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?

Speaker, through you to the member across: The government’s Bill 71 makes a consequential change in replacing the title of director of mine rehabilitation with the word “minister.” At the same time, I note that senior ministry staff couldn’t confirm or would not confirm at the committee where those proposals were coming from. Can the member share some light on where that proposal came from?

Thank you to the member for her excellent presentation.

Infrastructure Ontario is, obviously, by way of this motion from the government, being offered more responsibilities and more authority. And they’re consolidating a number of different real estate assets under the ministry. I would say that when one gets more responsibility, it should be because one has done a very good job—better outcomes, better timelines, better management of facilities, better management of dollars—but we’re not seeing that. Instead, we’re seeing a ministry that’s rather secretive.

My question to you is, why would the government offer Infrastructure Ontario more responsibility when they seem to be struggling with the responsibilities that they have now?