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?

I would like to ask my colleague a question about when the provincial animal welfare service drives around in northern Ontario in the middle of a snowstorm, and it’s minus 30, and sees animals outside. Am I the only one who thinks that those cows should be inside in the middle of the winter when it’s cold?

If the inspector doesn’t know any better—I listened to your speech—what will happen to all of the dairy farmers who safely let their animals go outside if the inspector is like me and didn’t know that cows could go outside in the winter?

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.

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?

Question? The member from St. Catharines.

Well, yes, that’s a different headline.

I would say to call the local union ahead of time. Call that local union, talk to the health and safety folks, know what you’re going to see and go and learn.

So I’m drawing from various personal experiences. I also was very fortunate growing up. Two of my uncles are now retired police officers and have worked in northern and remote areas in various provinces. One of them was very involved in the Torch Run and connecting police with community. I am glad to have learned a bit from them by osmosis. But also, I grew up in a community that was maybe not typical for many folks in Ontario. I grew up in different places, with my dad’s job. I’m not from Oshawa—but I got there as soon as I could—but small-town Ontario, where it was local police that did bike safety things on the weekend, and that was something that I remember doing. Those are good examples of community policing. I was a little girl who grew up and thought if I got in trouble, I would go to the police.

There are a lot of people in this province who do not feel that way. We as a province and we as lawmakers in this room have a lot of work to do, as we’ve talked about, in how people see the police, how the police interact, the tools that they have or that they don’t have and, I will say, the tools and resources that the police have been asking for, for a long time. Since I was first elected until now, we’ve heard from police about the need for specific training as they are recognizing the need themselves.

I remember talking to—it was actually an interim chief in Durham. We were talking about homelessness. We were talking about the challenges faced by folks in our community, and I remember that—and this is not a direct quote, but the spirit of what he said was: As a lot of people are concerned and complaining about the homeless population that are visible, the interim chief had said that we can move them, like we can have them push their shopping cart down the road, but we cannot house them. We cannot give them what they need. And what they were doing—and now this is me—what the folks are doing in downtown Oshawa that are washing their clothes in the fountain, they’re trying to get by. They don’t have a place to live, right? For the people who are constantly interacting with other law enforcement or community agencies, who are struggling maybe with addictions, often with mental health, often with a combination of both, they don’t have a hope in heck if we don’t care about them. If these are underserved folks, we as a province and you as a government need to be investing in the services that people are clamouring for—transitional housing, affordable housing, just the very basics. We’re talking about food bank use increasing. These are people who have needs, but there’s a lot of desperation that goes with that.

What I was starting to say about having served as the critic for community safety and correctional services, as it was named at the time, it was both my responsibility and my privilege to get to know the local police officers, the local police associations, the provincial police association and to have an understanding. Not everybody gets to hear the ugly side of day in and day out. I want to stand here and make it very clear that I respect and appreciate the work done by uniformed officers, by civilian officers, by those folks who work in policing, whether it’s in the nitty-gritty—I’m going to say—nerdy side of the science and forensics who are doing really neat stuff that maybe we see on TV, or the folks who are going into those hotels and are a kind face in Durham region. We have a coalition which I’ll talk about later supporting those who are victims of human trafficking. The police go in as part of a coalition, and they are working directly with people being trafficked. For those who are getting in the car or walking the beat, we’ve got a lot of struggle in Oshawa as many of our communities do, and I want to thank them for their service and I want to thank them for the work that they do.

Some of what I have heard not too long ago when I have met, as we all do, with our local police associations and with officers, there are a lot of staffing problems. I don’t think anyone in this room doesn’t understand that. There are retention problems. There are a lot of officers that are struggling with PTSD. There are a lot of folks who are not getting what they need to return to work, perhaps in a different role, that were needing a more robust plan with earlier interventions.

When it comes to the officers actually out in the community, they’re getting stuck sometimes in hospitals. That ambulance off-load challenge that we all talk about, we know that we run out of ambulances because there isn’t the staffing, there isn’t the space, there isn’t the support that we need in the hospitals. Well, the police officers are finding the same thing. When they are going to a hospital with someone in their care or with them that they have to stay with until that person has been received or admitted at the hospital, until they can leave, they have to sit there, and it can be hours. That is taking officers off the road, and it’s also a struggle for that individual often dealing with mental health to be sitting in that hallway in public basically, right?

There are better ways of doing things. If the government were really looking at strategies to deal with the mess in hospitals, that’s also a piece of this. I hope that the government is listening to the experience of the front-line officers and pulling out some other pieces and how it connects more broadly, like I said, with health care in that regard.

Something else that we had heard from police in our community—staffing problems in the 911 centre. These are folks that are behind the scenes literally answering the phone when we call in an emergency. It is traumatizing. I have heard that they drive to work and sit in the parking lot and cry because the weight of going into work is too much.

When folks are struggling in all nooks and crannies of law enforcement, how are we supporting them? What is it that that support looks like? We’ve got a lot of the—I’m going to say veterans—experienced police, who have learned a lot along the way, who have seen a lot, more than I can possibly imagine, and they are leaving. They’re taking commuted value and they’re leaving.

So we do recognize that we’ve got to have strategies for recruiting and retaining, but while we recognize that as a priority, we also have to have a really good plan for what that looks like to ensure that the officers coming in have what they need to be successful and have what they need so that the other officers that they’re working with are able to work with them and everyone is safe.

I went back in time because, like I said, this bill just dropped yesterday and, surprise, we’re debating it today and tonight and done tomorrow—quick as they can get it done, let’s get ’er done. I went back to some older reports; like I said, an oldie but a goodie. This is from Police Encounters with People in Crisis. It was a 2014 report, a Judge Iacobucci report recommendation. This was to the Toronto Police Service. I’m going to read just a few of them because when we’re talking about staffing and the recruiting of officers, we’re talking about what police forces need and can look like.

One of the recommendations, recommendation number 7, selection of police officers—this was about recruit attributes. The recommendation is that “the TPS,” the Toronto Police Service, “give preference or significant weight to applicants who have:

“(a) Community service: engaged in significant community service, to demonstrate community-mindedness and the adoption of a community service mentality. Community service with exposure to people in crisis should be valued;

“(b) Mental health involvement: past involvement related to the mental health community, be it direct personal experience with a family member, work in a hospital, community service or other contributions; and

“(c) Higher education: completed a post-secondary university degree or substantially equivalent education.”

At the time, the TPS said that they concur, that they will “continue to actively recruit the best available applicants who have community service, mental health involvement and higher education. Typically, 80% of recruits hired by the service hold post-secondary school education credentials.”

They go on to talk about “specific educational programs that teach skills which enable a compassionate response to people in crisis, such as nursing, social work and programs related to mental illness.” This is what they were recommending in terms of recruiting and selecting police officers.

Also, it says, “Recommendation” that “TPS direct its employment unit to hire classes of new constables that, on the whole, demonstrate diversity of educational background, specialization, skills and life experience, in addition to other metrics of diversity.”

It was interesting actually, Speaker, to look at the Toronto Police Service and their comments on these recommendations. I wanted both sides of it, and they concur. Interestingly, at this time—this is 2014 so, yes, it goes back a bit, and they said:

“Of the 226 recruits hired in 2014, 86.7% have a post-secondary school education, 55.3% speak a language other than English, and 28.8% speak two or more languages other than English. In the January 2015 graduation class, three members held doctorates, one in the field of health science.

“Selection processes now probe for those characteristics through documentation, credentials, references and interviews.”

It’s been an interesting read to look at the recommendations from various reports. I think we know that they all are sort of saying the same thing, that it matters; when a police officer is interfacing with an unknown situation, when they are interfacing with someone struggling with mental health needs, that you want officers to have the training, life experiences they had pointed out, diversity of background and relatability—all of those things are optimal. So if we’re moving towards not having that, I would really encourage this government to make sure that they are investing in training that stays in this area, that looks at mental health training for officers.

But, also, a big part of the recommendations in this report but in others—and again, this was from Police Encounters with People in Crisis. A lot of the recommendations are about supporting the police and their mental health. An officer who responds to four baby deaths in a career—what does that do to someone? And if we are not supporting those officers or if the psychological pieces don’t fit anymore, and that officer is expected to just keep going, and there isn’t that layered support, early intervention all the way along, a check-in, if they are able to be brought back to serve—because that’s a big part of identity for anyone who puts on a uniform. There’s an identity piece there. Is an officer going to—I’m going to be flippant here—put up their hand and say, “I’m not okay,” when it risks their uniform, when it means that they can’t be a police officer anymore? I don’t know.

So working with police and figuring out what it looks like for that officer, who says, “I need support. I need help. I’m not okay, and I am not safe to go out into the community in the state that I’m in”—or, excuse me, to have someone else assess that. Is there a place for them in policing, and what could that look like? These are things that we hear from the front lines, we hear from police. Nobody in the community wants an officer who is unwell to show up at an emergency.

Speaker, I am going to take a moment in this last second to say that I have here the Durham region’s human trafficking model. I’ve shared this almost entirely in this House before. I’m on the record about human trafficking, and I’m very pleased that I participated in a ride-along with members from the human trafficking coalition as well as the human trafficking division, the officers in Durham region. It’s really a remarkable strategy that they’re implementing. It really is a remarkable set-up in terms of that collaborative approach.

I went on a ride-along with the officers. I got to see behind the ugly, ugly, ugly scenes of human trafficking, to some extent. I got to go into a situation with a worker from a women’s shelter who works together with police. I got to go in with Karly Church, who is just a tremendous resource in this province. She’s a human trafficking crisis intervention counsellor. I think she is, if not the first, one of the originals to really have a huge impact. And we—it was together with the police, but we supported that survivor in a way that made them not only feel safe but has increased the number of times that a human trafficking victim will testify or will give information, because it is working with community agencies that support them.

So, in this bill, it deals with the judiciary in schedule 3. Much of what we have heard is that judges and folks in the judicial system are slow to understand this. When it was first new, it was a mess, and it continues to need work. I’m glad to see that there is specific training that will continue to be developed for those folks, and there’s of course work to be done.

It’s a pleasure to be here this afternoon again.

I listened intently to the member from Oshawa. We’ve got a couple of things in common; she might not think so. But I also served as the critic in opposition to the Solicitor General. I think it was called public safety then. I had an opportunity to tour a number of institutions and of course meet with police officers.

Just about the experience level—I listened to CFRB earlier this morning. Former commissioner Chris Lewis was on there. He explained his thoughts on lowering the educational requirements. He thinks it won’t be an issue.

And I notice we have quotes here. I’m going to try to read it here with my bifocals. Chief Nishan Duraiappah, president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police—“We need support for police officers in Toronto and across this province.”

“Whether it’s the years of anti-police rhetoric, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or the recent increase in violence against police officers, we are not getting the numbers we need.”

“We think that this is one way to get more recruits from the community. We support these changes in our recruiting office.”

I’d like the member to comment on that.

Questions?

Thank you to the member from Oshawa. Thank you very much for your compassion and your concern about the different officers and how they’re suffering from PTSD. I shared that emotion at one point. I think this is why we are having this special act to strengthen safety and modernize justice. Part of it is that, yes, we will continue to care and show our support for our officers, and at the same time we’re also hiring new and more officers right now.

But I would like to ask, even more so—this bill includes that we have immediate action to strengthen our bail system—is it important for us to include it in this act, in order to keep the violent offenders off of the streets?

Thank you to the member from Oshawa for her speech. I just wanted to point out that the proposed legislation has received approval and support from many policing stakeholders, specifically: “The Toronto Police Association welcomes the Ford government’s investment in community safety and policing. The public has lived with the consequences of an inadequate bail system for far too long, and the resources announced today mean our members will be able to focus their efforts on proactively monitoring violent offenders who wreak havoc on our sense of safety,” said Jon Reid, president of the Toronto Police Association. “We have long advocated for this support, and we will continue to work with the provincial government on the changes that will keep our communities and our members safe.”

Thus, my question to the member from Oshawa: Will you agree with us and support this bill because front-line personnel do keep Ontarians safe, and by supporting the Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, as Jon Reid noted, president of the—