My question is to the Premier. Last week, the Globe reported that his Attorney General refused to meet the Federation of Ontario Law Associations, an organization that represents 46 district and county law associations—literally thousand of lawyers across Ontario. They have expressed outrage, Speaker, and grave concern that this government is admittedly out to politicize judicial appointments by hand-picking Conservative and like-minded judges. FOLA wonders why the Attorney General is so afraid to meet with one of the ministry’s most important stakeholders, the actual legal community that’s keeping our justice system running.

The Ontario association of family lawyers has warned that the Premier’s political interference meddling could result in judges being appointed without any experience in the areas of law that they adjudicate. “It would be like going to an artist for an oil change,” wrote family law association co-founder Mary Reilly.

Speaker, will the Premier explain to Ontarians why, if they are facing a criminal case, a gun violence case, a divorce case, a custody case, a Conservative Party supporter is more qualified to decide who presides over the trial than someone who actually is qualified and has the merit to do so?

Under this Conservative government, Ontario’s justice system is in shambles—everywhere, access to justice is denied routinely. Ontario courts rank dead last in case backlogs and wait times nationwide. The Conservatives play politics with justice, appointing unqualified cronies, including a gun lobbyist, to select their next round of judges.

Delays and denials of justice ruin lives. Criminals walk free, and the innocent suffer behind bars.

This isn’t just about funding; it’s about setting priorities.

The government’s budget ignores the crisis in our courts. This government released its budget two days ago. I scoured the budget. I was looking for funding in our courts, and it was not there. Not once did it mention bail, pretrial detention or court backlogs.

It’s easy for Ontario survivors to give up when their own government has given up on them.

Today in the chamber sit two extraordinary women, Cait Alexander and Emily Ager, who have individually endured violent crimes against them, only to have their cases tossed out because of court delays. Devastated, they watched their accused walk free and back into the community.

Cait and Emily are here to demand tangible solutions, starting with the budget; not hollow assurances from the Premier and the Attorney General.

We must thank Cait and Emily for their incredible strength, for coming here today, and for sharing their painful stories once again in hopes that this government will actually come up with solutions and fix our broken courts.

My question is to the Premier. The Attorney General recently put two of the Premier’s buddies onto the committee responsible for judicial appointments. Shockingly, when the Premier was asked about these appointments, he said that he wants to ensure that the committee is only recommending Conservative-affiliated judges. He went so far as to suggest that if a judicial candidate had voted for the NDP or Liberals, they are a threat to public safety.

Yet, it is on this government’s watch that our criminal justice system has spiralled into chaos. It’s on this Premier’s watch that our courtrooms are closed every day due to understaffing. It’s on his watch that serious cases are routinely thrown out for delay.

Will the Premier reverse his partisan appointments, or is he just comfortable further undermining public confidence in the justice system?

Interjections.

The Federation of Ontario Law Associations put out one of the more measured statements in response to the Premier’s comments, saying that the Premier has a “juvenile misapprehension” of the judicial appointments and that his comments are irresponsible, harmful and dangerous to our democracy.

It is shocking that even in our criminal justice system, the Premier’s focus seems to be entirely on producing favours for his insiders. Many people sitting across from me were given useless titles around King’s Counsel, and now, this government is putting unqualified friends into a position where they get to do favours for more Conservative allies.

Will the Premier reverse these appointments and apologize to the public and the legal community for their interference in the judicial appointments?

Interjections.

Despite the political spin, what we do know is that there is a base-funding cut from this ministry. In this incident, Judge Brock Jones said, “There is no reason this case could not have been completed ... had the courts been properly staffed. Instead, two full days of court time were” wasted “and [the case] adjourned.”

In an interview with CTV, Emily of Fergus, Ontario, the survivor, was devastated after her case was tossed, and she shared this comment:

“I crumbled,” she said. “It took so much to even do that first step of giving my statement to the police and [going to] the hospital. Then, a year and a half later, I decided to go back to Toronto to do this trial, face this man, and tell my story.

“Now it’s just over.”

Speaker, what does the Premier have to say to Emily and all the survivors seeking justice after allowing their rapist to walk free?

An Ontario judge recently stayed a repeat offender’s charges. JP Kelly was charged with 17 counts of intimate partner violence, including assault, sexual assault, choking and threating death.

Justice Lori Thomas said, “This is a case that cries out to be tried on the merits.” Instead, Judge Thomas was forced to stay the charges after more than two years of inexplicable delays.

Let that sink in: JP Kelly is now back in the community without supervision or counselling.

One survivor told the press, “I hit the floor, I was beyond disappointed in the Ontario judicial system, and I wept for the entire day.”

Will the Premier apologize to survivors who will never receive justice because his government has failed to fix the courts?

The government recently passed Bill 46, which doubled down on a band-aid solution to our court-staffing problems. Instead of expediting efforts to hire more judges, retired judges can now return to work up to 75% of full-time hours, a plan that is expensive, flawed and unsustainable.

My question to the Premier is simple: Why won’t his government clear the court backlog with a proper plan which includes actually appointing more new, full-time judges?

Last week, the case of a police officer accused of sexual assault was thrown out, not because of the merits of the case, but because it was assigned to a semi-retired judge who took an extended vacation, which then caused an unconstitutional trial delay. These kinds of scheduling issues are entirely predictable, and they will happen more and more as this government increases our reliance on part-time judges.

Our justice system is now being held together by duct tape. Speaker, is this government so out of touch that they don’t recognize the long-term investments needed to ensure that the people of Ontario get access to justice in a timely fashion?

Thank you for your presentation, to the member across. In a recent conversation I had with the federation of Ontario law societies—there were about 33 different individuals on the call and they were from across Ontario—when I told them about schedule 2 of this particular bill—this is the schedule that brings back retired judges to increase their sitting time from 50% full-time to 75% full-time—their reaction was quite alarmed. I would say that they were overwhelmingly in disagreement with this proposal. They said that they weren’t consulted, but they were also noting that the solution the government has brought forward is costly and not efficient at all.

Would you explain to those who perhaps may be watching why this government believes that it is more cost-efficient to bring back judges who are already receiving a pension and put them back into the system, and whether or not you think that this proposal is sustainable in the long run?

My question is pertaining to schedules 2 and 3. I’m just going to combine them together.

Having the retired judges go back to work seems to me like a form of double-dipping—not only are they accessing a lucrative pension; they’re also now accessing very substantial salary compensation. At the same time, it’s not a sustainable solution with respect to clearing the backlogs in the courts.

The Ontario trial lawyers have put forward a long-time position where they want to be able to remove the choice of a jury trial, especially for most civil matters. This is a long-standing position of the Ontario trial lawyers. It also means that Ontario right now is the last jurisdiction in the country that actually offers that. They’ve noted that it costs more—it’s more time to administer and not necessarily a good use of court resources.

Why does the government not invest in that type of red tape elimination, and why are they proposing something else that’s not sustainable?