And homelessness.

I’ve said this before: The district of Cochrane, the area covered by the Cochrane social services board—so that’s Cochrane, Timmins and the surrounding area, to the coast—has the highest number of homeless people per thousand in the province. The highest in the province. There is still a couple of feet of snow north of Cochrane. It hits minus 40 degrees regularly in Cochrane. It’s a great place to live but it has its issues. We know that; we live in northern Ontario. So we’re wondering why we have issues there. Let’s look at how to fix that and then we’re going to have fewer issues.

Are we going to solve everything? No. We are always going to need well-trained law enforcement; that’s a fact of life. That’s one of the things about a civil society: You need people to enforce rules and regulations when some people aren’t civil. But it is also the role of civil society, the role of our government, to actually look at the underlying issues, identify them, and try to deal with them.

I’ve had this job for 12 years. I can remember, when I got here, being homeless was a Toronto thing. It was a big-city thing—and it’s never acceptable. I’m not saying it’s ever acceptable, but it was kind of: “Oh, there’s a homeless person there.” But now, there are encampments. The highest level of homelessness in the province is in Cochrane, and we just keep going on like there’s nothing wrong. We talk about spending millions here and we’re spending millions there, but I don’t see it on the street.

I do see that the use of food banks is going up exponentially. That tells me that what the government is talking about and what’s really happening are two different things. There are two Ontarios. It’s almost like there’s corporate Ontario and the rest of us.

I’m veering off the bill, Speaker. I’m going to veer back because I’m self-correcting here. I’m one of those people who doesn’t really need enforcement; I self-correct.

I was coming to the theme of, again, you can’t simply enforce yourself out of a problem, because when you try and do that, you’re just pushing the problem onto someone else. And, without proper community support, one of the groups you’re forcing the problem onto is our justice system, our police officers, our court system—and it’s being overwhelmed now. We need to look at having trained officers on the ground. We need all those things, but we have to also look at the underlying cost. We need to look at that.

I’m going to close on this issue: We need to have people in place who understand local conditions. That’s why people in the country instinctively know that when you lose detachments, when you lose—it’s not that the OPP is not going to try and do their job. That’s not the case. But you’re going to lose your local connection to the community. In my case, Officer Fisher might not have done that. We would have made a lot more news coverage. The only reason that happened is because Officer Fisher was around. He was at local sports events. He knew us, and I think—I’ve never asked him this, and I never asked his permission to use his name either, so I might be in big trouble. I’m sure it might have been frowned upon when he did that, when he went and stepped in, but he trusted his gut because he knew us. It’s really important that we don’t forget that and don’t think that we can control everything from far away.

When the Solicitor General talked in one of the questions about the changes to police boards, that might be a good thing to have them more local. Hopefully, we’ll have some time when this comes to third reading—that we can be a lot more technical. I said it was going to be a pretty high overview on this, because this is what you get in under 24 hours. You get a few good stories. But it’s an issue, an issue that hopefully we can correct here.

In closing, I’d like to thank you very much for your indulgence, Speaker, for your occasional smile and for allowing me to speak.

Madam Speaker, it’s always a pleasure to listen to my colleague. He always has very, very interesting speeches, and I love listening to his stories about how he was a dairy farmer and all that. I just want to thank the member for his comments.

Madam Speaker, one thing that we’re doing with this piece of legislation is—it’s comprehensive legislation that’s focused on making Ontario safer in all aspects: policing, fire prevention and protection, justice and animal welfare. My question is, will the member and will the opposition support our government’s multi-faceted approach to keeping our province safe?

Speaker, through you: This bill creates an advisory council for the provincial police. I know many front-line workers who carry a heavy burden from their experience on the job, police officers especially. Police are responding to situations that are increasingly difficult, like mental health crises. Can you expand on why investing in those training pieces that consider the community and involve the community is so vital?

Speaker, I rise today to join the debate on Bill 102, the Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, 2023, and I am sharing my time with the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler.

This bill aims to modernize community safety and justice systems and build safer communities by transforming policing and other community safety and justice legislation, freeing up court resources for more serious and backlogged cases, and responding to current and emerging challenges. If passed, this bill would be one of the final steps to bringing the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, into force with its regulations, which will replace the current Police Services Act.

Speaker, Ontario and other jurisdictions have seen recent increases in violent crime and repeat offences. Since 2014, we have seen a 9% increase in crime, a 20% increase in violent crime, and a 129% increase in the illegal use of firearms in Ontario. Sadly, we have also seen the alarming rate of domestic abuse and violence against women and children grow. Our justice system must be able to address these societal issues so people feel safe in their homes and in our communities.

As the Solicitor General stated, to uphold our community safety is our most fundamental duty.

Today, the focus of my remarks will be on the changes being proposed in schedule 3 of the Courts of Justice Act and schedule 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act. The Chief Justice will be authorized to establish courses for newly appointed judges and for the continuing education of judges. And the Associate Chief Justice Co-ordinator of Justices of the Peace will be authorized to establish courses for newly appointed justices of the peace and for the continuing education of justices of the peace which will address sexual assault law; intimate partner violence; coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships; and social context, which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination. In order to qualify for appointment as a new provincial judge or a justice of the peace, an individual must give an undertaking to participate in this training. To ensure accountability, the Chief Justice and Associate Chief Justice are to consult with stakeholders, which may include survivors of sexual assault and survivors of intimate partner violence, including Indigenous representatives. And to ensure transparency, no later than February 28 each year, the Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice shall provide a report to the Attorney General setting out the courses covered and the number of judges and justices of the peace who attended each course. The report will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly by the Attorney General. These amendments will go a long way to addressing a glaring gap in our Family Court system.

We are here today in large part due to the tireless efforts of Dr. Jennifer Kagan and her spouse, Philip Viater, who made it their life’s work to raise awareness of intimate partner violence and coercive control, and to advocate for protection of victims escaping abusive relationships.

And I do want to recognize that Dr. Kagan and Mr. Viater are with us here today. Thank you.

When I introduced my motion in the Legislature last November, I shared the tragic story of Dr. Kagan and her daughter Keira, who were victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control by her ex-husband. Though she had left him years earlier, Dr. Kagan worried about the safety of her daughter Keira during his unsupervised visits. She said that the abuse did not stop with separation; it only got worse, and Keira was used as a tool to get claws into her. Dr. Kagan went to the courts seeking protection for Keira and expressed concerns about her ex-husband’s violent behaviour and abuse. She was told by one judge that domestic violence is not relevant to parenting and as a result he was going to ignore it. On February 9, 2020, Keira and her father were found dead at the base of a cliff at Rattlesnake Point Conservation Area in Halton region.

The numbers are alarming. In Canada, a woman is murdered every 2.5 days—ranging from 144 to 178 murders each year between 2015 and 2019. And in 2021, the rate of femicide was trending even higher. Speaker, 44% of women in Canada have experienced some form of violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. And ending the relationship does not end a woman’s risk of death, as 20% to 22% of intimate partner femicides were perpetrated by estranged spouses within the first 18 months of separation. Of the women murdered, 50% were killed by an intimate partner and 26% by a family member. Women account for 80% of reported incidents of intimate partner violence, which affects all ages, races, ethnicities and socio-economic strata. Young women are, in fact, at highest risk, as are immigrants, refugees, Indigenous people, and those living with disabilities.

In my own community, Halton Women’s Place took in 2,200 crisis calls in 2021. Over the same period, Halton police responded to 3,500 intimate partner violence-related calls, laid 2,000 charges and made almost 900 arrests.

The Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses published a report on femicide. From November 26, 2021, to November 25, 2022, 52 women in Ontario died as a result of femicide. According to a report of the Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative, it indicated that from 2010 to 2019, 9% of all domestic homicide victims were in fact children. They were killed in the context of domestic violence.

This month, Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner), has just passed the Senate of Canada. This bill is commonly referred to as Keira’s Law. In the third reading of this bill, Senator Pierre Dalphond recognized that federally appointed judges are only one component of the legal system, and to a certain extent, a minor part of it, and that domestic violence is an issue often dealt with by police officers, social workers, family therapists, provincial judges and crown prosecutors, all regulated by provincial laws.

This is what we are doing here today. The bill represents a critical step forward in ensuring that our justice system can better protect victims of intimate partner violence and hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. By requiring judicial education on coercive control and intimate partner violence for provincially appointed judges and justices of the peace, we can ensure that they have the knowledge needed to appropriately understand the complexities of these cases and ensure that victims and their children receive the support and justice they deserve.

The tragic death of Keira Kagan is a heartbreaking reminder of the devastating impact that intimate partner violence and coercive control can have on women and children. While we cannot undo the loss of Keira’s life, we can honour her memory by taking these historic measures to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future. This will be Keira’s legacy.

This bill is also a testament to the tireless advocacy of Dr. Kagan and all survivors, their families and community-based organizations who have worked to bring attention to the urgent need for training in intimate partner violence and coercive control. I want to thank the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for supporting my motion on the need for training of judges, justices of the peace and other legal professionals in the Ontario Family Court system on intimate partner violence and coercive control. I want to thank them for listening to the voices of survivors of sexual assault, survivors of intimate partner violence and the many organizations in our communities who support those survivors. We all acknowledge these changes are a vital first step and will help keep women and children fleeing abuse safe.

I would like to close with a couple of messages I received about our bill, and they go as follows:

“This groundbreaking law will save lives of women and children, and an abusive partner is an abusive parent, full stop.”

“Praying that this will move forward swiftly and effectively in Keira’s honour, saving other families the devastation of preventable harm and death.”

As members of this House, we can lead on how our society and province treat women and children, and so I ask all members to vote with the government and pass this bill.

I always love when we have a chance to hear the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane’s debate here in the Legislature. I do like the fact that he brings a real-world perspective to some of this, being a farmer and having worked in that industry for many years prior to getting into politics.

I do want to touch on PAWS a little bit. I know that was something that you covered quite a bit in your debate. One of the pieces of this bill is to allow the crown to recoup costs for veterinary services that are incurred while an animal is under their care. I just wanted to get a little bit more of your thoughts on that and whether you think that might also have a secondary aspect to it, where it might actually deter people from doing things wrong or not taking proper care of their animals, to know that they would have to pay back those costs.

Further questions?

Thank you to our House leader for his comments. Safety looks different in different parts of the province. Being from a northern riding, I wonder if my colleague can tell us a little about what the policing needs are in northern Ontario, which can be very different. Maybe in some areas of the province, we need far more police; in other areas, it’s mental health supports. What do things look like in northern Ontario?

Thank you very much for that question. I alluded to it in my remarks that 30% of vacancies are caused by long-term leaves for PTSD. That’s an example of the stress that officers face, but it’s also a warning flag that there needs to be more support so officers can face the issues that they are forced to deal with on a regular basis and are forced to deal with on our behalf.

Is it the sole cause? No. But enforcement is part of the safety mechanism. When there’s not enough enforcement, and people know there’s not enough enforcement, we have the issues that we have.

Also, there are some breeds that don’t do well outside and there are some breeds that don’t do well inside. You need to know that. It’s part of their job.

Thank you.

I recognize the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler.

Thank you, Speaker. It’s an honour to speak after the member from Oakville North–Burlington. Her advocacy on this matter has been incredible. As a member of the private members’ bills committee, I was present when she presented about this issue and she presented with a great deal of passion and dedication. I want to thank her for being so dogged in her advocacy in making sure that we’re aware of this.

Applause.

For some who aren’t as familiar with the role of the judiciary or criminal justice, there may be a concern that this does not go far enough. Why is it not a mandate for specific training? Why are we not intervening in what that training would look like? Those kinds of concerns. And obviously I understand those concerns. We have very, very powerful examples of when notice of these important issues has not been taken. However, what we need to respect and what this legislation absolutely does respect is the role of judicial independence. It’s absolutely vital that, in our system in Ontario, in Canada as a whole, our judiciary be able to make decisions which are, to some extent, conscience-motivated, but ultimately based on the law, and make those decisions without fear of censure by a hysterical public or by the trends of political favour. It’s an incredibly important part of our judicial system and one of the most dramatic differences, frankly, between us and our neighbours to the south and across the border and something that I still believe is incredibly important.

Again, this is why we need to make sure that we are maintaining this. This training will be developed by the judiciary itself, so you don’t want to, for example, have an excessive reliance on social science theories as versus social science data. I believe that, in the way that this is worded and by leaving it to the judiciary, we will be able to have them strike an appropriate balance between providing that type of relevant data and lived experience as versus, as I said, that political trend or social science trend that can be damaging, and that is why we have judicial independence as such an important part of our system in the first place.

However, as I said, there are, again, those who may feel that this goes too far as versus not going far enough. Again, I’m very confident that this government understands the role of judicial independence, and I said that this is why it’s been worded as such. However, in, for example, a criminal case—or really any case before a judge, but I’m more comfortable with the criminal realm—one of the absolute key rules of evidence in a trial or a proceeding is that you can’t bring anything before the court that isn’t brought out through evidence. So the fact that there may be a great deal of data or trends about domestic violence, family violence, coercive control, that type of thing, as a crown attorney, the crown is not permitted to simply make submissions to a justice that that is the case. You are not permitted to provide academic materials or articles in order to support that position. The only way that you can do it is by having an expert in the field actually in court to testify and be cross-examined and, perhaps, introduce it that way.

This is a huge burden on the system. It’s, frankly, impossible for the most part to find somebody that’s able to do that. It’s also completely beyond the powers of the system when we’re talking about, for example, the bail stage. Having anybody able to testify at the bail stage about some of these matters would be very challenging. And, again, this isn’t about in any way forcing the judiciary to be swayed one way or the other. This is about trying to make up for some of the gaps in lived experience that they have.

I can speak very directly and personally about what that can look like. I said this before and, again, I won’t be naming any names, but I have experienced a justice of the peace that, as a result of the Antic ruling, in any domestic violence, even choking, would not award a no-weapons condition as part of the release terms because he said that hands were not weapons and was adamant about that.

In another case there used to be—well, there still is—a mandatory minimum for human trafficking. That’s been ruled unconstitutional a number of times. I was involved in a case where the judge, again, found that it was unconstitutional and went dramatically below the two-year mandatory minimum. In that case, it was a human trafficking case with an extremely violent habitual offender who had been charged and convicted of this type of offence before. He targeted a young woman who was a crystal meth addict. He took her car and her bank cards and her driver’s licence. He brought her to a hotel, and he posted photos of her on back pages. Over the course of the next 24, 30 hours or so, he had about, I think, 25 men visit her in succession. There were times when he was not at the hotel, when he had left, and he never assaulted her himself.

The judge in that situation, in ruling that a two-year mandatory minimum would be cruel and unusual punishment, pointed out in his written reasons that at the end of the day the girl in question, the victim, was able to leave. He wasn’t there. There wasn’t a guard on the door. She was able to leave. And then he went on to comment that, well, because she was able to leave, she didn’t have to be subjected to this unimaginable night of sexual torture and assault, and because this specific accused had not in fact himself raised a hand to her that he had not perpetrated violence on her directly, basically leading up to the decision that, in the scheme of human trafficking, this was more minimal in nature and that, as I said, the two-year mandatory minimum was unconstitutional.

Again, as a crown in that case—you would have to bring an expert in in order to actually testify about the experience of a victim of human trafficking. But unfortunately, as we have all heard, human trafficking, domestic violence, intimate violence continue to be a rampant problem throughout the province of Ontario, and, frankly, our system would crumble if that was a requirement for all cases.

So, what this requirement does is it essentially, I think, flags to the judiciary that we as the representatives of the public, the elected members of the public, feel that this is a significant issue that we would like them to be better informed about, and then when it comes time for them to rule on the merits of the case or make a decision in bail, that that element of conscience and lived experience that judges bring to all of their decisions also includes some of that information that, absent exposure, would not be available to some of our judiciary otherwise.

In summation, I think this is incredibly valuable legislation and it perfectly balances the competing interests here.

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?

I recognize the member from London North Centre for questions.

My understanding of how this is to be rolled out—as I said, judicial independence remains an absolutely essential feature of Canadian justice and not something that should be trifled with, altered, treated with any less than the seriousness that it requires. This training is to be developed by the judiciary. I can say, as somebody who has a great deal of experience with a number of members of our bench, both justices of the peace and judges, the vast majority are extremely caring individuals who already take a lot of this concern on their own initiative. The concept of an evaluation—again, I believe that would remain with the judiciary.

However, the idea here is not that we are attempting to force anybody to ascribe to a specific social theory, but simply that we expand some of that lived experience and that conscience that may otherwise be lacking, simply because of having had dramatically less exposure and experience with this.

In answer to your question, I think it will be left to the judiciary again.

The title of the bill is “strengthening safety.” I can tell you that for the people I represent, whether it is in French River, Markstay-Warren, St. Charles, Killarney, Britt-Byng Inlet, as well as the First Nations of Dokis and Henvey Inlet, they all depend on the OPP detachment in Noëlville. The OPP detachment in Noëlville is in great danger of being closed under your government any day now. It makes the people of all of those communities very nervous.

How can you reassure them that when you bring forward bills that talk about strengthening safety—they all feel that having a detachment where the OPP officers who work there know them, have patrolled the area, brings higher safety. You talk about strengthening safety. How do you link that up with closing a detachment in a rural northern area?

Further questions?

They are. It’s quite difficult. Again, there are good reasons for it to be difficult, because that’s what that judicial independence is, in that we’re not supposed to have the mob rule of the public making these decisions.

But again, the issue there is that it’s difficult to appeal because it’s not exactly a mistake in law or in fact. There’s criminal legislation that specifically prohibits justices and judges from making certain inferences. In sexual assault cases, for example, past sexual history you can’t ask about. You can’t draw an inference about a delay between an assault and actually reporting that assault as the likelihood that the assault happened. That’s enshrined in statute.

But no, something like this is quite difficult to appeal because in some ways, the reasons given are almost an obiter. Again, this is why I think this idea of training is important, and also simply the message that it sends, because our judges are not elected, which is a good thing. But because our judges are not elected and we are, we are the voice of the people. As the voice of the people, this is us flagging this as an issue and saying, “Please pay attention to this and understand it in making your decisions.”

When a person in Ontario is charged with a domestic violence offence, the police complete the ODARA report, but also what they do for bail and going forward is literally every single occurrence report that we can find that exists about that person being involved in a domestic incident if they are charged with domestic assault is included in the prosecution package, which we can actually see. So we are doing a lot of that.

When it comes to Clare’s Law, frankly, I support the concept behind it. It’s not likely to be found constitutional by the Supreme Court, to be perfectly honest, but that’s a discussion for a different time and a different jurisdiction.

Obviously in this case, we are maintaining judicial independence. We are not going so far as to say these theories are absolutely the case, but what we are talking about here is making sure that we are filling in some of the gaps of experience so that in making decisions in these cases, there’s a little bit of a space between judicial notice and simply being aware of a trend, because, as I said, otherwise we are entirely limited to actually bringing in live testimony and evidence, which creates a very significant burden, so this really helps inform our judges.

We’ve talked today about community safety, community policing, which is an incredibly important aspect. However, you need people in order to do that. My answer to that would be, frankly, for the NDP and the member to be loud and vocal in their support of our police officers because, ultimately, having them feel like they’re doing a job that is valued in society will help with our recruitment, whereas if we vilify them, I wouldn’t want to join the police either.

I am pleased to be able to stand here on behalf of my community of Oshawa and on behalf of the NDP to debate this piece of legislation, Bill 102, which is entitled Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act.

Disappointingly, I haven’t had the time I would like to delve into this and connect with community because, as happens with this government, this was tabled only yesterday and here we find ourselves how many hours later debating. Speaker, I will do my best to draw from the conversations and the information I have gathered through the years, and I’m going to be going back to some oldies but goodies when it comes to reports and sharing what I can.

But I will say to the folks at home, and I will say to the community groups and people interested in this bill and in community safety generally, that they can always go onto the Ontario Legislature website, that they can look at this particular bill and sign up to be notified when and if it goes to committee so that they can be notified and bring voice.

Now, this is a really quick process. We’re debating it this afternoon, all through the night, probably, and then it’s likely to pass tomorrow. So it’s quick and dirty and really fast, and it’s disappointing, because I think when it comes to the safety and justice that people are desperate for across communities, it warrants a longer runway and it warrants a longer and more involved conversation, certainly accountability and transparency. And a couple of minutes to read the bill isn’t too much to ask, but here we are.

Speaker, I have had the opportunity in the almost nine years that I have been doing this job to serve as the opposition NDP critic on various files. At one point I had the opportunity to serve as the critic for community safety and correctional services. I was in over my head from day one and loved it. I loved the work that I did in that portfolio. I took it upon myself to be a thorn in the side, frankly, of maybe the corrections ministry. I would just show up at the various jails and probation and parole offices. It was 17 of the jails in the province of Ontario that I knocked on the door of and said, “Hi, I’m here.” They said, “Come back another day.” And I said, “No, I don’t have to,” and I didn’t. I got the tour that ministers historically had not gotten, because when they know that ministers are coming, they would like to roll out the red carpet and paint the walls and transfer some inmates and maybe change things.

I will say that I have appreciated that the Solicitor General has actually raised that issue and discussed that in this House, about showing up and putting eyes on these spaces, maybe without the parade, and I think that’s the way to see it. The way to see it is to actually listen to the front lines, learn from them, see it for ourselves. I would encourage all members: You have the right to just show up at the jail, preferably the front door—

Interjections.

Thank you, Speaker. Through you to the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler: Retaining our front line is important. Health care, policing—across the board, they need to see that we support them. But it is also true that we should be supporting them with tools to do those things.

This bill has left two unaddressed recommendations from the Renfrew county inquest that would have done that, like creating a record of past IPV—inter-partner violent abuse—that is accessible to all police services and considering disclosure of a partner’s history to help avoid inter-partner violence in the first place, like the bill I tabled in 2018 called Clare’s Law.

Do you see those empowerment tools as a way to help police feel safer on the job, help prevent future conflict? And if so, why were they not included in the act that is designed to help retain and recruit police officers?

I had a couple of other questions that I wanted to ask, but after listening to the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler, I have to ask, first of all, is there a judicial review in a case like that, where the crown could appeal the judgment of that judge? He obviously—I’m assuming it’s a “he;” I shouldn’t. That justice would be subject to—that they could review that on appeal? Are they still on the bench?