I would like to thank the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North for her presentation.

Has the member seen the number of emails from people who have been subject to above-normal rent increases because of this government’s deliberate removal of rent control?

Further questions?

It’s always a privilege and a honour to take my seat on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin, I’m going to try to bring a little bit more of a positive outlook, particularly from the lens of northern Ontario and the approach that I’ve received from individuals across my riding.

I like to always give credit where credit is due, and I want to start by giving credit to Bill Orford and Mike Johnston, who are both from the Manitoulin-North Shore federation of agriculture. They approached me in regard to Bill 97, which is a comprehensive bill with seven particular schedules. I’m going to be focusing my discussions today on one or two of these particular schedules. When they approached me, there was some grave concern in regard to some of the changes that this government was looking at and the impacts it was going to have on the agricultural sector. Their major concerns were the severance of the farm parcels that will increase conflicts with non-farming neighbours and limit future farm business growth and expansion. They also had some concerns with loss of protection of specialty crop lands, particularly with livestock, and also urban boundary expansion without community demonstrating needs. These were very well highlighted. And I want to give credit to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, National Farmers Union of Ontario, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission, Beef Farmers of Ontario, Ontario Pork, Egg Farmers of Ontario, Ontario Sheep Farmers, Veal Farmers of Ontario, Chicken Farmers of Ontario, Ontario Farmland Trust, Turkey Farmers of Ontario, Dairy Farmers of Ontario, and the Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance. These are the individuals who deserve a lot of the credit as to why certain changes that we hope—that we hear the government is going to be bringing forward.

Again, I’m one who likes to look at things in a positive way, and I’ve heard on a couple of occasions over the course of this week that the Premier is prepared to listen to these organizations and move in a direction that will start answering some of their questions and really addressing their concerns. It’s one thing saying it; it’s another thing doing it. So I will, as well as these organizations, watch what the government will be doing over the course of the next few days or weeks to make sure that these changes actually happen so that there is no negative impacts on the farming community.

At the same time, when I met with Bill and Mike on Manitoulin Island—and I think it’s important that you here in the House understand the contributions that come directly from Manitoulin Island and that snapshot, and along the North Shore. On the island and on the North Shore, there are 189 farms; there’s 112,315 acres of farmland—they are over 280 acres, which is an average-sized farm. They provide, as far as local farm sales—24% sell farm products directly to the consumer. Three farms operate with community-supported agriculture. Eight farms sell at farmers’ markets, and 38 farms sell directly from their farms at stands or pick-your-own. As far as their contribution, based on numbers, to the economy in 2021, the local agri-food sector employed 650 people through 178 local agri-food business establishments, with $20 million in farm cash receipts, and they were placed top three in cattle, dairy, and grain and oilseed.

Across the province, you are looking at farm cash receipts generated by local farms—supported by $44 million in the GDP and 655 employees in the agri-food sector, from farm to fork across Ontario. Just in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin—and this was just the North Shore in Manitoulin Island—they are providing some significant contributions to the GDP of this province. So when they come to the table—again, I am one who likes to look at the positives and hope that the government is actually listening to them—it begs me to ask a different question. I am happy that they listened to the farming and agricultural sector, but there are many other occasions when this government should have been listening to people from this province. There were many other opportunities and many other pieces of legislation that weren’t given the same attention as this group was.

It’s important for the farming community to know that, banding together, doing the efforts that they have done, they have caught the ear of this government. It sets a very good example for other organizations and affected individuals across this province of how to approach issues that affect them negatively.

The one thing I do want to say is, based on this—the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force said that there were plenty of lands that were already existing, to build up areas on undeveloped land outside of the greenbelt. The government recently approved more than 14,000 hectares of land for urban development and municipalities in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area that are not farmland and protected lands. We heard from students who came to the committee and actually demonstrated to this government that there were plenty of available lands ready to develop.

I am looking at this government. There are plenty of opportunities for development across this province. Do not touch the greenbelt. Do not put our food security for this province—because not only are we being affected by this, but the global world, people across this country are looking at what Ontario is doing. They are really looking at the decisions we are making with this pristine basket of land that we have in this province, because if we tamper with it, if we build on it, that land is gone forever. It’s not just housing that is going to go there. There is going to be some further development that is going to be there. We’re going to lose more lands to roads. These are things that will really hinder our food security, going forward, in this province.

Again, on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin, it is always an honour and a privilege to stand here and voice their concerns on the floor of the Legislature.

I’m listening to the member opposite, my colleague from Thunder Bay, speaking with regard to this bill not having any funding in it for affordable housing. We addressed that in our budget document. We increased the Homelessness Prevention Program funding and the Indigenous affairs funding by $202 million.

We saw in Thunder Bay that the amount of money has increased by over $10 million—almost tripling the money for affordable housing and assisted housing in Thunder Bay. I just wanted to point out that you do recognize that that investment has been made, although it’s not in this bill.

I was saying neither one nor the other. What I was saying is that there is a two-year wait, and that the reason there is such a long wait is because the Conservative government removed many of the people who were there and then took years and years to appoint new adjudicators.

What the Ombudsman’s report says clearly is that it takes time for adjudicators to be trained, and that is part of why there are so many delays in getting hearings at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

What we have is many, many people coming into our region who are hoping to find a place to live, who are hoping to find work, but often they are coming with nothing, with no supports at all, so it is very difficult.

I have some optimism toward the government’s plan—which is not yet a part of this bill—to support housing for our homeless population. I do have some optimism there, but I don’t see anything in this bill itself that contributes to solving that problem.

Point of order.

Bruce, it’s great to see you in the people’s House. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Ontario.

Per year.

It’s an honour to rise this afternoon for the third reading of Bill 97, the Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act. I want to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the associate minister and the parliamentary assistant and their team for all their work on this bill.

Speaker, before I begin, I should note that I will be sharing my time today with my friend the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

As the minister said, this is another bill that will help support our government’s goal to build 1.5 million homes by 2031, including 120,000 in Mississauga. It will continue to lay the foundation for growth to build the housing that we desperately need.

Speaker, I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating that Canada has the least housing per capita in the G7, as Scotiabank reported in 2021: There were an average of 471 homes per thousand people across the G7; in Canada, there were 424; in Ontario, it was under 400; and in the GTA, we had only 360 homes per 1,000 people. At the same time, Ontario grew by 445,000 people in 2022—more than every US state, including faster-growing states like Florida and Texas. Just to stay at 400 homes per 1,000 people, Ontario would need 178,000 more homes for their 445,000 new residents in 2022. And this growth will only continue with the new federal immigration targets to bring 500,000 people to Canada each year. Of course, we know that most of them will come to Ontario and the GTA.

Many years of neglect under the previous government and many years of mayors and councillors pandering to NIMBYism and BANANAism—far too many Ontario families and new Canadians are being priced out of the housing market, through no fault of their own. I spoke about some of them on Monday who have given up hope and are looking for housing outside Ontario.

But we are making progress. As the minister said, in 2021, there were over 100,000 housing starts in Ontario, which is the highest level since David Peterson was the Premier in 1987; last year, there were almost as many: 96,000 housing starts, 30% higher than the average over the last 20 years. There were also 15,000 rental housing starts last year, which is the highest level in Ontario’s history. As the minister said, there are more cranes in Toronto right now than there are in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Seattle, and San Francisco combined. Still, we recognize that there is much more to do.

If passed, Bill 97 would help to speed up the approval process for new housing by updating the provincial policy statement and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, to create a single province-wide land use planning policy document with a special focus on housing. The public consultation on this began on April 6, and I want to thank the minister for extending the comment period from 60 to 120 days. I urge everyone to read the policy. It is available online at the Environmental Registry, and you can submit your comments until August 4. Michael Collins-Williams, the CEO of the West End Home Builders’ Association, said this proposal “will help get shovels in the ground faster.” He said, “These policy changes will move us towards more of the only thing that really matters”—building more homes.

As I said on Monday, Mississauga is Ontario’s third-largest city, but over the last 10 years, the city approved an average of 2,100 new homes each year, far below the 12,000 we need. Mississauga was the only major city in Canada to actually shrink in the last census—from 722,000 in the 2016 census to 718,000 in the 2021 census. We were the sixth-largest city in Canada, but we have fallen to the seventh, behind Winnipeg, which grew from 705,000 to 750,000, or about 9,000 each year. On Monday, I said that’s the growth we need to see in Mississauga. Mayor Hazel McCallion understood this. Our city grew by about 12,000 people each year for 36 years under her leadership, but we have lost almost 1,000 people every year under Mayor Crombie. In the Globe and Mail, Oliver Moore wrote that the city is “shrinking because of deliberate municipal policies.” He said that the hollowing out of our neighbourhoods makes it harder to run businesses, fill schools or justify spending on city priorities. This week, we’re granting the city’s request for independence with Bill 112.

But as I said on Monday, we need all levels of government, including our municipal partners, to do their part and allow more homes to be built where it makes sense, where there are existing services, infrastructure and transit. We expect the city of Mississauga to keep their pledge of at least 120,000 new homes over the next 10 years. But this message might not have been received, because later on Monday night, the Mississauga planning and development committee rejected more applications for new housing, including 530 new units and a daycare centre in a shiny tower on a transit corridor, just south of the Port Credit GO station, just west of the Port Credit LRT station and just east of the Mississauga Transit bus terminal. There would be three transit lines about 30 to 40 metres away from this building. The councillors were actually concerned that the building might be too close to the Lakeshore West rail corridor. Mayor Crombie said last night that she’s not opposed to building height and density “in the right locations,” but it’s hard to think of a better location.

As the minister said, many years of NIMBYism and BANANAism have created Ontario’s housing supply crisis. Our government is fighting back, and we will continue to use every available tool to support the construction of new homes that Ontario families need and deserve.

Speaker, we also recognize that renters need help, and I’d like to take a moment now to speak about schedule 7 of Bill 97, which would strengthen the protections against renovictions and also clarify the right of tenants to install air conditioning.

As Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario president Tony Irwin said, “From protecting tenants’ ability to use air conditioning as we approach the summer season to enhancing right-of-first-refusal protections after renovations, to doubling fines for bad apple operators, the NDP should have no reason to vote against this bill.”

Bill 97 and the changes to the regulations the minister has proposed in regulation 332/12 would also freeze 74 provincial fees to help reduce the cost of housing. This includes fees related to new developments like land use planning and building fees, including fees related to the building code and Ontario Land Tribunal and fees paid to renters and landlords at Tribunals Ontario. Again, this is only one of many steps this government is taking.

In closing, again, I want to thank the minister and his team for all their work on another important bill to help increase the supply of housing to provide more affordable options for Ontario families. I hope that all members will support this bill going forward.

In my own riding of Mississauga–Lakeshore, there is a lot of NIMBYism and BANANAism going on there—that we cannot be building buildings at a GO train station. That’s where we should be building more density, but there are a lot of community groups that are against that, and I really do not know why.

We’re going to continue building the homes for our children and our future immigrants who are coming to this country.

Speaker, I have tons of respect for the member who just asked the question. We get along. If we would be alone in a room, we’d probably resolve a lot of the things that are debated on the floor of this Legislature.

The comment that I was making is, this government’s own Housing Affordability Task Force that was implemented actually told this government that the lands that are required in order to build additional homes are already available. We don’t need to go onto the greenbelt. That was the point that I was stressing through a lot of my presentation today—there’s already available lands, plenty of room to build on. Let’s use those lands before we go anywhere else or we consider anything else, because putting the greenbelt in harm’s way is going to be a loss forever.

So when the farming community is coming out to the government and saying, “Hey, you should reconsider these actions because they’re going to negatively impact not only me, but the future of the farming community and those who are coming in behind me, like my children who are looking at building their own farms or coming into the field”—and the changes that this government was proposing were going to increase costs on them immensely.

The member from Algoma–Manitoulin talked quite a bit at the beginning of his speech about farms and farmland. The dairy farmers are here at Queen’s Park today; I encourage you to go and visit them. He has a big dairy operation in Algoma–Manitoulin, Farquhar’s Dairy. They need land to have pastures for those cows that give us the milk, that feed the people of northern Ontario, including in my riding. Farquhar’s is a very well-loved milk producer.

I was wondering if the member could share with us the importance of listening to farmers. They are the ones who feed our communities, who feed our cities. They were not listened to. I would be curious to see what the member has to say about that.

Questions?

I want to thank the member from Algoma–Manitoulin for his address today.

This morning, Minister Clark, in his very, very good opening remarks, talked about housing starts being at a 30-year high and rental starts being at an all-time high. Last year, more rental starts—and this year, we’re on target to even exceed that. This year we’re doubling—double, already ahead, from the trend of last year. So our plan is working.

I ask the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, when a plan is working and the most important thing right now that people talk about all the time is building more homes, as the population of our province is up to 15 million people—400,000-and-some came here last year. It’s absolutely paramount that we build more homes.

Are you telling me today that you can’t support our housing supply action plans, when you speak today in this Legislature, or can you support them because it is of paramount importance that we build those 1.5 million homes?

I know there’s not much time left, Speaker, and I’ve got to figure these things out better—where I put myself into the timing and the lineup—but I did want to comment on a couple of things before you shut me down.

I heard the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North talk about—she says supply and demand is a myth. Well, I’m going to put this to you: If it’s a myth—and I want you to sleep on this tonight. If you’ve got 10 shovels and 50 people want to buy a shovel, are those shovels going to cost more than if you have 50 shovels and 10 people want to buy the shovels? The reason I’m asking about shovels is because what they’re trying to spread over there—there aren’t enough shovels in that store to do it.

Speaker, tomorrow I’ll be able to elaborate a little bit more about the fantasy that’s going on over there, when they think that homes can be built by snapping fingers or putting water on a chia home and all of a sudden, they appear. This party over there has really lost it when it comes to reality.

Interjections.

The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

The House will come to order. Order. Order. Thank you.

It is now time for private members’ public business.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government should reject the “defund the police” position and continue funding police, seizing illegal guns, suppressing gangs and supporting victims of violence through the Guns, Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy.

Pursuant to standing order 100, the member has 12 minutes for their presentation.

As I have the tendency to do, I am going to commence my remarks with a very brief story, which will be directly related to the topic of debate for this evening. But, as usual, the full relevance of the story might not be entirely revealed until the very end of this speech.

I live in the town of Amherstburg, as I’ve said many times. Amherstburg is on the west side of the county of Essex. Then, there’s a town called Leamington, and that’s on the east side of the county of Essex. In order to get from Amherstburg to Leamington, you have to drive across the whole county of Essex, end to end. That, at this time of year, is a remarkable drive because of the great canola fields in Essex county. If you’re not familiar with canola, it’s a beautiful plant. It’s golden yellow. When it’s in bloom and you’re standing in a canola field, you feel like you are standing in Elysium.

I drove from Amherstburg to Leamington on a regular basis because, at a certain point in my legal career, I had a part-time contract—it was very part-time; it was only once every two weeks—to prosecute federal offences in the town of Leamington. So I would drive from Amherstburg to Leamington on a biweekly basis. The drive was beautiful. I would pass the canola fields, I would pass the wheat fields, I would pass the cornfields, I would pass the soybean fields—you get the picture. When I got to Leamington, I would go downtown, because that’s where the courthouse was and that’s where I got to work. I met a lot of great people when I was at that courthouse. For example, I met Mark Loop, who was a detective constable at that time. His nickname was Looper. Looper had grown up in the town of Leamington. He knew everybody very well. When he was on the witness stand and we asked him questions, he could tell you practically the entire life story of some of the people who he had arrested.

I also got to work with another awesome police officer. His name is Wayne Parsons. Wayne had a very particular laugh. It made him sound like the cartoon character Muttley, and so his nickname was Muttley.

I also got to work with another excellent officer. His name was Chhieu Seng, and his nickname was Chewy. It was Chewy who pulled me out of a fantastic car wreck one day. You see, I was travelling from Amherstburg to Leamington, it was the wintertime, and I hit a patch of black ice. My car spun out and crashed directly into oncoming traffic. It was a spectacular accident. I was rendered unconscious. When I regained consciousness, it was Chewy pulling me out of my car wreck. The first words that came out of my mouth were, “Chewy, call the courthouse. Tell the judge I’m going to be late for court today.” And Chewy said to me, “Anthony, you are not going to the courthouse today, my friend.”

That was the first day when I started thinking about how the job of a police officer is remarkably different than what we did as lawyers. You see, as a lawyer, our world was the courthouse, and it was the world of rules and procedure and evidence and examination and cross-examination. That was a particular world that had its particular rules. But Chewy’s world, the world of policing—that was a different world. That was a world of car accidents and facial lacerations and confrontation and tension, and these factors made policing more of a life-and-death kind of world to live in, because those are the kinds of decisions they had to make.

That’s why police have to be properly funded. That’s why this PC government has a strategy; we call that strategy the Guns, Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy. We’ve already put many millions of dollars into that strategy, and this budget puts another $13.4 million into that strategy. We think that’s good funding and we think that’s good policy—to continue funding police. Because when you properly fund police—let me give you some examples of what they can do.

In March 2023, three handguns and over 300 rounds of ammunition and a kilogram of crystal meth were seized by police of the guns and drugs unit of the city of Windsor. Inspector David DeLuca said, “This is just an example of the results of a really good investigation.” That’s three handguns and over $60,000 worth of drugs that will not be around to harm the citizens of Ontario.

Example number two: In April 2023, a multi-jurisdictional investigation involving police forces from Toronto, York, Durham, the OPP and the Canada Border Services Agency seized a total of 86 firearms, 75 of which were handguns, and these were seized in the GTA. Toronto Police Superintendent Steve Watts said, “A seizure of this size is definitely going to save lives on the streets of the GTA and elsewhere.”

Another example: In May 2023, a police drug raid netted a suspect who had escaped while he was on bail awaiting sentencing. He managed to remove his ankle monitor and disappeared. The drugs and guns unit of Windsor picked him up.

As you can see, properly funding the police renders results. Our policy is getting guns off the streets. Our policy is getting drugs off the streets. Our policy is saving lives. And I’m happy to say that Mark Baxter, the president of the Ontario police association, has written a communication of support for this motion and has signed the petition.

That’s our policy in the PC caucus, and that stands in contrast to the policy put forward by the NDP, which I have dubbed the “defund the police” policy. I call it that because “defund the police” is what they say on page number one of their policy. You don’t have to read too far into that policy to find out where the NDP stand. On the cover of that policy, they call it a “call to action”; I say that it is a call to inaction.

My seatmate, the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills, also read the NDP policy. He calls it the “support your local gang” policy. Michael Gendron, the spokesperson for the Ontario police association, said this with regard to the “defund the police” policy of the NDP: “It was never a conceivable idea. It never had widespread support (outside of op ed pages), was rejected by the public in virtually every election where policing was an issue, and set back real opportunities for reform that could have had buy-in from all stakeholders.”

So this is the challenge. We put forward a budget; that budget had a certain amount of money in it, $13.4 million, to continue funding the Guns, Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy. The NDP have the same response to many of the things that we talk about in this House. They say, “Well, that specific number or thing in this bill, we don’t like it, so we’re going to vote against the whole bill.” We’ve heard the NDP say that so many times. They might agree with 99.9% of what’s in a bill, but if they find 0.1% something they don’t agree with, they vote against it. Well, now I’m giving them an opportunity, because I’ve isolated just one thing—which is in contrast to the PC policy—which is continue funding the police through the Guns, Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy or, alternatively, the NDP policy, which is the “defund the police” policy. I’m asking this House to vote on that one thing. I have liberated the NDP from having to decide on 99.9% of all the other things. They only have to decide one thing. They can choose to continue promoting their policy—the “defund the police” policy—or they can choose the PC policy, which is the “fund the police” policy.

That brings me back to Highway 3 and the car crash. Chewy pulled me out of the car crash. I was taken to Leamington hospital. I was treated and released, and eventually I took a taxi back to my law office. I completed my workday and then got a ride back to my home. And I walked in the door and my wife Jackie saw me, and she saw the lacerations on my face and said, “What happened to you?” I told her what had happened, and then she said, “Why didn’t you come home? Why did you go to work after that car accident?” And I never really thought about it until today, but I guess it was probably because I had an obligation, a sense of duty, to make sure that my clients were well-served. I didn’t want to skip that day and let down my clients, and I call that a sense of duty. Even though I worked in a different world than the police worked, I think that’s what I have in common with the police: a sense of duty. That’s why I’m promoting this motion and asking all members of this House to vote for it.

It’s always an honour to speak in the House, and I would like to thank the member from Essex for bringing this issue forward. Actually, I listened intently to his remarks, and I would like to thank him for the life experiences he shared. I always love that about private members’ motions and bills—sometimes they’re partisan, but he spoke from the heart, and I respect that.

I would like to start by respectfully paying the respects of the official opposition to the family of Detective Constable Steven Tourangeau, who recently lost his life in East Zorra township. I lived there for a little while. Police officers not only risk their own lives, but their families also share that risk. On behalf of, I believe, all members of the House, we would like to express our condolences.

I come from an area where, in my riding—and the member from Essex talked about his riding. I appreciated that—I like it when people bring things personally. I’ve just lost, in Timiskaming–Cochrane, in Matheson, the OPP detachment—closed. French River OPP detachment—people in that area are signing petitions, which I have signed as well, to try to keep it open. We know—I don’t pretend to know a lot about cities, but I know what canola looks like; I know what canola smells like. We’re fighting to keep OPP officers. In northern Ontario, we wonder who’s trying to defund the police. I’m not trying to be facetious. We’re doing everything we can to keep our police officers.

Do we believe that to try to solve societal problems we have, we need to look beyond the police? Yes. This is a nuanced debate; it should be.

I’ve spent a long time talking to—and I’ve mentioned him in the House before—Martin Thibault, an officer in the Temiskaming detachment. One of the things that frustrates Martin is when he deals with people with mental health issues. He’s their first point of contact, and he has to deal with them over and over and over again because there’s no one else in our part of the world to help. Just in that instance, two Martins isn’t going to make that any better. He needs to be part of a team, a circle of care. We have to look at that, as well.

Do we recognize that police officers play a vital role in our society? Absolutely. Do we believe that everyone in our society should feel safe, including police officers? Absolutely.

I appreciate the member’s tone. This is a nuanced debate, and it should be. We need well-funded, well-trained police.

I think everyone in this House knows that—I believe the number is 35% of our police officers are off on PTSD. We need to look at that too. We need to support them.

Do we need to recruit more police officers? Absolutely. But if you want to keep a well-trained police force, you also have to support the people who are already trained, who are already working and who face incredible challenges, as your police officer friend did when he pulled you out of that car wreck. There are so many things that police face. They need to be supported. Do we want that support to be there? Absolutely, we want that support for them. We want that support for the people they have to deal with on a daily basis. They deal with more trauma than the rest of us. And when they are overworked, when they lack support—they’re human. Sometimes they make mistakes. We all make mistakes. Let the first perfect person throw the first stone.

Do we need to properly fund police? Yes, 100%. Do we need to look further to see what else is breaking down in society that is causing the increased risks that we all face, that we all feel and that police feel times 10? At the end of the day, when something goes wrong, we call 911—well, I’m going to divert. In some areas, we call 911—because the whole province doesn’t have 911 either. But we call the police. The police are trained, and they can suffer incredible trauma.

I’ve talked to Mark Baxter a fair bit. I have a pretty good relationship with Mark, I think. I helped him out on a bill a little while ago. I like talking to Mark Baxter. I actually learn a lot talking to police. But actually, the defund-the-police concept—which I’ve never used and which isn’t a party position—they never bring that up. They bring up the supports that they need, the supports that the community needs. That’s what they bring up, and that’s what they should bring up, because when people become—what’s the word I’m looking for?—marginalized, destitute, sometimes they do things that they shouldn’t, and the police end up dealing with them. But there’s no place for them to go, so we need to look at that.

There are a lot of things we need to look at, but let’s get over the issue that any of us here want to have less trained police or don’t believe that we need policing in a civil society; you need policing in a civil society. But you need to give the police, also, the support that everyone else should have in a civil society.

When Martin Thibault—and I’m going to tell you exactly: There was a Crime Stoppers barbecue in front of the OPP, and Martin came up to me and talked to me. We talked about how he was an officer for 21 years. He knew exactly when he could retire, because it wasn’t the same; the last five years, it’s not the same. We talked about how he didn’t feel safe—and police officer is a risky job; it is. There’s an inherent risk in taking the risk for others. There’s an inherent risk. But Martin pointed to the highway, and there was a homeless person sitting on the side of the highway in front of the OPP detachment in Temiskaming Shores. And he said, “He’s part of our issue. Not himself, but we’ll likely have to deal with him three times today. There’s nowhere for him to go.”

You have a police officer with 21 years’ experience, very well trained. Everyone in Timiskaming—or at least our part of Timiskaming—knows Martin Thibault. Martin Thibault used to sell John Deere equipment, and then he became a police officer—highly regarded, well trained, the kind of police officer that we all know and respect. Martin wanted to find services to help the homeless guy. That’s what Martin wanted.

So I thank the member from Essex for bringing this issue forward, because I think he brought it from his heart.

Further debate?