Thank you very much to the good member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington. Yes, I agree that we should be moving the legislation forward. I’ve also read the communication coming from the advocates and the executives at the animal welfare organizations. Also contained in their body is the fact that they’ve identified that a good first step is usually some language, as I’ve seen, that it needs active enforcement and active investigation, which means resources from this government. So we have to take a look at their communication in its totality.

I think my remarks have been very generous about where this bill is good, but we know that every piece of legislation can be improved, and I wanted to focus on that in my remarks as well.

Absolutely not. Unless there’s real teeth to the legislation, people will continue to do what they do because it is so profitable.

At any given time, you can go online and find designer puppies being sold through puppy mills for $2,000, $2,500. These litters are so profitable for the bad breeders and the bad actors, so they’re not going to stop with just an increase in fines; you’ve got to go out and get them. They’re advertising all over the place, so it’s not even that you have to work that hard to find them; they’re telling you where they are.

Yes, I have all sorts of opinions, because I was—at one point in time, I was uninformed. I did not know that the declawing of animals, especially for cats, was inhumane, because it was not widely understood. I thought that was just a way that you stop a cat from scratching your furniture—I was also significantly younger, until I learned as an adult.

I also thought that little golden cockapoos had short tails. It was not made known to me that someone cropped them off, or that ears of dogs were clipped.

So we need to ensure that legislation goes out that is going to be enforced and investigated—well-resourced—but we also have a responsibility to educate the public so they can also make good, informed decisions.

I thought I was fairly clear in my comments that I did support big sections of the bill. Again, we can always do more and go further. And if you can’t catch them, charge them; they’re not going to get fined.

It’s an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my community in Toronto Centre. Specifically, today we’re discussing the government’s Bill 102, Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act. There are some parts of the bill that are supportable, and I’d be happy to speak about these parts, but I do find that there are other parts of the bill that are very concerning, and so I’m glad that the government is here today to listen to those concerns, as well.

We know that the safest communities are not the most policed communities; they are the ones with the most resources. Much of crime is committed by people in desperate situations today, and they could be prevented. Obviously, we want to be able to get to a place where we have zero crime. Poverty creates crime. Addiction, without supports and treatment, can create crime. Loneliness, disconnection and a lack of community cohesion create crime. Police officers are dealing with the most downstream effects of these issues. We would not need so many police officers if we were not pursuing this lack of new recruits today as hard as we were, if the government actually stepped up and actually invested in communities to mitigate crime. It is proven—studying upstream avenues and solutions there is how we keep communities safe. Affordable housing is crime prevention. After-school programs are crime prevention. Doubling ODSP and OW is crime prevention. Funding addiction treatment beds is crime prevention. Anti-racism and gender-equity policies are crime prevention. Properly funding and resourcing our public schools is crime prevention. Increasing the minimum wage is crime prevention. I could go on; the list is actually endless, but the thesis here is exactly the same: When people have economic opportunity and social resources, they can live well and be part of the community. That’s when crime is prevented.

Affordable and, yes, government-subsidized housing is a cornerstone of happy, healthy, thriving communities. Just ask the neighbours. In my community, I speak to BIA members, and we are talking to mental health workers, we are speaking to street-involved people here in Toronto Centre, and they all absolutely agree—it’s a consensus—that mental health and addictions resources and actual affordable housing mean that we will have safer streets and that communities will then welcome everybody.

Every time I meet with a business improvement area, the number one issue that they bring up is community safety, but unlike the government, they are proposing a different solution. They are proposing supportive housing, deeply affordable housing. It’s not a radical idea. It’s coming from the business leaders in my community, and I’m hearing it from them more and more. Even more than the activists and even more than service providers, it’s the business community in this case, in Toronto Centre and the downtown financial district, that is actually leading that conversation by saying that the government needs to get back into the business of building deeply affordable, government-subsidized housing.

The government loves to tout itself as being supportive of police, and I would ask them to take a look at their policies a little bit closer. Many choices they have made over the last five years have actually eroded public services and the social safety net. Their lack of investments has made the jobs of police officers more difficult—it’s now more complex, and essentially it has made more work for the officers. The police should be the last resort. You should not have to call them when someone is homeless. You should not have to call them when someone is having a mental health disorder. When upstream services are eroded, the layers of help between the first line of assistance and the police get thinner and thinner, meaning that more calls fall to the police. This is bad for communities because issues escalate and become crisis situations more frequently. It is also bad for the police because they’re run off their feet, jumping from crisis to crisis, when they may not even be equipped to deal with a problem they’re faced with.

One of the programs that I’m most proud to speak about from my time at Toronto city council was the Toronto Community Crisis Service. This was a pilot project that I helped champion during my time at city council. It was introduced to four areas in the city. The downtown east pilot project covers almost all of my riding of Toronto Centre. It was done in partnership with the Gerstein Crisis Centre and other local organizations. We were able to successfully divert 78% of the 1,530 calls that we received from 911 with zero police involvement. The TCCS, as we call it, received a total of 2,489 calls for service from 911, as well as 211, and it was directly connected to community anchor partners. Out of those calls, 84% resulted in mobile teams being dispatched. Programs like this are a win-win solution. Our biggest champions are Toronto police themselves, who understand that they are not mental health workers; they understand that they are not social workers. When we’re able to divert those calls to the organizations and service providers that can actually provide supports, the police are then freed up to do real policing work, and they are more trained to handle those very complicated and violent situations.

This is why we need to have non-police options when a non-violent crisis occurs. If someone is in crisis and can benefit from the TCCS team and there’s a weapon, then we call the police, and then the TCCS will work with the police to go and be dispatched together. That’s how effective community safety works.

I have heard from constituents who have been overjoyed with how the TCCS team has assisted community members in crisis with compassion and professionalism. My constituent Chris emailed me to tell me about a situation he witnessed several months ago, right here on Parliament Street in Toronto Centre. There was a community member who was in crisis, yelling and approaching other pedestrians on the street outside of a grocery store. Shoppers were understandably distressed and concerned for the individual. Chris, who was on the other side of the street on a patio, saw the Toronto Community Crisis Service team approach the individual, provide compassionate support to de-escalate him and connect him with community resources to support him. Chris told me that he was blown away by how professional, how kind and how respectful the TCCS team was, and that they were able to help this person in crisis and that everybody was able to see community action in effect. He says that the compassionate community response to mental health crisis is what we should be amplifying and expanding in the city of Toronto, and I couldn’t be more agreeable.

I would even put forth that this government could actually take the model that we’ve developed right here in Toronto and export that to other urban centres to ensure that those communities are just as supported as we are. This pilot project is not as well funded as it can be, but certainly, with the right resources, you can scale it up.

I would love to see such a program expanded to answer the school discipline calls, as well. The presence of police during a disciplinary action can be stressful for many students, especially racialized ones. It would be great if all involved when a student is in crisis had access to outside mental health professionals who could assess the situation and provide options in a non-judgmental way that help us de-escalate the situation. Not every conflict has to lead to arrest. In all but a few outlier situations, a child in crisis needs support and strategies, not law enforcement.

That being said, I want to talk about another area where policing has worked incredibly well in my communities—I continually get positive feedback from constituents of many backgrounds—and that is in dedicated neighbourhood community policing models. Through community policing, four neighbourhoods in my riding have originally received neighbourhood community officers: Regent Park, Moss Park, Church and Wellesley, and North St. James Town. After years of advocating for neighbourhood community officers—and I was at the forefront of pushing forward a model of reformed community policing—in my riding of Toronto Centre, every single one of my neighbourhoods now is covered by neighbourhood community officers.

Interjections.