I’m pleased to stand in the House today for second reading of the Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023. If passed, the bill would introduce a suite of important new legislative changes to improve community safety and to build upon our previous efforts to transform the justice system.

But before I begin, I’d like to take a moment to thank my excellent colleague the Solicitor General along with his team and ministry staff, for introducing this important legislation as a bundle. I’d also like to thank the stakeholders and the justice partners whose input and perspectives have been key in the development of this bill.

The Solicitor General has spoken about the evolving nature of public safety and crime in Ontario, something we’re all very concerned with, and people’s expectations of how we do justice and how things are changing. They want to see a legal system that works better, that works the way they expect it to—fewer delays, fewer obstacles—but of course as much as we have in this bill, there is more to do and we’ll continue to work for more change.

The changes we’re proposing today, though, in addition to enhancing the safety of communities, will continue to drive this transformation with sensible and responsive legislative improvements. These changes will clarify processes in the courts and the way we deliver certain services.

I want to take a moment here to reflect on the idea of safe communities. When we speak about safe communities in Ontario, it applies to everyone, especially the most vulnerable of our community members. It includes those who are most affected by the root causes of violence and crime, such as victims and their family members. I would like to speak in more detail about one of our proposed changes.

If passed, the change would support survivors of intimate partner violence and sexual assault throughout their involvement with the justice system and help them feel safer during the very challenging process. Madam Speaker, it takes strength and it takes courage to confront intimate partner violence. There are devastating impacts to victims, families and their communities. In my work as Attorney General, I’ve met many victims and many survivors, as well as their loved ones and the front-line workers who support them. Some of these individuals have faced challenges in ensuring the courts understand the risks and warning signs of intimate partner violence and its after-effects.

Within this space, the federal government recently passed legislation enhancing the judicial education provisions under the Judges Act to encourage training on sexual assault for federally appointed judges.

Additionally, there is a private member’s bill, currently, passed unanimously by the House of Commons, and it’s in the Senate, referring to the need for judicial education on intimate partner violence and sexual assault. This bill was spearheaded by the mother and the stepfather—I’d like to introduce Dr. Kagan and her husband, Philip. Without them—I’m very emotional. This is a very, very important piece of the bill. In 2020, young Keira was found dead with her father following an access visit. It’s so important that we acknowledge this tragic story and take action.

That’s what we’re doing today. We’re taking action. We’re proposing changes to the Courts of Justice Act and the Justices of the Peace Act today. The changes, if passed, will support education and training on gender-based and intimate partner violence for provincially appointed judges and justices of the peace, and they would ensure a consistent approach to the way judges are educated about these types of violence and its impacts on their loved ones and their surrounding communities.

There are similar calls to action taking place close to home for some, closer to home for others.

In August 2019, Ontario’s chief coroner announced an inquest into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam. These three women were murdered by an individual whose name I will not mention—a former intimate partner—on September 22, 2015, in the great riding of my friend John Yakabuski. The scope of the coroner’s inquest addressed gender-based violence, intimate partner violence and femicide in rural communities, including police policies and practices as well as policies and practices in the justice system. On June 28, 2022, a total of 86 jury recommendations were presented. These included providing more trauma-informed training and education for all justice system employees who work with intimate partner violence survivors and perpetrators. As a government, we are taking time to carefully review and consider all recommendations in order to provide a whole-of-government response and to ensure meaningful steps can be identified and taken to address these important issues.

The changes we are proposing today are one of many steps forward. By enhancing judicial education about the nature and consequences of gender-based violence, we are continuing to build public trust in our justice system. And, in turn, these changes build upon the good work our government has done so far in developing programs and education to support victims and survivors as they seek access to justice and look for pathways to healing.

Aside from these changes, our work supporting victims of crime also includes promoting continued education for crown attorneys. My ministry’s criminal law division currently offers several courses for crowns during the summer, including a week-long intimate partner and family violence course. The division has also launched an intimate partner violence education page as part of its electronic library, to provide crowns with easy access to all related resources and information about legal developments.

There are also opportunities for continuing education, with a conference focusing on intimate partner and domestic violence every few years for crowns and victims across government. Among other issues, this conference focuses on the effective prosecution and management of IPV cases, and enhancing the support provided to IPV victims and survivors. The 2023 IPV co-leads conference will be held later this year and will focus on many of the training areas identified by the Renfrew county inquest jury recommendations.

Madam Speaker, I want to underscore here the type of education we are proposing as part of the legislation we are debating today. It will fall under the purview of the independence of the judiciary, but we will work with them and we will let them lead to a better outcome. And this must remain the case, given their independence. But I think we’ve struck a good balance with these changes. If passed, they will help victims and survivors have confidence and trust in the justice system while maintaining that crucial independence. We’ll continue to enhance victims services, training and supports through our Victim/Witness Assistance Program and through other programs that we maintain both within my ministry and in other ministries.

So, Madam Speaker, I just want to take a moment again to thank Dr. Kagan and her husband, Philip, for the great work they’ve done to make this possible. Thank you for your leadership.

Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch. I’ll now cede to the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General.

I recognize the Attorney General.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s always nice to see you in the chair. What a great day to debate Bill 102.

Our safety for our community, for our families is so important. Our Solicitor General and our Premier have been at the forefront of this, and I just want to applaud their work to make sure we’re keeping Ontario safe.

As I said, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to provide additional details to Bill 102, the government’s proposed Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023. Our Premier, our government and our caucus believe that the most fundamental responsibility that we have is to keep the people of Ontario safe. Safety is our springboard to attracting jobs, to improving educational outcomes, to making Ontario a province where opportunity continues to thrive.

Ontario isn’t immune to the reality across Canada and around the world. Increases in serious violent crimes, repeat offences and complex cases such as mental health and addictions continue to be a concern. Our response is targeted, tactical and true to our values.

I am proud to stand in this House as parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General and the MPP for Etobicoke–Lakeshore. I am proud to stand here to express my strong support of Bill 102, the Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act.

When I did a survey in my riding just recently, the number one issue was health care, but very close was crime in our community. So for the people of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, I want you to know we’ve heard you, and we are acting.

As colleagues will know, as parliamentary assistant I have been particularly focused on protecting victims of intimate partner violence, domestic violence and upholding the welfare of animals. As you know, I am a mom of two fur babies, Bruce and Edward—I thought I’d get their names out there and in Hansard. That’s why I’m particularly proud to support this bill: because it calls for increased training for judges to recognize situations of domestic abuse, particularly where child welfare may be at risk.

I want to applaud my colleague from Oakville North–Burlington for her private member’s motion in support of this initiative, which initially came forward as Keira’s Law—and I know her family is here today.

When children are not safe, it is our duty to step up and protect them. The Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act adds that much-needed protection. It does so by making amendments to the Courts of Justice Act and the Justices of the Peace Act to provide the necessary education to ensure our courts understand the risk of gender-based violence. Gender-based violence affects children, their families and the broader community. Today we are continuing to take a stand, and this legislation will make a difference.

Bill 102 does more to protect our communities and recognize the heroes who keep us safe. It does so by starting to put the amendments in place in order to bring the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, into force. Ontario’s Police Services Act has not been comprehensively updated in over 30 years. The previous Liberal government had 15 of those years to make the needed updates, and they did not. It is our government, under this Premier and this Solicitor General, that is getting it done.

The Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, represents a generational opportunity to build on the trust between police and the public by treating police with fairness and by enhancing oversight and improving governance, training and transparency. Once in force, the CSPA will:

—empower the new Inspector General of Policing to ensure adequate and effective policing with broadened authority to safeguard compliance with the act;

—require all police service board members to complete training on the roles and responsibilities of the board and its members before exercising their powers and executing their duties;

—require all police officers, special constables, service board members, oversight inspectors and investigators to complete training related to human rights, systemic racism, and the rights and cultures of Indigenous peoples;

—create fairer processes for police and greater transparency by requiring greater independence of adjudicators for certain disciplinary matters;

—improve public confidence by including a more accessible model for police oversight, providing the public with a one-window approach to filing complaints related to policing; and

—provide First Nations with the ability to opt in to Ontario’s policing legislation.

Madam Speaker, none of this can happen without the passing of these amendments that were proposed in this act that we’re discussing today, and I encourage all members of the House to join us in supporting this legislation.

I want to speak further on one of the proposals, the expansion of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission—it’s also called the OCPC, because we in government love acronyms—and its authority after the CSPA comes into force. This is a significant step in making our policing system more accountable. The civilian oversight offered through the commission is a valuable tool to ensure public transparency. Policing is changing and the public has different expectations about how police conduct themselves. These measures will ensure the commission will continue to act after the CSPA is in force in relation to its adjudicative functions, such as the completion of hearings and appeals.

The proposed amendment will allow the OCPC to continue to act in relation to its other functions if prescribed in regulation. Those functions might include investigating allegations of board member misconduct, a function the Inspector General of Policing will assume under the CSPA. It is important work that must be part of a seamless transition to the CSPA—and I think that’s it for acronyms.

Another grouping of the proposed amendments includes changes to provisions relating to recognition and education of police officers. This includes allowing municipal and First Nations officers to be eligible to obtain a King’s Commission on the same terms as an OPP officer. It also includes changes relating to police officer education requirements that, if passed, would provide that a secondary school diploma or equivalent is sufficient education for the purpose of being appointed as a police officer, thereby reducing barriers for those seeking a very rewarding career in policing.

Madam Speaker, I’d be remiss if I didn’t touch on the animal welfare piece, the PAWS Act. This is something I’ve been particularly proud of. I’ve been involved with the government’s work under former Solicitor General MPP Jones since its passing in 2019. Animal welfare is a priority for this government, and I want those watching to know that it is a priority not just for this government, but particularly for me. We were very proud to bring forward some of the toughest penalties in Canada when it comes to animal abuse, and I think we can all applaud that measure here, because our animals have no political stripe and they have no voice, so we’re here to speak for them.

The PAWS Act was welcomed by many animal commodity groups and farm organizations, as it brought with it an updated, more uniform approach to delivering animal welfare enforcement in Ontario. We will be continuing consultations on the PAWS Act to ensure that we cross all sectors, and this includes our farmers and our animal welfare advocates.

Some of the proposed amendments to the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019, in this legislation will be:

—improved recovery for costs incurred to provide care for animals in distress that have been removed by animal welfare services;

—clarified Animal Care Review Board processes; and

—narrowed gaps related to AWS inspector authorities and strengthened protections for animals.

Speaker, I’m going to highlight several of the amendments. A statement of account is issued to an animal owner or custodian when animals are removed by animal welfare services and costs of care for the animals are incurred. The proposed amendments include specifying the types of costs incurred by animal welfare services that are recoverable through a statement of account.

The second proposed amendment would permit the immediate removal of an animal if it is in critical distress. I know many have called the minister’s office requesting this amendment, so I’m really pleased to see it in this legislation. This will address a gap in the current legislation, where animals in need of immediate intervention to prevent serious injury or death may be removed immediately from the owner’s or custodian’s care. I know there are many advocates out there who are applauding that initiative.

A third proposed amendment would create a requirement for owners or custodians to inform animal welfare services when ownership or custodianship of an animal changes in cases where there is already a compliance order outstanding.

The ministry has consulted with some stakeholders on these proposed amendments. Many other stakeholders and the public will also be able to comment on the proposals through Ontario’s regulatory registry. I’m sure that will be on everybody’s website so we can provide comment and feedback.

Our government is committed to building a safe community through policing legislation that enables efficient and accountable policing services to the public and continues to be responsive to Ontarians’ public safety needs. We owe our gratitude to everyone who helps keep us safe: our police officers, our firefighters, our 911 call operators, our correctional officers, our animal inspectors, our paramedics and many others. Passing the proposed Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023, ensures that we continue our progress toward safer communities across Ontario. Madam Speaker, people watching, everyone in the Legislature: Let’s keep Ontario safe.

I recognize the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today, as it always is, to speak to any matter that affects the province of Ontario and its people, and, of course, the people in my riding of Sarnia–Lambton. I want to, first of all, commend the Solicitor General and the Attorney General for their remarks in tendering this legislation, and of course my fellow PA from Etobicoke–Lakeshore for her great remarks. As we all know in this House, she’s a great advocate for replacing the PAWS Act. I know she’s got a great affinity for animals. She mentioned Bruce and—

With that, as the Solicitor General and the Attorney General noted, the primary driver of this proposed Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023, is to introduce legislative amendments necessary to bring the CSPA into force.

I’d like to go through the proposed amendments to other community safety legislation that would modernize and improve the effectiveness of those statutes, specifically, the amendments to the Coroners Act and also the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. Under the Coroners Act, coroners and pathologists already have the authority, under regulation 180 of the Coroners Act, to retain and store tissue samples and bodily fluids obtained during a post-mortem examination undertaken by a pathologist or other examinations undertaken by coroners. The act did not contemplate the retention of DNA materials for purposes beyond the needs of a coroner’s investigation when the act was first written. Nor did it anticipate medical advances that could lead to the need to retain tissue samples for other purposes, like DNA testing, in the future.

The proposed amendment would enable those regulations to govern the collection, retention, storage and disposal of the tissue samples by the office of the coroner and the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service for purposes that may go beyond the immediate needs of the coroner’s investigation.

The Fire Protection and Prevention Act, otherwise known as the FPPA, creates the framework for fire protection in Ontario, including municipal responsibilities for fire protection services and cost recovery of the same. Currently, there are gaps that exist within the FPPA’s cost recovery provisions related to immediate authorizations to close. In addition, language in the current FPPA allows for only one deputy fire marshal, when demands of the Office of the Fire Marshal call for multiple deputies. I think the Solicitor General touched on that in his remarks.

The proposed amendments support municipal and provincial cost recovery, allow for the appointment of multiple deputy fire marshals and support efficient tribunal operations.

Specifically, a proposed amendment would close gaps in the FPPA’s cost-recovery provisions by allowing municipalities and the province to use property liens and the Provincial Land Tax Act, 2006, respectively, in order to recover costs in authorization to close cases.

The amendments would also allow the Fire Safety Commission, otherwise known as the FSC, to consider whether costs were associated with the immediate authorization to close related actions when considering appeals to orders to pay costs.

A second proposed amendment, if passed, would allow for more than one deputy fire marshal, so that the duties of the fire marshal can continue to be executed when the fire marshal and another deputy fire marshal are unavailable due to other work assignments.

In addition, a third proposed amendment would strengthen efficiencies at the FSC. The FSC, the Fire Safety Commission, is an independent, quasi-judicial agency that resolves disputes and conducts hearings regarding fire safety matters, including orders made by inspectors or the fire marshal for repairs, alterations or installations to a building, structure or premises. I’m going through that, actually, at this time, Madam Speaker. This brings to mind, we’ve had a number of dwelling—multiple dwelling fires in Sarnia–Lambton. I’ve got residents who are out of that residence because they were judged unsafe to return till there were repairs made. So this would speak to that directly.

The proposed amendment would strengthen efficiencies by extending the time to appeal an order beyond the current 30-day period due to exceptional circumstances, and eliminate the three-member quorum requirements so that appeals before the commission can be heard by a single member. With the number of appeals that are going on, it’s hard to get a quorum of three members, so this would be a really big improvement.

Madam Speaker, protecting animals in distress, leveraging emerging science to improve the death investigation system and improving the administrative essentials of fire safety and fire prevention are critical components of Ontario’s public safety framework.

Taken together, the proposed amendments in Bill 102 are the basis to drive forward modernization of community safety, make operational improvements where needed and continue to be flexible and responsive to the safety concerns of a broad range of stakeholders.

As the Solicitor General and our Attorney General alluded to earlier, Premier Ford and this government see the importance of this—we move safely on this and other matters under community safety.

I ask all of the honourable members to take all of this into consideration and support the proposed Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023.

With that, Madam Speaker, I’ll yield the floor.

Edward.

I recognize the member from Sarnia–Lambton.

The member from Simcoe–Grey.

I want to thank the Solicitor General and the Attorney General for bringing forward this bill, which I think has a lot of great stuff in it. I’m particularly excited about the changes to intimate partner violence and judicial education. I just wanted to ask the Attorney General how this will work and how we expect it will make a difference for victims of intimate partner violence.

Questions?

Thank you very much for the presentation. I will start by saying that we absolutely agree that we need to be supporting all of our front-line heroes. I do have questions about some of the things you could have put in this bill that would have supported them.

But I really do want to focus on the fact that, four years ago, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, looking into the broken trust report looking into the actions of Thunder Bay Police Service, recommended the province establish a forensic pathology unit in Thunder Bay. It found that a number of autopsies that were conducted in Toronto were having an effect on police investigations, particularly those deaths affecting Indigenous people.

Really, this is an issue of access to justice. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General: Will this government commit to funding autopsy care in Thunder Bay to restore the faith of Indigenous people in death investigations of their loved ones?

I want to thank the member. It’s something that’s very personal to me because when I went to Thunder Bay, I understand that the relationship that the office of the coroner has with the great hospital in Thunder Bay is coming to an end. So we’re looking at finding a way to extend this. Yes, you’re correct, we want to look for a permanent solution. This is something that my ministry is looking into, and I’m actively pursuing options. But thank you for the question; it’s a great question.

I have to say, I was pleased to see Keira’s Law enveloped into this bill because, as the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore would agree, when children are not safe, it is our duty to do something about it.

Would the members opposite not agree it’s the same thing with vulnerable people who go missing and that this would have been a prime opportunity to add vulnerable missing people into legislation and that the government had the ability to do so?

I’d love to hear from the Solicitor General his thoughts on Bill 74 and the Missing Persons Amendment Act.

My question to the Solicitor General: I listened carefully to your hour lead, and I agree with you that we owe so much—your words—to the people who keep us safe, the people on the front line. You referenced firefighters. I know that I brought up in the House the other day a firefighter from Welland, Captain Craig Bowman, who now has esophageal cancer, and he is palliative. He’s being denied presumptive coverage by WSIB because rather than 25 years, he has only been a front-line hero for 22.5 years.

What will this bill do for Captain Craig and his family?

It’s always an honour to be able to rise in the House and today on Bill 102, An Act to amend various Acts relating to the justice system, fire protection and prevention and animal welfare, as the critic for the Solicitor General. I think the one thing I’d like to open with: The Official Opposition, under Marit Stiles, and I think the government as well, all want to improve community safety. We perhaps have different visions of how to do that, but we all want to do that.

Before I go through the bill, I want to lay out a few facts. This is a technical bill, and it makes some important, relevant changes. It was introduced, I believe, yesterday. I’m not complaining. These are the facts for us, so we live with the facts. But it was introduced yesterday. It’s technical. The Solicitor General’s lead and the government’s lead was an hour ago. I listened intently. I like to listen to what people are talking about—people who have had time to study it; people who have made changes they feel are relevant, have had their ministries look into it.

It’s our job to give credible critique. Quite frankly, it’s impossible to give credible critique on 12 hours’ notice, so it’s going to be a very high overview of this bill.

Both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General—I’ve dealt with them many times, and they are thoughtful people, but the way that this bill has been presented to the people’s House is not thoughtful at all.

There have been other bills where at least the lead, the hour from the government, is done on a different day, so that gives you some time to actually listen to what the ministers say and think of tough questions. It’s our job to look for problems, because, as the parliamentary assistant said, no legislation is perfect, and if we can help find something, that’s a benefit to Ontarians.

The way that this bill is being put through the House—we will likely vote on second reading tomorrow—is not a benefit to Ontarians. It’s not using this House and the official opposition at their full potential. I can understand that the government perhaps doesn’t want us to do our job—and we will do our job despite the roadblocks that the government is seemingly trying to put in front of us. I don’t believe that the members sitting here, regardless of side, want to do that, because deep down, we all want the best for Ontarians. But that’s actually not how this bill is being presented.

There are many people and many organizations that are impacted by this bill—all Ontarians, but many individual organizations. We’ve reached out. They don’t even have time to call us back. So I don’t know how much consultation the government has done with some of these organizations, but they haven’t allowed the official opposition the benefit of that, or Ontarians.

There’s a reason we have an owl and an eagle on two sides of this House—especially on technical bills, on issues that impact everyone, on policing, on fire safety.

I’m going to talk a little bit later on the PAWS Act. We all voted in favour. All the livestock groups voted in favour. There are issues with the PAWS Act. They’re not reflected in these changes. Why not?

So that’s what I’d like to open with—that in this Legislature, the government could do a lot better at how it actually puts bills forward. I think you would find that the Legislature would be less fractious if that was actually the case. When the government puts bills forward under such short notice that it is physically not possible to actually contact stakeholders and have them turn around and tell us what their issues are with a bill, you think that somebody is trying to hide something. I’m not sure that’s the case, but you’re always looking for that, and perhaps for no reason.

If I go to buy something from a business and the push is really hard—“You’ve got to sign now”—I often walk away; I just don’t trust it. That’s the same feeling I’m getting. “We hope that the opposition fully supports this.” We have not had 24 hours to look at it. I wouldn’t buy a used car from somebody with that pitch. That’s a problem. But with this bill, it’s a big problem.

Anyway, let’s go talk about the bill and talk about the issues surrounding the bill. I’m going to try to follow the schedules as they’re presented in the bill. The first part of the bill, schedule 1, talks about community safety and policing. I think we all want to see safe communities. We also want to have—I think everyone wants police officers to be safe as well. They play a critical role in our society. They don’t play the only role in community safety, but they play a critical role.

I think everyone knows this: I often tell personal stories in this House as a way—well, to fill up the hour. I tell it like it is, okay? But I have a reason to tell them too: There’s usually a moral at the end of the story.

Everyone knows I was involved in this big issue locally, and we did some things that I probably wouldn’t do now. One time, I organized a protest, and we blocked the train for two hours. We let the police know before we did it, and 80 tractors—we parked our tractors on the tracks in my hometown. It was very tense, not with the local police, but it was a big issue in our area at the time, and there were tactical police officers. I don’t know what their exact term is, but there were tactical police officers, a lot of them.

This question is addressed to the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. I know that you are an animal lover. How do the proposed amendments related to the Animal Care Review Board balance the enforcement powers to strengthen protections for animals while affording flexibility to owner-custodians?

As for the mechanics of this, the way that we envision it working is that, as individuals apply to be a justice of the peace or a judge, they will undertake to take training if appointed so that they then have a legal obligation to follow through and take the training. The training will be designed by the judiciary, as it is now, and I do have to say that the Ontario Court of Justice does have a quite good program in this regard. But we want to make sure that all individuals who become judges and justices of the peace take the training so that they are equipped with the knowledge and the experience, the lived experience of others, so that they can better adjudicate our communities and make sure that they are reflected in the important parts of those that come before them and the lived experience of those individuals.

In this bill, there is a change which effectively ends the OPP Governance Advisory Council, which was set up to ensure that needs and priorities of various populations in Ontario are served by the OPP. When our researchers dug in, we couldn’t see any reason for the elimination of this council, given that having import on those issues would be to the advantage of the people of this province.

Can one of the speakers today tell us why this council is being taken away?

Further questions?

Further debate?