I’d like to thank the member from Essex for his presentation.

It’s very curious that today we are debating Bill 102, when just last week Bill 91 was passed, allowing for new dog training and trialing areas—something that has been called a sport but also has been very deeply questioned by many animal rights advocates.

In Bill 102, section 6 grants new discretionary powers to inspectors. This allows the inspector to check in on animals who are in distress.

Does the member not think that rabbits, coyotes and foxes that are being tracked and likely torn apart in these fenced enclosures—does the welfare of these animals not matter to the member? Does the member not think that these animals should be checked on for signs of distress?

I’d like to thank the member from London West for her excellent comments. I want to thank her for bringing forward the concerns and requests from front-line officers, especially with regard to permanent, stable funding for the COAST program.

This government ignored recommendations from budget consultations earlier this year, and they really missed the opportunity to commit to support front-line officers by funding COAST within this bill.

My question to the member: Why does COAST make sense from a mental health perspective as well as a fiscal one?

I want to thank the member from Hamilton Mountain for her excellent presentation about the COAST program. It is something that has also been implemented in the London area. It’s a partnership of the CMHA, the London Police Service and the Elgin-Middlesex paramedic services. It’s absolutely brilliant. It was something that was brought forward, as well, during the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs 2023 budget consultations. And yet, this government has chosen not to allocate the funding that has been requested for this program. There’s no dedicated funding for this in the budget. Unfortunately, in the London area, this is a program that is not available at all hours of the day. My question to the member is, why is this government not listening to front-line officers who know the incredible value this program provides to our community?

I’d like to thank the members for their presentation. As the members know, the province is responsible for detention centres and for the safety of individuals, both corrections officers as well as inmates, within those centres. These are a part of our community.

At Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre—recently 9,000 inmates, both present and past, were awarded a $33-million settlement by the province to settle out of a class action lawsuit. Many of the inmates were claiming that their charter rights were violated. There have been many stories about this, and this is well-known to this government and the government prior—about the violence, the overcrowding, the lack of supervision, the poor treatment and many other conditions. This building is far too small. It’s not working for officers; it’s not working for inmates.

My question to this government is, when will this government build a new facility in London and care about community safety?

I’d like to thank the government members for their presentation.

When looking at Bill 102, section 6 grants new discretionary powers to inspectors. Last week, this very government threw the door open for new dog training and trialling areas with Bill 91. Training and trialling is a so-called sport where defenceless animals such as rabbits, coyotes and foxes are tracked and likely ripped apart in a fenced enclosure.

My question is for the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. I want to ask the parliamentary assistant in charge of animal welfare in Ontario: Do they not think that rabbits, foxes and coyotes will be in distress as they run for their lives?

I’d like to thank the member from Oakville North–Burlington as well as the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for their presentation.

I’d also like to thank Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater and Philip Viater for their attendance today.

I’m glad to hear this Legislature acknowledge that domestic violence is relevant to parenting. In the bill, education and training of new and existing judges and justices of the peace is welcome, especially on intimate partner violence as well as coercive control.

My question is to the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler: Could you please describe for me whether or not there will be an evaluation process for this training? Training by itself is not enough. Will these justices be evaluated, and what is the process if one were to fail this training?