It’s always nice to rise in the House and to actually offer the government a compliment. I want to commend them on the approach that they’ve taken with this bill. I recognize that a lot of upfronting of consultation took place, and stakeholders were widely brought in to provide some technical feedback. I think that’s fantastic because that is going to enable better legislation in the outcome.

But I want to contrast this approach to other approaches that the government has taken on other bills, bills that were perhaps more lobby-driven legislation, bills that were done in a haste and bills that were reckless and then had to be backtracked. Does the government see the benefit of using a process that is open, that is collaborative, that is consultation-driven in informing new bills that come forward? Can we expect a change in the government in their approach to developing legislation?

My question is to the Premier. Ontario’s justice system has made recent headlines for all the wrong reasons.

CityNews has broadcasted: “‘Stop with the Excuses:’ Emotional Appeals to Overhaul Court System Amid Growing Backlogs.”

Toronto Star prints: “Defence Lawyer for Accused in Terrorism Case Wants Charges Stayed Due to Court Delays.”

CBC reports: “Mould, Asbestos at Milton Courthouse Have Led to ‘Delays in Judicial Process’....”

Is the Premier actually proud of these headlines that his government has garnered?

The crisis goes beyond the courts. We see the crisis of mismanagement with the historic backlogs in tribunals. Tribunal Watch, which is an independent, non-partisan watchdog of tribunal systems in Ontario, has revealed in their annual report that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s backlog grew by 500 cases, despite historically high rates of applications being dismissed without ever being heard or the fact that the complainants are now abandoning their applications due to record delays at the tribunals.

On top of these historic delays there, we’re seeing historic delays now also at the Landlord and Tenant Board, without any fixes in sight.

Yes or no: Is the Premier also proud of his record in the tribunals?

I appreciate the opportunity to introduce some very special guests, members of the Ontario Bar Association, who are joining us here at Queen’s Park today. In particular, I want to say thank you to Kelly McDermott, president; Kathryn Manning, first vice-president; Katy Commisso, second vice-president; Mohsen Seddigh, secretary; Mariam Moktar, treasurer; and Elizabeth Hall, executive director and general counsel. They’ve come to Queen’s Park with a team of lawyers. So for those members who’ve actually taken and approved meetings, you will have a very good discussion this afternoon.

Joining them are Darry Buxton, Dante Capannelli, Geoff Carpenter, Neha Chugh, Daniel Goldbloom, Eric Sadvari, Melanie Webb, Frances Wood, Tyler Jensen and Jenny Commisso.

My question is to the Premier.

In 2016, Soleiman Faqiri suffered from schizoaffective disorder. He was temporarily housed in a correctional facility. He was denied mental health resources. Pleas from his family were ignored even though he was clearly in crisis. Soleiman Faqiri died in jail 11 days later. He was restrained with his hands behind his back. He was restrained on his ankles. He was restrained in many other places, pepper-sprayed, and his face was covered with a spit hood.

His death was deemed a homicide by Ontario’s coroners in an inquest that put forward 57 recommendations directly to this government. The first recommendation called on the government to recognize that correctional facilities are not an appropriate place for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The government was expected to respond within 60 days; it has now been six months.

Yesterday, because of government inaction, I tabled the Justice for Soli Act. I and the Faqiri family, who are here today, call on this government to support the act. And they want to know, how many more people have to die in jails because they are living with a mental health crisis, before they act?

Interjections.

According to the coroner’s report, at the time of death, Soleiman Faqiri had over 50 bruises on his body, despite the fact that he was in segregation during his entire time in jail. There were over 60 policy breaches leading up to Soleiman’s homicide while he was in government custody.

The family here is asking for an apology, recognition of their pain and suffering.

Yes or no, Premier, will you give the Faqiri family the apology they deserve for Soleiman’s tragic and preventable death?

I’d like us all to welcome Emilie Coyle, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies; Jennifer Chambers, the executive director of the Empowerment Council; Yusuf Faqiri, the brother of Soleiman Faqiri; Maryam Faqiri, the mother of Soleiman Faqiri—they’ve all been here to support the justice for Soleiman act.

I’d like to welcome to the chamber a number of visitors who are here. Some of them have travelled great distances, including: Cait Alexander, who flew in from Los Angeles—and today is her birthday—she is here to support Lydia’s Law; Brian T. Sweeny, Dan Jennings and Michelle Jennings, who are parents of women who were killed due to gender-based violence; as well Vanshika Dhawan and Ivanna Iwasykiw, who are lawyers from Gluckstein Lawyers; and Sara Casselman, the executive director of the Waterloo region sexual assault centre.

Mr. Soleiman Faqiri was a man with schizoaffective disorder who was subjected to restraints, pepper spray and isolation while in prison, which ultimately led to his death. During this time in correctional facilities, he was awaiting a medical evaluation. He was not able to see a psychiatrist or have access to hospital resources, despite experiencing an acute mental health crisis. This inquest deemed his tragic and preventable death a homicide.

I’d like to extend our welcome and congratulations to the First Nations Technical Institute for hosting their morning reception. It was wonderfully attended, and everybody had a lot of good times but we also learned a lot. I want to welcome Suzanne Brant and Cathie Stewart Findlay.

I appreciate the opportunity to rise and to speak on behalf of the great people of Toronto Centre.

As I was listening to the Minister of Education’s debate remarks, I couldn’t help but feel that if this chamber was actually filled with parents and students, what a tragedy it would be for them to come out to this House and to have the Minister of Education essentially vilify them. If you were a family, parents and students living in urban centres, that would hurt double as much, because he did take aim specifically at families and students living in urban centres, and specifically downtown Toronto.

As a parent from downtown Toronto, I can tell you that my worries are the same as every other parent in Ontario. I want to make sure that my kid and all children in Ontario have access to a high-quality public education. It’s absolutely critical for us to invest in education because that’s a great equalizer for every student, every child in this province.

It really goes to the heart of the values that this government believes in. Will you be investing in education to support our students? Will you be investing in the education system to ensure that teachers and administrators have the resources that they need in order for them to deliver the high-quality education that every student deserves?

The motion is actually very simple, Speaker. The motion is simply asking the government of Ontario to substantially increase the funding for public education in Ontario so that every child receives the high-quality education they deserve, regardless of their family’s income. What could be more Canadian in Ontario than that?

But the government is doing exactly the opposite. For six years they’ve had a chance to increase funding to ensure that education receives the resources to allow success in Ontario, and they’ve done exactly the opposite. They have been defunding education, less and less every single year. They’re leaning right in to shrinkflation, which means that your money is buying you less every year in households across Ontario, and the same thing is now happening in the government’s coffers. Classrooms are oversized—30, 31, 32, 34, 38 students in a classroom. Now put in five or six students with developmental delays, global delays, autism and you’ve got a recipe for disaster, which is why we are hearing from educators, principals, parents and students themselves that the rise of violence is across Ontario.

These are choices being made by the government, choices that can be reversed if the government prioritizes student education as they say they do. But we know they don’t, because if they did they would put their money where their mouths are. Otherwise, they’ll stand up and they will insult the opposition, they will vilify unions and teachers, as they have done so on and on again, because they’re scapegoating them for their failed government policies.

Speaker, I’m just going to end by sharing a story very quickly from Chelsea, who is a teacher of grade 8 students in my community. She wants the government to understand that teachers are drowning. They are not successful at this moment because they’ve been underfunded, and the burnout is high. As much as they love their job—and they do, Speaker—they can’t hold on forever. They’ll be forced to walk away if this government doesn’t reverse its course. The stakes are too high. I hope they consider.

My question is to the Premier. Amir Remtulla, who was the chief of staff to the late Mayor Ford, is also a registered lobbyist for the Therme Group. Ontarians and accountability watchdogs widely suspect that this government’s Ontario Place plot is just another insider deal. Amir Remtulla has been an insider for so long that he appears on the registry of the Premier’s family furniture. And don’t forget that he also lobbied this government for the De Gasperis greenbelt grab.

So on behalf of everyone wondering—yes or no, simple answer—did lobbying by Amir Remtulla help convince the Premier to subsidize the destruction of Ontario Place with hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money?

But as a former Toronto city councillor, I want to ask the Premier a question which I know he knows the answer to. When I look at Therme’s Ontario Place plan, I cannot get over that the business model is flawed—something we’ve seen before. It reminds me of another bad plan about reckless development on the waterfront.

When Amir Remtulla worked for then-Mayor Ford, there was a nonsensical plan to build a downtown casino at Ontario Place. Building a downtown mega casino was championed by the mayor and his brother—now the Premier.

Once Ontario Place is rezoned for commercial and entertainment uses, there is little that anyone can do to stop them from flipping the land lease for another use, perhaps a casino operator.

What does this government really hope to see happen at Ontario Place when Therme’s spa deal falls apart?

I’d like to welcome my intern, Winston Lee, who is here visiting with his mother, from Vancouver, Wini Yeung. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Today, I rise to address an issue affecting Jewish constituents and members of my chosen family. They shared their growing fears watching the rise of anti-Semitic hate. Their experiences are not just troubling, they are a call to action.

No Ontarian should live in fear, yet hate crimes have more than doubled since 2018, shaking the foundation of inclusivity and safety that every Ontarian deserves. The fear among Jewish Ontarians echoes the horrors and living memories of the Holocaust. From knowing what broken glass to graffiti of swastikas or echoes of the blood libel means, Jewish people have survived by recognizing anti-Semitism. Now this pain exists alongside a rise in anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate that has all increased with the taking of hostages by Hamas and the bombing of Gaza.

Ontarians need compassionate leadership that heals wounds and fosters a province where everyone feels safe. Ontarians need more than words of solidarity; they need a funded and community-informed province-wide hate strategy to build deep social unity. This plan must include robust education to combat anti-Semitism and enhanced coordination between law enforcement to tackle actual hate crimes.

This Legislature must ask itself two questions: What can we do to effectively stop anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Ontario? And how can our divided communities start talking again and heal together?

Combatting anti-Semitism and all forms of hate requires everyone and every order of government to do their part. Let us rise to this challenge together.

Back to the member from Richmond Hill. I’m going to stay on the topic of wage theft. I’m discouraged to hear that, in the member’s own words, there isn’t enough or anything in the bill that deals with the matter proactively, trying to stop wage theft in Ontario.

So I want to be able to highlight the fact that, if we are raising the fines for bad employers, that is a good thing. But I also want to point out that the Workers’ Action Centre has noted that higher fines will not actually protect workers in the face of wrongful dismissal because what’s really needed are proactive inspections and meaningful collection on orders, and that’s not in the bill. My question to the member from Richmond Hill is, why is it not in the bill?

Thank you for that wonderful presentation. I’m curious about the intention of the bill and how to ensure that workers in Ontario are adequately protected. Of course, we all recognize that wage theft is a significant issue, and oftentimes it’s hard to track, hard to prosecute.

I’m just very, very curious to understanding how we can address that particular crisis with respect to wage theft if there isn’t actual enforcement. So can the speaker kindly speak to that particular operational piece? How are you going to get this enforced?

I think it’s important for us to recognize that workers will oftentimes fear reprisals from calling out and asking for wages that are owed to them if their employer holds all the power. And what I’m looking for in this bill is, how is this bill protecting workers against actions such as wage theft, where they are not going to be facing termination if they are demanding what is duly owed to them?

On the same point of order, the Minister of Health mistakenly identified that the question came from Toronto Centre; rather, the question came from the honourable member—

I would also like to extend my very warm welcome to all the members of the Ontario Caregiver Coalition, including the chair, Bhavini Patel; general members who are here, Victoria Freeman, Mark Fawcett; as well as the CEO of Community Living Ontario, Chris Beesley; and a very good friend of mine, Liv Mendelsohn, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence.

I also want to extend my personal and warm welcome to Community Living Toronto—I look forward to your reception this evening.

And a very special welcome to Winston Lee, who is my new intern. I hope you’ve made it into the chamber. I want to say thank you for all you’re doing so far.

Minister, thank you so much for your presentation. Standing on your feet for one hour is not always easy, but you did it extremely well.

Speaker, I want to just bring to your attention—as you know, there were a number of witnesses who came to committee who expressed concerns that there were provisions within the ministerial directives on policies and rules on racism and hate, and they were fearful that it could be a form of political interference on campus. I know you’ve heard this as well. They’ve also expressed concern that this could quash certain types of activism on campus; in particular, Palestinian activism. They also noted that it could threaten academic freedoms, which I know that nobody is really interested in doing.

There were also some witnesses who talked about the powers that the government already has—including the Anti-Racism Act, which is still up and running. Why is the government not using those powers to create subcommittees to address Islamophobia—anti-racism—anti-Black racism and anti-Indigenous racism?

I have a petition to present.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario Place has been a cherished public space for over 50 years, providing joy, recreation and cultural experiences”—

This petition is being submitted by a number of residents who have signed it and, in summary, it is calling upon the provincial government to ensure that any future plans for the redevelopment of Ontario Place is halted and to engage in meaningful consultation with the community as soon as possible.

It’s my pleasure to add my voice of welcome to all those members from the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects, including some allies and friends who have joined us this morning for the reception. This includes Steve Crombie, who is the senior director of public affairs for the Ontario Road Builders’ Association; Andrew Hurd, executive director of the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of Ontario; Joe Salemi, the executive director of the landscape architects; Lisa Kelly, the business development manager of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce; as well as Susan Wiggins, executive director of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, and Jane Welsh, who is a friend and former colleague at the city of Toronto. Thank you very much for all of your work.

Thank you to the member from London–Fanshawe for her excellent presentation.

As you know, the Ontario NDP has never supported any type of provincial carbon tax on regular consumers. We oftentimes have supported the cap-and-trade system focused on large polluters, which is where that focus should be.

When the Ford government proposed a new carbon pricing system by scrapping the cap-and-trade program that the Wynne government had put in, it effectively launched a new carbon pricing system in Ontario—a new provincial tax. That was launched January 1, 2022. Yet there was, on the bill right now, a piece of legislation left over from the 1990s Harris government called the Taxpayer Protection Act, which specifically said that any new tax had to go forward to a referendum. So, in some ways, it replicates what’s already in schedule 5. Yet, we know, in 2022, there was no new carbon tax referendum under the Ford administration.

So can the government bind any government to a referendum if they couldn’t even follow their own rules?