General, highlighting the myriad inadequacies and the chronic dysfunction in the existing Halton courthouses. I heard concerns from lawyers and court workers when the federation of Ontario law societies visited us here. Since the project was cancelled, courtrooms in the existing Halton courthouses have been closed for technology failures, broken a/c units, mould, asbestos and gas leaks. One trial, which should have taken one day, was delayed for over one year due to issues with the Burlington courthouse. The judge in that case called it an “embarrassment for the people of Halton.”

When this bill goes to committee for public input, and where amendments will be tabled to strengthen and improve the bill, it would be wise for the government to consider amending Bill 157 to reverse its decision not to build a new, consolidated Halton courthouse.

The court system can be modernized with additional amendments at committee that could implement a province-wide standardized technology platform for scheduling, filing documents. The government could increase training for judges, justices of the peace and support staff in conjunction with standardizing this technology use.

But I would be remiss to not touch on the most important action this government could take to table a bill that lives up to its name of enhancing access to justice, and that is increasing funding to legal aid. Bill 157 makes changes the government hopes will help clear some court capacity. But if you want to free up court resources, you need to reverse the cuts to legal aid funding. The government cut legal aid funding to Legal Aid Ontario by $133 million in 2019. And this year, they’re underspending this funding to Legal Aid Ontario by $103 million. It is well known that self- and under-represented litigants lead to extra court time and cause delays. All of the delays I have mentioned have been exacerbated directly or indirectly by a lack of legal aid funding. So I wonder whether or not the government will consider amending Bill 157 to reverse its devastating cuts to legal aid. It is well known that self- and under-represented litigants lead to extra court time. So what’s the solution? It’s simple: funding legal aid. Legal aid pays for itself in shortened court time, smoother processes, and the unquantifiable quality-of-life gains for Ontarians who need legal representation but cannot afford it. These cuts are not money-saving, they just push the costs down the line, creating massive inefficiencies. Bill 157 is not living up to its aspirational title.

Currently, a single person without dependents has to earn less than $18,795 a year in gross income to qualify for legal aid. Anybody earning over $18,795 is out of luck. Let’s juxtapose that with what a CERB recipient would earn in a single year, which was deemed a living wage—without having to pay for court costs—and you’ll recognize that that amount, $18,795, is significantly too low.

Speaker, a member of the Federation of Ontario Law Associations was sharing their thoughts with me on how to modernize access to justice in Ontario:

“We’re concerned about the financial cut-offs in terms of whether people are eligible because there’s such a gap between the top limit of eligibility for legal aid and people who are unable to afford a lawyer. We have major areas within the province where no one is able to access their legal aid certificate. And that’s a huge problem for us within the clinic system. We also in the clinic system have funding issues because of inadequate compensation. We’re having a great deal of difficulty maintaining staff. So without continued adequate funding going into that system, we’re really undermining the administration of justice—particularly for our low-income residents.”

Another lawyer told me, “One of the things that I’m hearing a lot from members is that a great deal of the backlog and wasted judicial resources in the system comes from the high turnover rate that we are seeing. It’s difficult to maintain staff who have experience and who are more efficient in particular areas. So I encourage you in your efforts to look into that. Because I know that it has been impacting my practice,” said the lawyer, “and the practice of others I represent.”

Lawyers, from all over Ontario, are in agreement: Our legal institutions need better resourcing and funding to retain highly qualified and experienced staff to deliver the quality of service that Ontarians expect and deserve.

Like me, you may be wondering if this government will consider amending Bill 157 to change the threshold to access and increase legal aid funding. In fact, in the minister’s remarks, yesterday in his one-hour lead, he spoke about how this bill plans to advance the government’s so-called digital-first approach to the courts. Let me be clear, we need to bring our courts into the modern age—I’m a huge advocate of doing that—but a digital-first approach to justice should not mean a digital-only approach to justice.

The rapid shift to digital hearings has meant many vulnerable people across Ontario are not being able to access justice. This government knows it to be true. The Ombudsman of Ontario’s report, earlier this year, was absolutely scathing on this point. It found that a digital-only approach presented and created “insurmountable challenges” to Ontarians struggling to access justice. There is a deeper warning in this example, because the Landlord and Tenant Board’s digital-only approach has made the backlog worse—all-time historic high.

Tribunals Ontario published their annual report, at the end of June this year, and showed an increase in case backlog from 34,731 cases in March 31, 2021, to 53,057 cases in March 31, 2023. The backlog got bigger. Digital-first is a great sound bite, but a useless talking point when Ontarians have to wait longer than ever to access justice.

Speaker, we have to keep going, because this bill is enormous. So what else does it do? It amends rules governing the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee to remove the requirement for the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee to consider cultural identity as a statistic for judicial candidates in their annual report. This committee considers, interviews and recommends judicial candidates to the Attorney General. They are meant to be independent, arm’s-length, as a committee. Their role is under strain.

The committee’s experience benefits all Ontarians. It helps to ensure that we hire the very best judges. This committee is required to produce an annual report on judicial candidates and to include statistics on: sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, cultural identity—as we know is being struck out—disability status and ability to speak French of candidates who volunteer that information, including whether the candidates identify as an Indigenous or, as a member of the francophone community, at each stage of the process. This change builds on the government Bill 256 tabled in 2021 where it increases cabinet’s influence over the committee, by increasing the number of committee members appointed by the Attorney General.

Interestingly, the committee is required by law to produce an annual report. It has not produced an annual report—not in 2019, no report in 2020, no report in 2021 and no report in 2022. When reporters FOIed the reports, the request was denied with an explanation, “a search was conducted, and no responsive records were located.”

So how does this help, Speaker? When the Attorney General is failing to even produce this report, how does that ensure that the government is meeting its own standards so that the government can effectively find, hire and train new judges? I’m very deeply invested in the success of the judicial system. It makes our democracy work. But it’s also deeply concerning, Speaker, when the government doesn’t want the public to know basic statistics that they are supposed to report on and that reporters can’t gain access to so that they can do their job. It makes me wonder why the government is doing this, and I simply don’t know. What I do know, Speaker—and I think we all do, because we’ve heard it in an interview on TVO—is that the Attorney General wants to see more judges who share his values. Is that the aim of this? Is it possible the government fears a report showing that the recommendation list is becoming more male, more pale, more stale, and it might be embarrassing for them? I don’t know, Speaker, because we don’t have the report to show us otherwise.

This government has politicized Ontario’s judiciary by increasing the Attorney General’s influence on the judicial appointments advisory committee and on the filling of judicial vacancies. Judicial independence is a core value of the justice system, and I think that this government would be wise to consider amending Bill 157 to remove the Attorney General’s influence over the judiciary.

This government has given itself more influence over filling judicial vacancies ostensibly to make the process move more quickly. However, the city of Cornwall has had a criminal judge vacancy for close to two years, and thanks to the Attorney General rejecting all of the recommended candidates, they still sit without that justice. Maybe it’s changed; I’m not sure. Will the government consider amending Bill 157 to create a statutory timeline to make sure that no other community goes without a judge for such a long period of time?

Additionally, Bill 157 amends Ontario laws to remove the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice from the Civil Rules Committee and to allow the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice to appoint an associate judge to the committee.

Additional amendments to this bill would require that all records and other information collected, prepared, maintained or used by the ministry in relationship to the business of the Civil Rules Committee and the Family Rules Committee is not to be disclosed publicly unless authorized by the Attorney General and excluded from the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

What does that mean? Well, the Civil Rules Committee and Family Rules Committee have broad powers to change the rules of practice and procedure for those courts and all civil proceedings and family law proceedings. The rules can have a huge impact on legal proceedings. If you miss a deadline, if you file something not in accordance to the rules, it means that you are barred from legal remedies.

My office recently worked with a constituent—and they’re still working with the constituent; my staff are still working with this constituent—who missed an arbitrary deadline in a hearing when they had to file something in order for them to get their appeal. It was devastatingly time-consuming for this low-income, racialized individual living in social housing to navigate this process on their own. I won’t use her name, Speaker, but this is the kind of court error that made work for my office as we tried to help a vulnerable person navigate the system.

Without knowing more about why this is happening, it’s concerning that the government is suddenly trying to make documents and information about changes to the civil rules and family law rules secret. It only reinforces the question: Why? Why can’t the public know about information and documents that are being considered? Who is sending the information the government doesn’t want us to know about? What is the advantage of keeping our justice system’s rules secret, and how does this lead to fairer, better and faster trials? I’m not seeing the path, Speaker.

Further amendments to schedule 6 would allow that when a judge presiding over the final order in child protection and extraordinary measures are involved—which, as we all know, can mean mental health treatment, including admission to a secure facility—an adoption and adoption licensing hearing is appointed to another court, that judge continues to have jurisdiction to complete the hearing and provide a decision.

Now, Speaker, this sounds like a great idea. Bringing in a new judge at the final order stage of a proceeding would almost certainly add more time and expense to the proceeding to allow the new judge to learn the file. I applaud the government for finding this minor efficiency and taking this step, but what I don’t see is why only allowing this during the final order stage of a proceeding. Why not say “in all stages except the preliminary,” or something to that effect?

It would seem better for the same judge to preside over the majority, if not all of the proceeding, to reduce court time and expense. In all of our constituency offices, we assign workers to each constituent as much as possible so that constituent can have a seamless experience when receiving service through our office. They don’t have to re-explain their situation an undue number of times. It is common sense, Speaker. Why don’t we extend that same common sense and reasoning to the court systems in a way that allows us to go deeper and faster to ensure that Ontarians have access to justice.

Since I’m talking about efficiencies, why not centralize a single case’s court proceedings to one judge as much as possible?

I have another recommendation, Speaker. I’ve heard from many, many stakeholders that are having difficulty through Family Courts in Ontario. There are significant inefficiencies, and there is a way to make it all much smoother and less stressful for families.

Family law matters experience judicial overlap between the federal and provincial courts, forcing families to move between two systems. They have to interact with two different court systems. I think we can imagine that it is inefficient and it’s certainly been confirmed by many who work in the system. It is emotionally and financially draining. It is a process fraught with difficulty.

There are 25 court locations in Ontario with unified Family Courts, but there are many more locations without it. Why don’t we unify all of them, especially since the federal government has provided funds to expand the unification of Family Courts and the funding has been available since 2018? We have no reason not to do it. This is the kind of substantive change that I would have liked to see in this bill.

Speaker, I strongly believe that this government could have gone even further in reforming family law to make it work for Ontarians. We can review and appropriately expand the number of dispute resolution offices so that fewer matters go to court in the first place. This would save taxpayers money and Ontario families the expense and grief of unnecessary court proceedings.

Speaker, I’m going to move to schedule 18. This schedule is supportable, but, following the theme of my remarks today, not praiseworthy. It’s a small change that means victims of certain prescribed crimes, and they are sexual crimes against minors or those with a disability when the crime took place; human trafficking-related crimes; and crimes that would have colloquially been described as “revenge porn” crimes, will have one less section to fill out in their affidavit or filings in civil court because the emotional distress is now presumed to have occurred for those crimes. It’s a simple change, a good change. The process should be straightforward so that survivors don’t have to relive their trauma again and again and again.

I heard from a lawyer in the sector who said, “I do think it is a good idea generally to broaden the ability of survivors to sue for the harm that has been done to them.”

But, again, the bill could go further. It’s not a big win. It’s a small procedural change that will benefit a very small number of victims. Victims who are minors, those with disabilities and those who have been trafficked are less likely to have the time, resources and money to go through civil court. So how many people will this substantially help? This is another case of the government taking a tiny step, making a tiny change, and calling it a big win for survivors.

Still, at the same time, they are slashing legal aid budgets. Let’s remember that in 2019, this government ended the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and replaced it with the Victim Quick Response Program+. The Victim Quick Response Program+ isn’t available to victims when they can access public programs, even if those programs have months-long wait-lists.

I heard from a constituent of mine who is a lawyer, who said, “It is deeply hypocritical of this government to dismantle the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board but continue to do things that allow them to make announcements that make it appear that they support survivors as a core value. There are actual, substantive changes that they could enact to better the lives of survivors of violence, but they won’t touch those.”

Will the government consider making amendments to Bill 157 to increase access to the Victim Quick Response Program+? That would be supportable because that would mean that the government is doing much more.

They could also properly fund the Ontario courts—coming back to my main point—so that sexual assault cases aren’t dismissed for delays over and over again.

This government could also fund sexual assault support and rape crisis centres. In 2020, this government decided to stop renewing its annual $1-million funding boost to rape crisis and sexual assault support centres. Some of those centres are now seeing the longest wait-lists they have ever experienced. Those sexual assault centres, rape crisis centres—those workers have warned that wait times act as a deterrence for victims, because victims will stop trying to access services because they’ve been told to wait.

In Bill 157, the government can actually increase funding to rape crisis centres and sexual assault centres to truly support survivors.

It is well studied that impoverished and low-income people are over-represented in the criminal justice system. This government is sitting on billions of dollars in a contingency fund. Why not use some of that money to support survivors and victims, instead of punting and punishing those disproportionately impacted impoverished people?

Another consideration is, to what extent are victims retraumatized when they have to go to court—which is very expensive to access and very timely to access—to go tell their story again in a civil trial? And how is there any guarantee that that case is also not going to be tossed out because of the extraordinary delay in the courts?

More so than the small change that schedule 18 makes, this bill could also go further to support survivors by incorporating my private member’s bill Stopping the Misuse of Non-Disclosure Agreements Act.

We’ve heard stories in the media about the perpetrators of violence and abuse, those who are powerful and wealthy—individuals and institutions and corporations who have used non-disclosure agreements to silence survivors of sexual violence, bullying and intimidation. The latest slate of criticism comes out of the #MeToo movement. Details of alleged and proven abuse, and then, later, legal action surrounding Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Olympic coach Larry Nassar have highlighted the role that these clauses within the NDAs play in silencing survivors. Closer to home, we had NDAs used here in Canada, in the Albert Schultz case, to silence survivors. It was revealed that Hockey Canada paid out $7.6 million in 1989 in several sexual assault-related settlements, and non-disclosure agreements bound some of those claimants involved in the settlements. There are growing calls to outlaw non-disclosure agreements across the country, as Hockey Canada and other sports organizations reel from sexual assault scandals, including some that have led to multi-million dollar payouts to keep details about those incidents secret.

If the government had incorporated—feel free to lift it right from the bill—the aspect of that bill to stop the misuse of NDAs, they would prohibit people in positions of power with money for privilege and access to stop re-abusing survivors. Survivors could request other types of agreements, such as a one-sided confidentiality agreement to protect their own privacy, should they so choose.

NDAs are used by perpetrators to cover up sexual and physical violence, workplace harassment, wrongful dismissal and many other situations of discrimination that individuals, workplaces and other groups would rather not deal with. The misuse of NDAs also perpetuates patterns of harm and abuse. When survivors can’t speak out in warning or to affirm to others that they aren’t alone, harm continues. Influential people use power while those who have so much to lose will lose.

There is a website entitled Can’t Buy My Silence. It contains heartbreaking stories of people who have suffered greatly before and after being presented with an NDA. They also include people who have chosen not to sign, and they were denied the financial compensation they deserved for their suffering. No one should have to decide between the two: taking away their voice or taking away their compensation.

That, Speaker, would help survivors. That, Speaker, could easily be put in Bill 157.

I want to share another relevant story. In early November, I attended a panel by the Criminal Justice Association of Ontario. They brought together stakeholders in criminal and youth justice to discuss what changes front-line workers needed. I was particularly struck by stories from youth justice centres. Those centres work with youth and provide them and their immediate families counselling and support. Recognizing that perpetrators of violent crimes are oftentimes repeating cycles of violence, they continue to provide counselling and support to violent offenders to rehabilitate everyone in their community and, then, to invest in preventing violence at all costs. That was good work. It began under the previous government. I was a sitting councillor at that time when the ministry came to me to provide a briefing of what this facility would do and how it would impact and support my local community. I was supportive then, as a local city councillor; I remain supportive now. This is the kind of creative, innovative approach that we need to see more of. That is good work, and it has been carried forward by this government. It should be expanded as quickly as possible so it can be accessed across Ontario.

People who commit violent crimes and sexual violence will still need to live in our communities whether any of us like it or not. That’s just the reality. People are not disposable. We need to ensure that they have real pathways to rehabilitating the whole person so that they can come back into the community and be fully integrated, and where the community and that person who committed harm can be safe. This government loves to take away the whole pie, and then throw back a few crumbs.

Now I’m going to move on to a few other schedules, because I do need to provide comment on them. Some of them are straightforward housekeeping schedules, and I won’t speak too much about those. But I will speak about schedule 1, the Architects Act. This schedule has been quite controversial, Speaker, as you know, and I hope that at committee we can gain a much better understanding about schedule 1 and the decision that was made leading us to schedule 1.

I’ve heard arguments from the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, the AATO, and the Ontario Association of Architects, the OAA, on this licensing. They are not in agreement. One is much bigger, with more members, more money; one is smaller. The government has chosen, through this schedule, to side with the OAA. I would like to know more about how this government came to this decision, what conversations were had, who said what to whom and the rationale that was used to arrive at the decision.

I would encourage the minister to meet with the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, and to meet again if they already have. I’ve met with them. I’ve heard their following concerns: The OAA made an error when they went ahead and created their own class of architectural technologists by way of a policy, even though the Architects Act requires you to do this through regulation. AATO took OAA to court, and it ruled that the certificates that the OAA issued were void because they were formed under a policy and this was made under a consent order.

AATO met with the Ministry of the Attorney General and asked them not to make the very changes that they are now making in schedule 1, which they see as now rewarding bad behaviour because even the court ruled in their favour. It’s really unclear to me, by reading schedule 1, whether or not this change is retroactive. We need to know that, as it will have significant implications in the bill.

Speaker, I’m concerned about the implications of setting the wrong precedent on the matter. Regulatory bodies are entrusted with incredible trust and powers of self-governance. We have many of them in Ontario. Every single member of this House knows that self-governance is supposed to impose higher standards, not lower standards. Every self-regulating profession has to prove to Ontarians every year that they deserve the trust legislatively invested in themselves. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the self-regulating profession did not live up to its own standards. The consent order made clear that a regulatory body issued licences that were clearly outside of their scope.

Giving a professional body that broke trust everything that it wants is setting a dangerous precedent. We want Ontario’s regulatory bodies to respect their boundaries. We want and embrace that professions will change and that professions need to be modernized, and absolutely, they should. But when a profession puts the cart before the horse or, in this case, accepts licensing fees for something they are not legally entitled to license, why are we rewarding them when the power that they have broke the trust that they were given? I need to stress that people paying licensing fees went through training, but their trust was betrayed.

Speaker, I am initially concerned and eager to learn about how we can ensure that there are appropriate differences between architectural technologists and licensed technologists, because I’m not sure if I see the clear difference in this bill. And what I want to point out is that there are contradictory and overlapping regulations and red tape. I hope that this government isn’t about to saddle Ontarians with needless confusion and additional red tape. I hope this government continues to consult with these stakeholders and considers their input when this bill gets to committee.

Schedules 2 and 3, the Cannabis Control Act and Cannabis Licence Act: Who is asking for these amendments? Because when the minister was asked by the press about the provision prohibiting the growing of cannabis in child care facilities, except for home child care facilities, and, specifically, are there instances of this happening, the minister was not able to provide any examples.

Speaker, the harm that comes from cannabis oftentimes happens when an underage person consumes an inadequately labelled product. The cannabis plant and its leaves do not have bioavailable THC. Cannabis buds need to be processed and cured before they have any psychoactive effects. Unprocessed cannabis plant leaves are not more harmful or psychoactive than any other random plant that could be found around the house or in a daycare setting. None of this is to say that this is necessarily a bad regulation, it’s just the concern of, how did we get here?

Cannabis plants have intense light requirements indoors that can be potentially harmful for developing eyes. Moreover, the lamps cannabis plants need can get hot, and for the reason that we want to protect children’s hands from open stoves, we want to limit opportunities for children to burn their hands on these bright lamps. But when listening yesterday, I didn’t get the sense that the government knew this. Is the schedule here before us because children have been munching on plant leaves and they’ve gotten high? I don’t know, Speaker, because the minister couldn’t give us any examples.

The government can do much more to keep children in child care safe by providing more funding for more inspections. This government could ensure that child care providers earn a decent wage—while experienced providers in the profession, in the long term, develop deepening quality of care for our children—to provide workers with stable careers so that they can stay where they want to stay.

I do, however, want to comment on the kinds of reforms for enhanced community safety that can be accomplished through cannabis regulation.

First, let me be clear: When cannabis harms do come about, they are oftentimes from the illegal markets, and the regulations surrounding cannabis are making it impossible for legal cannabis to compete. Legal cannabis companies have to pay taxes through production and the sales process. Like any other industry, we understand this need, and this unique sin tax imposed on the cannabis industry means that we’re not going to create a level playing field against the illegal cannabis market.

Speaking about a level playing field, the regulatory changes proposed in the backgrounder to this bill are even more controversial. I honestly thought the Premier would appreciate that a diverse and competitive market of many small businesses and cannabis suppliers would deliver the most affordable cost and choice to consumers. This change would promote centralization in an industry that is already experiencing enormous consolidation. Allowing retailers to own up to 150 stores from the existing 75 stores during a period of industry centralization will allow businesses to take a Starbucks approach and weed out their competition, which could be bad.

But here is the rub, Speaker, when I wonder why the government would make such a hoopla about a non-issue like cannabis in child care facilities and then move to quietly advance the centralization and the consolidation of big cannabis corporations by giving them much more expansion power.

A cannabis market that looks like a grocery market—a market that should be competitive but is not, should be innovative but is not and should be affordable but is not. It’s not a market where we compete with illegal suppliers. It is a cannabis industry that stems from the flow of money into gangs, human trafficking, money laundering. It will not make the cannabis industry safer for Ontarians.

I’m eager to learn in committee about what kinds of regulations this government and the Indigenous community want to see in the regulation of cannabis on-reserve. I would be remiss, Speaker, if I didn’t mention that First Nations are a significant stakeholder who live in a geographic area, and they are in the best place, in the best position, to understand what their communities need.

This government might remember the private member’s bill entitled cannabis retail amendment act, put forward in 2020 by the member of Davenport and now Leader of the Opposition. I certainly do, because I supported her bill, as a city councillor, because her bill proposed giving cities a say in the location and distribution of private cannabis locations within their communities.

Speaker, it was before my time at Queen’s Park, but I can tell you that the New Democrats pushed for responsible legalization, and continue to do so—for the legal, regulated retail cannabis industry.

This party advocated for strengthening the municipalities’ role in distributing pot shop licences to avoid a situation where some neighbourhoods had too many while others had none.

The previous Liberal government put some restrictions on the cannabis retailing framework after hearing back from children and health experts and municipalities, like Toronto, on how we wanted that program to be rolled out. I very clearly remember the debate at city council when we voted to opt into the new cannabis retail framework. Shortly after, the Conservative government got elected in 2018, and all that careful research, consultation and planning was tossed out without further notice. Toronto had already opted in under a different plan, but they were getting a new one in the rollout. The new plan was blunt and without the urban planning refinements and considerations of the previous plan.

Under the Conservative government, cities can still either reject cannabis stores entirely or opt into a provincial framework where they have no say, absolutely zero input, in where cannabis shops go.

Speaker, in this bill, when it comes to further expanding retail cannabis, especially since it’s happening without any consultation or notice with cities, I strongly encourage this government to look at the past Ontario NDP bill that will work with cities and empower their business districts which are still continuing to recover from COVID-19.

As I mentioned, there are 19 schedules to this bill, and this bill is broad, substantial and far-reaching. It touches the Coroners Act. It touches the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. It creates a condition where we want to see more being done to ensure that community members are protected, public safety is enhanced and access to the courts thoroughly delivered. It touches the Juries Act, the Justices of the Peace Act, the Land Titles Act, the Law Society Act, the Legislation Act, the Provincial Offences Act, the Public Officers Act and, finally, references to the crown.

We need to see the court system corrected and fixed. This crisis in access to justice must be addressed, but there’s not enough in this bill to do that, and I’m hoping that we can see more positive changes at committee.

I had a particular interest in the Architects Act, which might not be immediately obvious, but the Architects Act, obviously, governs architects in the province of Ontario, and under the current piece of proposed legislation, it proposes to create new categories within the Architects Act. I think that’s very useful and particularly important in getting us towards our goal of building 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years, and I’m wondering if any of the speakers can comment on the changes to the Architects Act and what those changes might entail.

We have put several supports and increased funding to not just support centres but to victim witness programs and into every sector of our expansion for the justice system. So it wouldn’t be the tool, quite frankly, of this bill to do a funding increase per se.

I’m happy to chat more about where you think the system needs more supports, but we are supporting the system and we are supporting the victims of everything from serious sexual assaults to human trafficking all the way through the system, Madam Speaker. As they need the supports, we’re providing them and, of course, we’ll continue to provide more in the future.

Look, the architects serve a very critical part of our housing strategy. Without the architects, we wouldn’t be able to build the 1.5 million homes that we are going to.

The architectural technologist category does exist already, but as was mentioned to my friend from Ottawa–Vanier, there is a glitch in the system. The glitch is that they exist as an entity, as a part of the puzzle for moving us forward, but there was an issue around the architects association being able to provide regulatory oversight. So, Madam Speaker, we’re taking the opportunity to fix that glitch and get them back to work.

In 2020, the Conservative government decided to stop renewing an annual million-dollar funding boost to rape crisis and sexual assault support centres. Some of these centres have seen the longest wait-lists they’ve ever experienced. Centre workers warn that wait times act as a deterrent for victims because victims will stop trying to access services when they are told they have to wait. Obviously—we know people—the trauma is just intensified with the waiting.

Will you consider amending Bill 157 to increase funding to rape crisis and sexual assault support centres?

The next question.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

I want to thank the member for the question. Part of her comment is not entirely accurate, because some of the autopsies are being done in Thunder Bay. The coroner’s office is sending a pathologist on a regular basis to Thunder Bay where appropriate, and when difficult cases are identified, then those bodies are being shipped to Toronto and they’re being expedited.

To answer the question: Yes, Madam Speaker, we are looking into all alternatives and hopefully, one day, having an office in the northwest region. This is something that is being investigated right now.

In 2018, the Broken Trust report, written by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, identified the importance of having a coroner’s office in Thunder Bay. However, in 2023, that service is gone and the acting police chief at the time said the move will create further delays that will have significant adverse affects on their investigations, and potentially traumatize families who are waiting for the remains of their loved ones, while creating an indignity to the deceased. What’s happening is that all bodies are being sent to Toronto.

Interjection.

So my question is: Will the government amend Bill 157 in order to establish a forensic pathology unit in Thunder Bay, as recommended in the 2018 Broken Trust report?

Thank you very much, Minister, for this presentation. It’s good to bring some legislation which can help victims to get the justice they need to. But if that bill does allow victims to sue their offenders—even if there are no convictions, can they sue their offenders?

I do have questions for the Attorney General. This is quite a substantive bill with a lot of good things in it, but one of the issues that was brought to my attention right after it was introduced was about schedule 1 and the new concept of limited licences that seems to be duplicating a licence process that already exists for the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario to license these architectural technologists.

Could you explain why we have this duplication that now seems to create more red tape and create confusion for the profession?

I’ll just go back to where the investments have been made. We’ve put a lot of resources into hiring full-time and full-time-equivalent individuals, making court clerks permanent and full-time employees, not just part-time, making sure that they have the tools that they need—about 340 full-time staff, whether it be crowns, reporters, clerks within the system. So we have made investments to scale up. We’ve reclassified staff so that they are in a better position and will stay in the job and keep the experience on the job, so we’ve made a lot of those investments.

But this bill, Madam Speaker, is really about fixing process, because things like vexatious litigants are eating up a lot of resources and we have to make sure that we’re making capacity in the system for those employees that we did hire to help bring those cases forward.

I’m happy to give more information. It’s really hard to give it in one minute, but I’ll give more information to you. We’re trying to get these people back on the job, quite frankly.

With something like human trafficking, if somebody has been human trafficked and the perpetrator is convicted criminally, I think everybody would agree that the victim shouldn’t have to go through the trauma of explaining the impact on themselves. It’s, quite frankly, patently obvious. That’s what the Victims’ Bill of Rights, as expanded under this bill, will allow us to do, is to not retraumatize those individual victims and allow them to get restitution.