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 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?