I want to begin by thanking the minister for acknowledging the finding of terrorism in the justice’s ruling on the murder of four members of our London family. It has been an emotional and painful time for Muslims across this province and in my own community. While this verdict cannot begin to fill the void left by such a senseless act of violence, it is an important step toward justice and closure.

I rise on behalf of the official opposition to commemorate a sombre anniversary. February 24 marks two years since Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukrainian sovereignty and peace, a brutal escalation of a 10-year conflict that has tested the spirit and resilience of the Ukrainian people. The horror and disbelief experienced around the world that day has been followed by awe and admiration for the bravery, determination and commitment to freedom of Ukrainian women and men.

The two years have taken a devastating toll. The United Nations reports that more than 10,000 civilians have been killed and 18,500 injured since Russia launched its full-scale attack. Almost 15 million Ukrainians, about 40% of the population, require some form of humanitarian assistance and are struggling with PTSD, depression, anxiety, stress and sadness. Four million people are displaced internally, and more than six million are living as refugees globally.

As we sit in the quiet of this chamber today, sirens are sounding in Ukraine. Every day, people are injured and killed. Every day, people are losing their homes and their jobs, and forced to go without access to heat, electricity, water or sanitation. The devastation of war is visible across Ukraine’s beautiful countryside, and immense damage has been done to Ukraine’s infrastructure and wonderful cultural assets: its heritage buildings, its works of art, its creative and cultural spaces.

But despite the overwhelming challenges, despite the fear and uncertainty and the fatigue of war, the Ukrainian identity is strong and the Ukrainian spirit is not broken. Families are carrying on, schools have adapted, businesses have found ways to operate and cultural expressions of resistance have flourished. These inspiring stories of courage, resilience and solidarity have resonated around the globe, reminding us that Ukraine’s fight is not just for the land, but for its right to self-determination as a free and sovereign state, which is why we must condemn Russia’s actions and continue to stand with Ukraine.

In my community, Londoners will gather at a rally on Saturday to show support for our Ukrainian friends, neighbours and co-workers. London has long been home to a thriving Ukrainian community. This past October, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress’s London branch celebrated their 70th anniversary in combination with the 65th anniversary of the Western University Ukrainian Students’ Association.

It is important that we take time in our ridings and in this Legislature to show Ukrainians that the world is still watching; we have not forgotten. Since the Russian invasion in 2022, London’s Ukrainian community has worked tirelessly to raise support for relief efforts for the people still on the ground in Ukraine. They are running events to educate and inform Londoners about the invasion and helping approximately 6,000 refugees of the conflict make a new home in London and across southwestern Ontario, all while hosting the cultural celebrations, family and youth programs, holiday events, markets and food sales that bring so much richness to our city.

London has been privileged to host thousands of Ukrainian refugees, and they have already made a lasting impact in our community, but most of those seeking safety here did not imagine that they would still be in Canada in 2024, watching their phones for updates from family and friends at home or displaced around the world.

On this solemn anniversary, let us commit to working toward a future where conflicts are resolved not through acts of terror or the barrel of a gun, but through dialogue, diplomacy and respect for international law; a future where every nation’s sovereignty is respected, where people can live in peace, without fear of terrorist acts or aggression, and where the ideals of freedom and democracy are upheld and cherished.

I want to thank the government members for their presentation. Several of the members talked about schedules 3 and 5 of this bill, which enact Keira’s Law, the federal legislation that was passed recently. Certainly, that is something that we in the official opposition strongly support.

My question to the government is, when gender-based-violence advocates were calling for stand-alone legislation to implement training for justices and justices of the peace, why did the government decide to bundle those provisions in this bill? And why did they ignore many of the recommendations—most of the recommendations, if not all of the recommendations—that were made by the Mass Casualty Commission, a broad examination of policing in Canada, and also the 86 recommendations of the Renfrew county inquest? Implementing some of those measures would have really made a difference for victims of intimate partner violence.

I am pleased to rise today to participate in this debate on private member’s motion 19. Certainly this is a motion that the official opposition is pleased to support. It calls on the government to promote and ensure the availability of continuing education seminars for professionals in Ontario’s Family Court system.

Now, in saying that this is a motion that we can support, I want to point out the contrast between the contents of this motion that was tabled since the election and the recommendations that were made by the coroner’s jury to the province of Ontario following the murders of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam in Renfrew county several years ago. In particular, I want to highlight recommendation 8, recommendation 28, recommendation 29, recommendation 31, recommendation 42 and recommendation 57, that all dealt extensively with training in our justice system.

Recommendation 8 requires “that all justice system participants who work with” intimate partner violence “survivors and perpetrators are trained and engage in a trauma-informed approach to interacting and dealing with survivors and perpetrators.”

Recommendation 28: “Review existing training for justice system personnel.”

Recommendation 29: “Provide professional education and training for justice system personnel ... which should include”—and then there’s a long list of content recommendations for what the training must include.

And then recommendation 31 is to “track whether mandated” intimate partner violence-related “professional education and training is completed by all justice system personnel.”

It’s one thing to promote and ensure the availability of training; it’s quite another to mandate training for all those who are involved in the Family Court system.

I just want to remind members—I think it was about a year and a half ago or so—that we debated in this place Bill 207. That was amendments to the Children’s Law Reform Act legislation that was brought forward by the Attorney General to recognize the fact that many of the cases that come before the family courts involve families where one partner, typically the woman, has been experiencing violence at the hands of the other partner, typically the man, and so the Family Court system is involved in making custody decisions.

At the time, Luke’s Place from Durham region presented to the committee and they made some recommendations to this government that were endorsed by a long list of women’s shelters and sexual violence agencies and gender-based violence agencies. One of those recommendations that was endorsed by all of these agencies involved in the violence against women sector was that “family law services, courts, and legal advisers must complete family violence and family violence assessment training and practice requirements.”

Unfortunately, at the time that Bill 207 was debated the government chose to ignore the recommendation to make that training mandatory. It appears that in the motion that is before us today, the government still wants to leave it up to the professionals involved in the court system to decide whether they’re going to participate in this training. We know from the inquest that was conducted in Renfrew that making the training mandatory is critical.

I also wanted to highlight a couple of other recommendations that were included in the coroner’s report, and in particular, recommendation 18, that says, “Recognize that the implementation of the recommendations from this inquest, including the need for adequate and stable funding ... will require a significant financial investment,” and they call on the government to commit to providing such funding.

Unfortunately, Speaker, we have not seen this government commit to coming to the table to provide the stable funding, the ongoing funding, that organizations that provide intimate partner violence support services need to help survivors navigate the justice system. In fact, we see an exemplary program, the Family Court Support Worker Program, which provides assistance to survivors as they navigate the Family Court system. We have seen that program—that funding is provided year after year. Agencies have to reapply. They never know whether the minimal dollars that are allocated are going to be there.

So providing the supports, making the training mandatory: That is what is going to have a meaningful difference for survivors of intimate partner violence in Ontario.

My question is for the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, and it’s specific to schedule 2.

Earlier this fall, a number of lawyers from every law firm in the city of London sent a joint letter to the Attorney General about the crisis in civil litigation trial backlogs in London. Trials of over two weeks have been told that there’s no prospect at all of being heard until 2024. As the minister would know, these civil cases affect many of the business concerns that you are supposed to be interested in: business disputes, banking, bankruptcy, employment and labour, contract disputes, property disputes etc. Those lawyers called for the appointment of two more Superior Court justices in the region and two more justices in London.

Is schedule 2 the answer to London’s crisis and court backlogs—to increase the time for retired former provincial judges to serve?