Thank you to the member across. I think this is where you get to sort of play with words, but let me share with you what some of these words are.

In Finland, they have seen their trust in police fall from 95% to 91%. In Canada, Canadians have a great deal less confidence in police, by 41%, and the major difference is that in Finland, their Police University College completes a three-year, research-intensive university degree in policing before they even get into a uniform and get into a cruiser. That’s what’s going to give us more trust in our police. That’s what’s going to build us a modernized, effective policing force, and I really want to get there.

Thank you very much to the member across for the question. In Bill 102, there is language in there about actually creating a police outfit that is going to be less educated and less trained. What I have been advocating for and what I keep speaking about is neighbourhood community policing—community policing that works in partnership with the community and partners to deliver better, more effective community policing and that creates safer communities. We do that by also investing in public services and investing in community supports.

You’re wasting their time. This government is absolutely wasting their time by not investing in the social determinants of health, which are exactly the same as the social determinants of safety. You want to make it easier on the police? You actually invest in housing and social services.

But this bill actually is going to erode the type of officers, the high calibre of officers that we need by asking less of them. At the same time, you’re offering them and you’re making them do more work that’s not core policing work. That’s why I am so passionate about supporting the investments in social services so we can actually build safer communities in partnership with the police.

But guess what? Because those orders of government, including this one, are colossally failing in investing in deeply affordable housing with social supports, we see that the police are picking up the pieces. You’re not giving them the resources to do their job. The resources to do their job are more housing and more supports.

Yes, yes.

“‘He could have had a knife. He could have had a suicide belt.’

“However,” Professor Leuprecht “says if the constable had waited for backup, the situation might have escalated and had a different outcome.”

This is an opportunity for an individual who no longer poses a chance of harm to himself or to others, and that’s when the officer jumped in.

“Federico said what the public saw in the video was something officers are trained to do, which is switch from a deadly weapon to a less dangerous option—the baton—as the officer determines there is a lower threat.”

Additional training is a factor, and Constable Lam made the city of Toronto proud, despite it being a very challenging day.

It was so difficult to process all that happened, but the tragedy of the van attack on Yonge Street could have been significantly worse if it was not for the quick thinking of this young officer who is highly skilled and highly trained. Only in his thirties, this officer, but this officer positioned himself well by utilizing and deploying his training so he knew that he could de-escalate without using his firearm.

Aren’t these the type of officers we want in our community, officers who are encouraged to become community members that we move through high-quality policing training right here in Ontario? If you want to set a standard to have a modern, effective police service, this is how you do it.

That’s why I know that in my conversations with previous police chiefs, whether it’s Bill Blair or, previously, Mark Saunders, they were really proud, and they would boast about how proud they were about the next generation of officers. I heard that repeatedly during my 12 years at city council, about the next generation of officers, who were going to be better educated and better trained than the previous generation.

I wish to be seeing these programs and resources, so we can get more officers like Constable Lam. But in this bill, Bill 102, the government’s bill, entitled Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, this bill doesn’t seem to value those skills, that level of training and education that officers have received.

I want to share with you an email that I received from a constituent named Stacey. I did not know Stacey, to be quite honest, but Stacey took some time to write an email to me. Stacey said this about Bill 102:

“My name is Stacey, and I live in Toronto. I am writing today because I am concerned about the proposed amendment to the CSPA, to eliminate the post-secondary education requirement to become a police officer in Ontario.

“I live and work directly in the community, as a clerk at a restaurant. It means I have a different perspective than the ones” you’ve probably heard, whether it’s “from elite right- or left-leaning voters. The majority of my co-workers simply do not vote, nor do they read about, or pay attention to the passing of new legislation.

“They do not believe it concerns them. They” believe that they are “powerless to change the system that has made rents high, wages low, and groceries more expensive than anyone can ever afford.

“However ... everyone I know is at least somewhat aware about the Conservatives’ plan to amend the CSPA to allow a secondary school diploma to be sufficient for admission to police college. Few, if any, of my peers feel good about this change.

“My personal feelings on the matter aside, one thing seems clear: The only reason to vote in favour of amending the CSPA on such short notice, with little to no research into the public opinion on this issue, is that those voting yes are extremely confident in the belief that they will never find themselves on the wrong end of an undertrained police officer’s gun.

“This might even be true for most of the sitting MPPs who will hear this. But it won’t be true for all of them, and” it’s certainly not true “for their constituents.

“How sure are you that your child will never be in the wrong place at the wrong time? That you yourself will never be walking down a dimly lit street at night, with a whisper of a resemblance to a violent suspect in the eyes of a young trainee? How sure are you that a child with a disability will not be mistaken for a public threat due to an outburst?

“Are you 100% sure?” Or “75%? Would you bet your life on it? Maybe.

“But what you are doing by passing this legislation is betting the lives of people you set out to represent. You are gambling on the belief that those who pass through the Ontario Police College will be able to distinguish when and when not to use their firearm after only 12 weeks of training.

“In Canada, at least, many of us believe that for the most part, police officers are brave, hard-working, intelligent individuals, whose concern is about keeping the peace. But I worry that” by “loosening the requirements to apply to the police college,” you are unravelling that belief, “not just in the police as a governing force, but in the provincial Conservative Party itself, and especially in the Premier’s leadership.

“I urge those voting to, at the very least, delay the passing of this legislation until more research has been done into how communities ... feel about it. I guarantee the answers will surprise you. To do anything less (to pass this bill with so little public consultation) is to gamble, yet again, on the hope that the people who have reservations will still be too disempowered to change the system.”

Wow. I am so impressed with this constituent, whom I haven’t even met, to take the time to write me such a thoughtful email, and I’m so honoured that I was able to share Stacey’s letter and her words into this House today. I want to thank her for taking that time to write to me.

I hear Stacey’s concern for her community through her words. I, too, worry that this bill has been rushed through, without adequate public consultation to determine and to ensure that the fears—and the efforts to amend the bill is to put people’s minds and to put their hearts at ease. Because what we know is that we want more trust in the police. We want the police to be able to work collaboratively with the community to keep them safe. It can’t be a polarizing effect.

I want to offer something into this House. In an editorial from the Toronto Star, they shared that in the summer of 2020, Finnish newspapers reported that in Finland they were seeing a disturbing trend. According to a survey conducted by Finland’s Police University College, trust in the police was slipping. Only 91% of Finns trusted their police. This is a significant amount that fell from 95% in 2018.

“In contrast, Statistics Canada reports that in 2019, only 41 per cent of Canadians had ‘a great deal’ of confidence in the” police, “though another 49 per cent of Canadians had ‘some’ confidence” in the police. That number significantly falls when it’s a visible minority group or people living with physical or mental disabilities. Victims of crime all expressed a lower confidence in the police.

What is the big difference here? Well, Canada doesn’t fare as well as Finland, probably because in Finland the police officers complete a three-year research-intensive university degree in policing before going on patrol, “while most Canadian cops spend only a few months at police college.” This is why Ontario’s recently suggested bill is “a short-sighted effort to forestall dropping recruitment numbers,” when they are no longer required to pursue a post-secondary education as a prerequisite to policing.

What’s also missing is that, based on Nova Scotia’s Mass Casualty Commission—which actually endorsed the Finnish model, largely because it is the proven model to be the most effective—this bill does everything contrary to what just came out of the largest national investigation on policing.

I want to offer you, Speaker, comments by Deepa Mattoo, who is the executive director of the Barbra Schlifer Clinic. She shared with me this feedback: Reducing the educational requirement could result in a greater diversity of individuals entering a police force. It could. While that may be true and we would all be thrilled with that outcome—if that is the government’s goal, and it would be a commendable one, I do hope that this government would be proactive in encouraging diversity in newly hired officers in more overt and specific ways, in addition to this mechanism. Building trust within marginalized communities and with individuals who are marginalized youth as well is something that could be achieved through the neighbourhood officer program’s expansion—once again, the NCO program being referenced by a legal clinic that specifically supports women fleeing violent situations.

By investing in Toronto Community Crisis Service—that’s how you would do it. That’s how you build relationships with a community. That’s how you build better, effective, community-based policing.

I’d like to share the feedback with you, based on the comments of the director of Policing-Free Schools, Andrea Vásquez Jiménez, who submitted a deputation to the committee:

“I am writing to you under my capacity as director and principal consultant of Policing-Free Schools and the focus of this letter is on Bill 102, An Act to amend various Acts relating to the justice system, fire protection and prevention and animal welfare, particularly schedule 1, Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, schedule 4.

“Currently, the clause requiring post-secondary schooling to become a police officer in Ontario has yet to come into force—yet your government”—the PC government—“is seeking to cancel this pending change and solidify the removal of the post-secondary schooling requirement for police officers.”

Then, the letter continues that they are here to remind you that this decision is not evidence-based. It will not contribute to healthier or safer communities, and it goes against the recommendation once again—this expert cites—for more education and more training set out by the Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia.

“Community safety does not equal more police, and policing community safety equals healthy communities.

“At Policing-Free Schools, we know that creating conditions for healthy communities supports the co-creation of healthy schools and vice versa, particularly because schools exist within and are part of our communities and as an extension are microcosms of communities and society in which they exist. Community safety is about co-creating with bold, courageous actions, transformative, healthy, equitable, life-affirming and healing community spaces. Thriving and healthy community spaces—which in and of themselves are safe, have ample support and resources and not more police presence, policing, punitive and carceral measures and there is more than enough data, reports, research and evidence indicating this.

“The COVID-19 pandemic, combined with the lack of evidence-based action by governments, both created new inequities and exasperated already existing ones. This within the context of the federal government continuing to place profit over people. Our provincial Ontario government for decades underfunded and underresourced our education system, the push for privatization of our education and the health care system, ongoing policy decisions to uphold poverty, meanwhile prioritizing funds into prisons and policing, to name a few.

“The current government has chosen to continue not addressing the root causes and not addressing social and structural determinants of health and equity. What your government”—the PC government—“is doing is further increasing a pipeline of police officers contributing to a heightened policing-carceral state. It is no coincidence that this government is seeking to cancel this pending change to require post-secondary schooling, meanwhile $267.6 million into policing, billions more into the expansion of prisons and, most recently, more into announcing free tuition to the Ontario Police College for new police trainees while simultaneously choosing to not fund or underfund those community-based support systems that actually support creating the conditions for the well-being of communities.”

It’s a long letter; I’m going to bring it to a stop there.

I want to be able to thank Andrea for the feedback because I think it’s absolutely important that we hear from all sectors of society, and yet at the consultation of the committee I think we heard from mostly police, to be quite honest. So if the government talks about hearing positive consultation, sure, we heard positive 20-minute deputations from various different chiefs and perhaps association heads about how this was going to help them, but I know that in the past, before the PC government took office, it’s the same officers who were talking about how proud they were about the next generation of officers. It’s the same officers who talked about the need for more training and not less.

The Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission is something I want to spend just a few minutes on. It’s a heartbreaking report, an inquest about the community tragedy that we all have learned about stemming from central Nova Scotia. I’ve got family out there. It was very, deeply personal. My family is located in Truro, Nova Scotia, right where the incidents all took place, so this is deeply personal in so many ways.

I read those recommendations. I read the report. There’s too many for us to list here today. There are just simply too many, but that report had an executive summary. That executive summary mentioned training at least 100 times, and it’s clear from that very well-documented raw report which looked at the modernization of policing and the effect of failures and what we need to do to improve policing—that report laid it all out for us. That report came out roughly the same time—that this government was putting forward Bill 102, and it runs contrary to what the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission talked about.

I know that that federal report, produced in partnership with the province of Nova Scotia, is going to be travelling, and the federal government is going to be approaching the provincial government right here in Ontario—and the territories; they’re crossing the country—and tabling that report. It’s going to say, “How are you going to do your part in the province of Ontario to make sure that the recommendations out of the Mass Casualty Commission’s report are going to be implemented provincially?” And you know what you’re going to tell them? “We’re not doing it.” Instead, we’re going to adopt Bill 102, which actually reduces education—completely contrary to what the Mass Casualty Commission is recommending.

So many different incidents and violent situations can be diverted with more education and training. I want to recognize that there was—and I want to be able to say this properly—an external, independent review of the RCMP, including a review of the contract system under which the RCMP provided police services to rural communities. And this is what happens: Sometimes you contract out policing, so you have it set up in one community, and you send them elsewhere—and I know there’s been times here, right here in Ontario, where we have sent our officers out because there was another incident that required boots on the ground from our community. That happened during the convoy in Ottawa. We were moving officers here and there, and then they had to move some officers here when we thought the convoy was going to land here. I know the city of Toronto got involved; we put up waste trucks, garbage trucks, to barricade the road so that we could keep Queen’s Park safe. We did that work. We did that work with the Toronto police. We also did that work with other police associations that were lending us a hand, just like we’ve lent others a hand. Whether it’s firefighting or sending paramedics outside of our city, when we need each other, that’s how it works.

But we can’t have some officers better trained and better educated than other communities. That’s just not right. We want to have the very best, most-educated and best-trained officers right here in Ontario. So therefore it doesn’t matter if you’re from the north or from the south, if you’re from rural and urban communities, officers are consistently trained so that they can all do the hard work of de-escalation and building relationships with the community so that they can be better effective in delivering and ensuring public safety.

There was a closing of the RCMP training depot in Regina and the establishment of a Canadian police college: “The RCMP should phase out the depot model ... by 2032” and create “a three-year degree-based model of police education for all police services in Canada.” That is recommendation 3 that is coming out of the mass casualty report. They note “all police services in Canada,” and this is what it also speaks to.

The RCMP’s training depot in Regina trains and recruits for 26 weeks. The report says that the training is far from adequate—far from adequate: therefore, inadequate. This government should take note because this 26-week training is more than twice as long as the Ontario Police College training, which is about 12 weeks. What are we doing here? What are we doing? You want to build better officers? Then build a better system, a better pipeline; invest. This fact is not just doable, but it’s actually two more years of training that is required in order for us to meet the call to ensure that our officers are better trained.

We need officers to learn the soft skills, not just how to discharge a weapon. They need to have some of those “soft skills” that actually enable them to be a successful, high-calibre officer. This includes anti-racism training, understanding domestic violence, de-escalation, assisting people with mental health challenges, non-violent communication and helping people dealing with PTSD, trauma and stress and so much more.

Now, I understand that this might slow down the number of recruits—I get that—and I know that there are some communities that are well underserved. They have no officers. But I want them to have well-trained officers—not just any officer but well-trained officers so that the situations that I just described—it’s not just putting anyone out there, because I did mention that the police chiefs were talking about the next generation of officers being better than the last generation of officers. I can’t stress that more, because it left an impression on me when they said that.

I want to offer you a couple of more thoughts, Speaker. The mass casualty report also identified that gender-based violence is a national “epidemic” and that a public health approach needs to be taken to address violence against women, “stable, core funding” for groups that serve women survivors along with the creation of a national commissioner on gender-based violence.

This was also reinforced by the Renfrew inquest, the 86 recommendations. Their number one recommendation is to declare intimate-partner violence an epidemic. It costs you nothing—absolutely nothing—and from there, if you declare that, you can build a strategy, and then you can move to recommendation number 4, which is to implement the framework to ensure that the 86 recommendations are rolled out and operationalized. This government hasn’t done that. You talk about safety. How are you keeping women safe? How are you keeping women and girls and children safe?

Violence-against-women organizations have been asking, protesting, pleading. They’re exhausted. The pandemic has beaten everyone down so badly. They want a partner in this government. They want you to work with them. They’re begging you to work with them, but instead, who is going to get more money? Not them, and yet they’re the ones who are receiving those crisis calls. They’re the ones who are struggling to provide support for women who are fleeing violence.

In the Toronto police 2017 report, The Way Forward—and this was touted as the modernization report. I have to say, I know this report extremely well, because I was on council at that time. I had several briefings with the Toronto police, including the chief at that time. We were told that this was how we’re going to build a modern police force, one that was going to be community-minded, one that was going to remove $100 million from the police services and then repurpose that back into the city of Toronto—because that’s what the modernization task force was about: to strip away inefficiencies and to make it a streamlined, modernized service that met the needs of the community.

In that report, training was mentioned 44 times in 55 pages, and it emphasized community-based policing, which I’ve already spoken about. In that report, the modernization of Toronto Police Service report, calls for more comprehensive training and an increased emphasis during employment screening for evidence of bias, racism and discriminatory beliefs. They believe that this type of training was absolutely critical because there was no place for racism, white supremacy, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and any other kinds of bias in policing.

The report emphasized de-escalation training as critical to ensuring that force is only used when absolutely necessary.

The report reads, “As citizens, we need to know that police officers will follow their training to put themselves in extremely dangerous and potentially violent situations without question or hesitation. We also need to know that police service members will follow procedures to the letter without overt or implicit bias, to ensure fair and effective prosecutions and protect the rights of individuals under the law. To be successful, the culture needs to promote and ensure a disciplined adherence to legislated requirements, training, and procedures.”

This report goes on to say: “Our intent won’t be achieved if procedures and training do not empower officers to be facilitators, partners and problem-solvers.”

The report also recommends “a partnership with an Ontario university and/or college of applied arts and technology to work with the TPS on its training model for a modernized police service. The goal will be further professionalization and active accountability by leveraging the partner organization’s ability to bring more academic rigour, additional training mechanisms, and research to create new and relevant learning opportunities.”

Mark Saunders was the police chief at that time. This was the report that he shopped around and brought to every single councillor and said, “This is how we’re going to modernize the Toronto Police Service.”

The Toronto Police Service recently had a meeting in April. The word “training” appeared 331 times in one meeting. Clearly, it is the responsibility and clearly it is the priority for both the public as well as the members of the police service. I want to make sure that this government understands that Bill 102 undermines all of that.

So yes, there are some good things in the bill, and I want to be able to separate that, but that’s not how this place works. You get to vote for the whole darn thing. I did move a motion at committee that specifically tried to undo one thing that I thought needed to be done, and that was to make sure that Ontario no longer is the province that doesn’t give the police chiefs authority to suspend officers without pay. I wanted to make sure we could finally reverse that, but this government and the committee voted against it. So that’s why this bill is so challenging and problematic for us. We want to do more with it, and we want the police to do better, and right now, the bill—

Yes.

Our Toronto police have this to say about the model: “The neighbourhood community policing models consist of small teams of officers who are dedicated to serving one particular neighbourhood.” They’re embedded in those neighbourhoods for a period of four years. They’re able to build those relationships with community members. They participate fully in all our events and festivals, and when they do that, they are welcome. They are part of our community, and we do the work together by ensuring that people are taken care of and that there is mental health and well-being for all.

Once again, this project that was first introduced in 2013—and it came across the city in small quantums—quickly became a favourite of our communities. I’m so proud that my riding is the only riding in Toronto—and I suspect it’s probably the only one in Canada—that has neighbourhood community officers covering every single one of our neighbourhoods. That was because we, as a local community, working together, said, “Yes, this model works. Let’s expand it and export it.” I have colleagues, when I left city council, who are asking how we did it. We did it because the 51 division officers were listening to our community and we worked hand in hand in making sure that those lobbying efforts, those advocacy efforts could go forward together. I’m so proud of that work. It’s one of the biggest legacies we have in ensuring that we can scale up community safety efforts in the city of Toronto. Acting as ambassadors, the Toronto Police Service work collaboratively with residents, and they do so in partnership with community agencies. That’s how they build sustainable solutions.

I’ve seen this program expand significantly—and yet, every single year, we’re always asking for that program, but we get something different. It’s not just about more officers; it’s about making sure that we have the right type of community safety policing model. Speaker, I want to be able to share with you how important it is, especially in my patch of the city. I represent Regent Park, Moss Park and St. James Town, some of the poorest neighbourhoods in all of Toronto. And yet, I know that in our neighbourhoods that don’t have a heck of a lot, what we do have is community, heart and resilience. I’m so incredibly proud that we’re able to come together to take care of each other despite the fact that we don’t have all the resources in the world. But if you gave us more, if more was available—not just around policing, but around mental health supports, around affordable housing—I guarantee you, our communities would be even safer.

A neighbourhood officer undergoes special training, and they work with other officers who have already done the job. That’s why Bill 102, which actually reduces training, is of such concern. I understand that there are some people who feel that the current requirements have nothing to do with policing. I’ve heard this from the Solicitor General—that you don’t need to have an arts degree to become a police officer. Yes, that may be the case, but we want to have more training and, I would even argue, more education. I think it’s absolutely critical that people who go into policing as a career first should somehow be pursuing higher, higher levels of training. I’ll just give you an example. Not everybody goes into policing as their first career option out of high school; we know that, but reducing those requirements means that you’re inviting more young people into policing, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But listen to this: For most people entering policing, it happens to be their second career choice and sometimes third; what they’ve done first is generally some education. What we have in the city of Toronto—and I’m very proud of this, because I know I’ve spoken to various police chiefs who have talked about this next generation of policing that is oftentimes who we want to recruit in Toronto Police Service. This is what they do: They pursue post-secondary, in criminology, psychology, social work, community organizing, pre-law, mental health and addictions treatment, child and youth care, and so many other disciplines that then prepare them to be even better police officers. That’s how we know they are going to be ready to do the deeply emotional, complex work of dealing with people who are in crisis or having psychosis—not necessarily recruiting someone right out of high school who is then being asked to attend to a very complicated situation that could be very deeply steeped in trauma. I don’t know about you, Speaker, but I certainly know that is difficult work, and you don’t necessarily want just 18-year-olds to do that.

These programs that our graduates that we recruit from the Toronto police—we seriously want these graduates. They are more thoughtful, more curious, more understanding of people’s struggles because they have some of those skills based on the programs and the education that they came up through that explicitly teach it to them. That’s why the next generation of officers is going to be better than the previous generation of officers, and that’s why the Toronto police chiefs in the past have always championed more education and more training.

Even if future officers entering training have some post-secondary experience—it’s still vastly different than some of the skills that a high-quality police officer may need. So we want to be able to mash it up, and I think that this is where we start to look for skills such as communication, problem-solving, social skills, which are things that colleges and universities teach right in their classroom. That’s why through formal instruction and through life experience these students gain through their studies, they become better at their job, regardless of what it is. And I would say that if it’s good for nursing and if it’s good for education workers, it’s probably good for policing as well. These are skills that take them time to build. Some of the most recent high school graduates have them, for sure, but imagine if they had more time getting more education, getting more training; imagine how much better equipped they would be to enter policing as a career.

I am just as concerned that we are not setting up young people for success. We want the officers to be able to build those skills. We have yet to hear a single community advocate—I have not heard one—who says, “We want the police officers to have less education and less training.” Even police officers on the front lines have been saying they need more training. Rarely do I go into a community meeting that we don’t talk about training—and it’s not just training for a day or two, but it’s about training and education, making sure that the comprehensive learning environment is there, even in formal classroom environments.

Community organizations in my riding, as well as constituents, are calling for more training. I don’t know about you, but I know for sure that when I go into a community four months from now as a police officer—if I was going into the college, I’d want to make sure I have as much training as possible. The job is incredibly difficult, and I talked about why it has become more difficult: the lack of resources, the lack of government investment, the breaking down of the social safety net. All of that makes the policing work more complicated, more emotional. In some ways, we’re setting them up for failure—asking them to be everything to everyone, when we need to invest in the social determinants of health, which happen to be exactly the same as the social determinants of safety. If you want to build safer communities, you’ve got to invest in those things.

I understand that there’s a considerable degree of mentorship that a young officer receives from senior officers when they begin their career, and I’m still concerned that what we see from policing culture coming up over and over again sometimes is the fact that—we may have conversations or it’s alluded to that it’s simply just a few bad apples. But inherently, if the culture does not put community first—is not steeped in proper training and education—then they’re not putting community first. They’re barely putting themselves first because they’re just not equipped to do that job.

I know for sure that each and every single one of us would benefit from more training.

Think about what it would take for them to address unconscious bias and understand how systemic oppression actually impacts communities. You’re not going to be able to do that just out of high school; I don’t think so. This takes time, and it takes proper review and skill development.

We can interrogate ourselves and ask ourselves honestly—you don’t have to answer it here, but ask yourselves honestly: How much do you know about policing, mental health and the judicial system? How much do you really know about unpacking colonial concepts and anti-Black racism? How much do you really know about gender oppression and all the facts that bring about situations that create unsafe conditions? How much do you really know if you don’t have a little bit of life experience? Bring yourself back to age 18. How much did you know then—based on how much you know now? It takes time. There is no shortcut to it. There are no Coles Notes to it.

In 2021, it was widely reported that white supremacists and other organizations are actively recruiting within the police and military ranks. It’s hard to hear; I get that. I certainly don’t want to hear that. But it’s horrifyingly true. The report also talks about how members of groups are emboldened—groups that are supposed to keep us safe sometimes don’t, especially when they’re being targeted. We’ve all heard about the radicalization of young men. It also can happen when they aren’t properly educated or trained. That’s why we want to be able to train and adequately provide people the resources so they can deal with those challenges. I recognize that this bill is lowering the barriers for entry, and that means that you’re also putting less-educated and less-trained people into a pool of individuals where there is active, targeted recruitment. We have to be able to connect the dots.

I am very aware that we want to do everything we can to combat radicalization; we have to. We’re seeing it. We hear the government talking about giving religious organizations a few thousand dollars to put locks on doors, get more CCTV cameras, and hire a private security guard while the religious ceremony is on, when worshippers are in the house. That’s not going to address hate crimes—not structurally or systematically. That’s not going to reduce hate incidents and violence in Ontario. No way. You’re kidding yourselves if you think simply putting a lock on a door is going to address the rising, rampant hate and Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and anti-2SLGBT hate in Ontario.

We have to invest to make sure that we are able to bring people together and to talk about how we prevent radicalization. We do this by giving them information that’s real; by countering it with a strategy that’s specifically dealing with anti-hate. Then you fund it, and then you benchmark it with annual reports. You work with law enforcement, you work with community organizations that are affected, and you continue to keep your foot on the gas—it cannot be eased up.

More and more recruits are talking about the need for training because they have gone into a situation where they felt untrained, not ready. We cannot expect 18-year-olds to graduate from high school, go through police college and then be given the uniform and then throw them into some of the most complicated situations. It’s not fair to them. You’re setting them up for failure.

If we’re going to build the modern policing outfits that we deserve in Ontario, then we’re going to need to properly train, educate and resource them. Currently, 33% of OPP vacancies—it’s a number that is real. It’s very expensive keeping a position open while somebody is on PTSD leave. These vacancies are due to officers being on long-term leave, so they’re still on the payroll. Then, you have to go bring in new officers, and then you’re going to not equip them for the complications of that work. Guess what’s going to happen? You’re probably going to have additional vacancies that will then eventually go on leave because you haven’t dealt with the issues structurally.

If we have a new generation of young officers who have not had the life experience or have not been given the training or tools to handle very challenging jobs that we are seeing, then there’s probably a very good chance that you’re going to have higher vacancies due to additional PTSD leave. This is devastating for the individual officers, for their families and their teams that can be more overstretched. The communities that they serve will not be well served.

Robust mental health training as well as investments to make the job safer stand to benefit everyone. Ontarians interacting with police have better experiences with police officers with higher developed communication skills, problem solving skills and social skills if they have more training. Those officers are the ones who are most likely to be stepping up in a challenging situation when called upon. They will be the ones we want to dispatch to schools when called upon. They are less likely to face internal disciplinary action with more training, more support.

I want to share with this House the story of Constable Ken Lam, the Toronto police constable who very skillfully de-escalated and apprehended the Toronto van attacker without any violence. This is a story that really made us proud in the city, despite the fact that it was a very challenging day where hearts were broken. I remember where I was when we saw what happened on the screen.

“Experts say the powerful video of Alek Minassian’s arrest reveals a textbook case of an officer diffusing danger through a series of life-and-death choices based on training and a calm mind.

“The footage shows an officer who police sources identified as Constable Ken Lam standing up, turning off his siren and talking clearly to the suspect even as the dead and injured lay along Yonge Street after being struck down by a white rental van.

“‘This is exactly the type of de-escalation ... and response to these types of confrontations that we hope to see,’ said Ontario ombudsman Paul Dubé.

“Lam calmly holstered his service weapon, held up his baton and handcuffed Minassian as he lay on the sidewalk.

“‘He gave himself the space and time. He assessed the threat and realized he had options other than firing his weapon.’

“Dubé published a June 2016 report calling for increased police training on defusing dangerous situations after several high-profile deaths of people with mental illnesses who confronted officers.

“He said the constable’s actions are a sign that police are gaining from training that includes simulations of tense standoffs with people who are emotionally unstable.

“Sammy Yatim’s death in July 2013 in Toronto—where the mentally ill man was shot multiple times as officers surrounded an empty streetcar he was on—helped prompt reforms.

“In recent years at least one day has been added to Toronto police in-service training on de-escalation and ‘dealing with people in crisis,’ said Mike McCormack, president of the police union in Toronto.

“The program is part of a mandatory three-day training for all officers that incorporates crisis communication, de-escalation and containment measures.

“‘A major component of this training includes a variety of scenarios that are designed to evaluate” an “officer’s skills in effectively communicating with people in crisis and those who are suffering from a possible mental disorder,’ said an email from the union.

“Meanwhile, recruits at the Ontario Police College are now receiving more training, as are a number of police forces around” Ontario who are doing so, but it is not a province-wide standard.

“Mike Federico, a retired deputy chief of the Toronto police, said changes were brought in as part of a response in 2015 to the report by former Supreme Court judge Frank Iacobucci on the Yatim incident.

“‘There’s a lot of emphasis now on communications and techniques that calm things down. The Toronto police has recognized there are techniques to be learned and opportunities to practise,’ he said in a telephone interview.

“‘I was proud to see the officer demonstrated ... a non-violent outcome.’

“Christian Leuprecht, a professor at Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, who studies policing and security issues, said Lam’s actions were ‘textbook’ examples of the latest approaches.

“The result is a suspect who is now in custody”—obviously, this is past sense, but it helps shed light on why the devastating incident occurred.

“Lam spoke loudly and calmly, even as the suspect encouraged the officer to shoot him. When he claimed to have a gun in his pocket, Lam replied, ‘I don’t care,’ and repeatedly instructed him to ‘Get down.’

“Leuprecht said Lam seemed to go further than some others might have when he decided to approach and arrest the suspect, rather than wait for backup.”

“‘There’s an impressive moment when he’”—this is Constable Lam—“‘takes his firearm, puts it in his holster, he goes over with his baton, and he handcuffs the individual,’ he said.

“‘I think that goes above and beyond the call of duty.’”

Interjections.

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.

That’s okay. I hope your fingers are intact.

The justices of the peace are not always available. For most offences, the accused is then released back into the community, which then makes victim protection even harder. As we all know, in those tight-knit communities, it’s all about communities helping each other. When you have one person who has stepped offside or one person who’s violent or created an incident and made other people unsafe, where are they going to be released to? They’ve got nowhere to go, and they become more hardened and more difficult to rehabilitate afterward.

Chief Morrison said that in recent years, there has been an influx of offenders from southern Ontario who are already “on conditions.” He actually noted that people are bringing drugs and weapons to places like Thunder Bay and Timmins and then “aligning themselves” with Indigenous people they meet who live in northern communities.

Chief Morrison asked for more resources to address the current system’s deficiencies. If you want to help those northern communities and Indigenous communities, then fund the services that they’re asking for. This police chief was really clear about the things that he needed to keep his community members safe.

I couldn’t help but notice there was a note of desperation in his voice. There was a note in his voice that said to me he didn’t really believe what we were asking him and that the question in the debate at the committee wasn’t going to result in any more resources for him. I regret that, because I know that I couldn’t have offered him much more at that time. But I sure would like every member of this House to actually take his submission and actually review it and then think about how we can do better by Indigenous and northern and remote communities. This is so critically important.

Chief Morrison called on more resources to address the current system’s deficiencies. Longer-term, however, he believes that there needs to be a recognition that “the European system” is not working for Indigenous people. This was actually a very powerful moment for me to hear him say that. This is a man who actually works in policing, no different than other police officers who put on the uniform day in and day out to do the best that they can to keep their communities safe. We know that policing is a calling. Speaker, I certainly know that. My father was a naval officer. I know what it meant to him for him to put on the uniform, to serve in the navy. Everybody who serves in those types of uniforms—it is a calling.

For Chief Morrison, it was a calling, but he also said he recognized that the system that he was working in was limited and it wasn’t going to help his community, not in the way that it needed to. He said that government ministries must “bring back their system”—and I’m going to say an Indigenous system—“a system that they followed for thousands of years.” I’m certainly no expert on what that system is, but I think that we need to lean in and listen to Chief Morrison and ask the question, “How can we help? What does that look like for you in your community?”

I want to be able to recognize that this motion is a symbolic motion. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s okay for us to have that conversation. But I also want to be able to do more than just have a symbolic motion that we will support, because I want to be able to address the problem. I really believe that parliamentarians are here because they want to fix the problem. The problem is we don’t have the solution before us.

Yes, absolutely, let’s go ask Justin Trudeau one more time, “Hey, you want to help us with bail reform?” He has already said yes, but let’s ask Minister Lametti: “We’ve asked you before. You’ve already said yes, but we’ll ask you again. Let’s fix that bail reform system.” He said yes already. They’re working on it. You’re at the table. We’ve heard from the honourable minister the Attorney General that they’re working collaboratively, yet we’re having a debate on this same motion about asking the federal government to work with us to reform bail. All right, that’s fine.

Speaker, I’d like to offer you the following, because I don’t want to just criticize. Because that’s not really nice. I want to offer a solution. My solution, Speaker, is that I’d like to amend this motion, to just give it more focus. Let’s be more purposeful in our intention of what it is that we’re asking of the federal government. It’s a symbolic motion, but let’s put ourselves into the driver’s seat and take some control, because I think it’s important. We don’t want to be always asking the federal government, “Can you do this? Can you do that?” Let’s be grown-ups about this. Let’s take some control. Let’s fix the problem that’s made in Ontario. We could do that.

I move that government notice of motion 13 be amended as follows: Delete everything after the word “implement” and replace it with the following: “meaningful bail reform to more appropriately evaluate and mitigate risk, ensuring that court resources are focused on protecting vulnerable groups from violent repeat offenders.”

Therefore, the motion will then read: “This House calls on the federal government to immediately reform the Criminal Code of Canada to address the dangers facing our communities and implement meaningful bail reform to more appropriately evaluate and mitigate risk, ensuring that court resources are focused on protecting vulnerable groups from violent repeat offenders.”

I’m going to pass the motion to page Mia, who is going to bring that to the House. I understand the table will be able to distribute that for all the members to consider.

I want to be able to just take a moment to explain—

So what does this motion mean? I thought we could be a little bit more specific in our purpose of intent. The vulnerable groups that we’re trying to protect—let’s start to name them. Oftentimes those who have been released on bail conditions, and oftentimes who are in breach of bail conditions, are oftentimes perpetuators of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, domestic violence. And the vulnerable groups that I’d like to protect, that we should all be protecting, are those specific individuals that those who are being released on bail go back out to.

We know that women—especially women—are very scared when their abuser, their perpetuator of violence, has been apprehended and then released. And we have now heard that there isn’t really any effective bail supervision and monitoring system. So if you want to keep people safe, let’s keep them safe, because the majority of those who are repeat offenders have a long history. The ones who own firearms, the ones who have been in and out of the revolving-door system are oftentimes the ones with a long history of domestic violence and intimate partner violence.

They also sometimes evolve into mass shooters. We’ve seen that. You cannot uncouple what we’ve now seen with respect to mass murderous shootings from histories of misogyny and violence against women; they are integrally connected. Whether it’s the Renfrew triple femicide, the mass shooting of Nova Scotia or December 6, all of that is interconnected, and there is such a remarkable body of research to back all of that up.

If we’re going to be protecting vulnerable communities from those who are most violent, the repeat offenders, then let’s do that. Let’s make this motion really perform for our communities. Let’s make sure that we protect them to the greatest possibility that we can, and let’s make sure that their voices are heard. Let’s try to demonstrate, just in a small way, that we heard those expert witnesses who came to our committee to offer us their professional recommendations on how to fix it.

We’re not going to get to everything in this motion—for sure we’re not. Even my amendment is not going to get to everything. But will it put it into sharper focus? Will it give it more intention and purpose? Will it make it less vague and symbolic? You bet. And that’s what this motion will do and can do.

I just wanted to finish on one point as not to take anything away. I want to be able to just highlight that the Renfrew inquest that we’ve spoken so much about in this House, that we have all spoken to, that has moved us significantly, has specifically spoken about bail protection and support for survivors of intimate partner violence. I want to dedicate this amendment to them, to every single woman who’s been affected by intimate partner violence, sexual violence, domestic violence. I want to dedicate it to the inquiry and all those who participated. Thank you.

It’s always an honour to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the great people of Toronto Centre. In today’s debate, we’re going to be speaking on a very symbolic motion regarding bail reform in Canada. I’d like to begin my remarks by explaining the context of why we’re having this debate.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. Bail has evolved along with our justice system, and the people working in the justice system have been calling for sensible reforms to many dimensions of the justice system for decades. It predates this government.

Unfortunately, it took the tragic shooting death of OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala on December 27 to bring bail reform back on the political table. I’m glad we’re having this conversation. It’s absolutely important. This young, dynamic officer, who was at the beginning of his bright policing career, was taken far too soon. He is missed by his family and his friends, both in the general community and within the policing community. I have no doubts about that.

We have seen people fall at the hands of violent crimes, and we must do more to protect our communities, including our front-line officers. The police have a very difficult job. Sometimes we task them with jobs that are far too big. We ask them to be social workers and mental health support workers. We ask them to do everything—and we resource them not with all of those services and supports.

The neighbourhood community officers in my community are exceptional. I have the privilege and honour of working with 51 division of the Toronto police. They are the busiest division in all of Canada. They tell me oftentimes that they can’t do it all.

We know that first responders oftentimes run into a building when others are running out. They are the ones who deserve our gratitude and support.

I want to take a moment to thank the hard-working police officers, the paramedics and the firefighters who keep Toronto and Ontario safe every single day.

The accused who was charged with the murder of Constable Pierzchala was on bail at that time, and he failed to appear for his court date in August, just months before the shooting. This spurred the provinces to write a letter—including the Premier, and thank you for his leadership on this—to demand more of the Prime Minister, asking the Prime Minister to improve and make stricter bail provisions.

The federal government has yet to table their bail reforms. We know that is coming. Minister Lametti has mentioned that on several occasions. I have read about his remarks in the media. They have specifically said that they will work with the provinces to target those bail reforms. All of that is under way. And we have this motion before us.

On January 31 as well as on February 1 of this year, the Standing Committee on Justice Policy met to investigate how we could improve the bail reform system. As the opposition critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General, I participated in both of those full days of hearings. I was a committee member. We heard from many dedicated and brilliant Ontarians who work in law enforcement and the legal system. We had police chiefs, lawyers, executive directors, and corrections officers all take the time to actually come and speak to our committee and offer free advice. We did not hear from everyone, unfortunately, because the hearing process was so truncated and expedited. There were only two days to register for the hearings. We did not get a chance to hear from, for example, judges, justices of the peace, or crown attorneys—the very people who are absolutely critical in the administration of justice in Ontario. Their voices were entirely silent in that process. What we did hear were some really strong suggestions that were real and evidence-based. The speakers who did appear before the committee asked us to consider many other things as a part of the continuum of community safety and bail reform. I’m going to speak to some of that today, because I think it’s important for us to make full this conversation of what is before us.

I came to Queen’s Park largely to effect change; I know each and every single parliamentarian wants to do the same thing. You want to serve your community as best you can. You want to drive home real solutions to real-life problems and not just tinker at the edges, not just make symbolic gestures or—perhaps, sometimes in the political theatre—be performative. You want solutions, and so do I; most importantly, so do our communities. They expect that from us.

What I am grappling with is that we have a symbolic motion before us which is supportable—but it could be improved, and I’ll speak to that in a bit. We have a motion before us that is asking the federal government to do something that they’ve already said they’re willing to do. We have a motion that points the finger at the federal government—in particular, Justin Trudeau—about how those real changes can be brought into effect but doesn’t speak to what it is.

What we heard from the speakers at those two full-day committee hearings was that there is real change in real time that can actually happen in Ontario, if the government of the day decides to take real action.

What we know is that not all risk can be avoided simply in the administration of bail. Nothing is that simple. We need smart solutions to make sure we get to the smart outcomes that we anticipate.

New Democrats, on this side of the House, really believe that it is possible to reduce crime by ensuring that the most dangerous offenders are not falling through the cracks of that revolving-door system that was spoken about. That revolving-door system is largely in existence because the justice system is under-resourced. We have to ensure that people do not fall through the cracks. We have to ensure that mental health supports and health care as well as housing are in place for people who need them so that they don’t have to be in our system anymore.

Jails are not housing, detention centres are not housing—just like we know that hospitals are not a form of housing.

Speaker, there was an undertone at the committee—and I want to share this, because I think it was really important, and I’m going to name it explicitly today. The undertone was that the responsibility is all at the federal government and that the federal Liberals in particular can do much more to keep Toronto, Ontario and every other jurisdiction safe. I don’t think I’ve heard from the Prime Minister that he’s not going to be there at the table, but we keep having the government point the finger back to the Prime Minister, saying, “Do more, do more,” when he has already said, “Yes, we are going to do more.”

I seems as though there are some in this House who would like people to believe that the responsibility for reforming bail lies exclusively with the federal government, in order to distract from the fact that more can be done provincially to address this issue. This government has been in power since 2018. Five years later, what has been accomplished? How can communities be made safer, and what are the significant reforms that can come forward?

The Ontario NDP will continue to push for real, full bail reform. That’s something we are truly committed to, because getting tough on crime is not enough when you aren’t getting smart on crime.

The Ontario NDP has been and will be wanting to take immediate action by securing additional resources for criminal prosecutors—something that the government can do right now to ensure that everyone receives a bail hearing in a timely fashion.

We also are asking for more increased funding to legal aid—something that will actually ensure the fair and efficient administration of the justice system.

We need to ensure that police resources are allocated to specifically address the most dangerous offenders, and that it does not result in the criminalization of those who are experiencing poverty, mental health issues, homelessness, or who are struggling with addiction.

We need to ensure that everyone has access to housing and mental health supports.

We will continue to push for a full study on bail reform.

It’s absolutely critical that we recognize this motion is part of a campaign by this government to frame the bail system as overly lenient. Frankly, that barely scratches the surface of what experts have been telling us. They’re the same experts who appeared at the committee. This is where we need to be able to lean into it.

So let’s answer this question: Is the criminal justice system too lenient? Based on real data, the pretrial remand imprisonment rate in Canada and Ontario is higher than that of almost every other comparable Western European nation as well as our most obvious comparators: England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, and Scotland. Countries such as Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands have a bail system that will focus on rehabilitation over incarceration, and they all have intentional homicide rates that are less than what we have in Canada’s intentional homicide rate.

So why is Ontario failing? When it comes to bail and remand, Canada only—

Interjections.