I would like to thank Pierre LeClerc from Hanmer in my riding for these petitions.

“Saving Organs to Save Lives....

“Whereas Ontario has one of the best organ transplant programs in the world;

“Whereas there are currently” over 1,300 “people waiting for a life-saving organ transplant in Ontario;

“Whereas every three days someone in Ontario dies because they can’t get a transplant in time;

“Whereas donating organs and tissues can save up to eight lives and improve the lives of up to 75 people;

“Whereas 90% of Ontarians support organ donation, but only 36% are registered;

“Whereas Nova Scotia has seen increases in organs and tissue for transplant after implementing a presumed consent legislation in January 2020;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: “Change the legislation to allow a donor system based on presumed consent as set out in MPP Gélinas’s ... Peter Kormos Memorial Act (Saving Organs to Save Lives).”

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask my good page Jonas to bring it to the Clerk.

It’s my honour to present the following petition on behalf of the good people of London North Centre. It is entitled “Stop Ford’s Health Care Privatization Plan.” It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians should get health care based on need—not the size of your wallet;

“Whereas Premier Doug Ford and Health Minister Sylvia Jones say they’re planning to privatize parts of health care;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals, making the health care crisis worse;

“Whereas privatization always ends with patients getting a bill;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to further privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 and recruiting, retaining and respecting doctors, nurses and PSWs with better pay and better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario, who wait years and pay thousands to have their credentials certified;

“—making education and training free or low-cost for nurses, doctors and other health care professionals;

“—incentivizing doctors and nurses to choose to live and work in northern Ontario;

“—funding hospitals to have enough nurses on every shift, on every ward.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my signature and deliver it with page Paul to the Clerks.

The bill enacts Joshua’s Law (Lifejackets for Life), 2023, which requires parents and guardians to ensure that their children who are 12 years of age or younger wear a personal flotation device or life jacket while on a pleasure boat that is under way or while being towed behind a pleasure boat using recreational water equipment. If the child is not under the supervision of the parent or guardian but is under the supervision of a person who is 18 years of age or older at the relevant time, the requirement applies instead to that person. The requirement does not apply if the child is in an enclosed cabin. Definitions of “pleasure boat” and “recreational water equipment” are provided.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Cara McNulty for her work in advocating for this legislation and my former colleague MPP Norm Miller for introducing this back in February 2022.

Would the member care to briefly explain her bill?

I am pleased to present this petition. It has been signed by Sara Labelle of Oshawa.

“Stop Ford’s Health Care Privatization Plan.”

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians should get health care based on need—not the size of your wallet;

“Whereas” the Premier and health minister “say they’re planning to privatize parts of health care;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals, making the health care crisis worse;

“Whereas privatization always ends with patients getting a bill;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to further privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 and recruiting, retaining and respecting doctors, nurses and PSWs with better pay and better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario, who wait years and pay thousands to have their credentials certified;

“—making education and training free or low-cost for nurses, doctors and other health care professionals;

“—incentivizing doctors and nurses to choose to live and work in northern Ontario;

“—funding hospitals to have enough nurses on every shift, on every ward.”

Of course, I support this. I will affix my signature and send it to the table with page Jonas.

The Solicitor General has moved government notice of motion number 13.

Back to you.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas, to address the budget for seniors, the Ontario government has proposed to make changes to expand the eligibility of the Guaranteed Annual Income System, GAINS, starting in July 2024, which would see about 100,000 more low-income seniors receive payments for a 50% increase in recipients, and proposing to lower the rate at which the benefit is reduced from 50% to 25%, which means a senior can keep more of their benefit as their private income increases, and proposing to adjust the benefit annually to inflation to continually put more money in the pockets of eligible seniors; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario is investing more than $174 million over two years, starting in 2024-25 to continue the Community Paramedicine for Long-Term Care Program, which leverages the skills of paramedicine to provide additional care for seniors in the comfort of their own homes; and

“Whereas Ontario is continuing to make progress on its plan to build modern, safe and comfortable long-term-care homes for seniors and residents, and through planned investments that total a historic $6.4 billion since 2019, Ontario is on track to build more than 31,000 new and over 28,000 upgraded beds across the province by 2028, and that the government is helping to increase long-term-care capacity in communities across the province by providing development loans and loan guarantees to select non-municipal not-for-profit homes;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the passage of the Ontario budget bill, Bill 85, Building a Stronger Ontario.”

I will affix my signature to this petition.

I have a petition.

“To Raise Social Assistance Rates.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and far from adequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent: $733 for individuals on OW and $1,227 for ODSP;

“Whereas an open letter to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, signed by over 230 organizations, recommends that social assistance rates be doubled for both Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP);

“Whereas the recent budget increase of 5% for ODSP, with nothing for OW, could be experienced as an insult to recipients, who have been living since 2018 with frozen social assistance rates and a Canadian inflation rate that reached 12%;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized in its CERB program that a ‘basic income’ of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my signature and send it to the table with page Evelyn.

I move that an address be presented to the Speakers of the federal Parliament in the following words:

“This House calls on the federal government to immediately reform the Criminal Code of Canada to address the dangers facing our communities and implement meaningful bail reform to prevent violent and repeat offenders from being released back into our communities.”

And that the said address be engrossed.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate an important motion: that the House calls on the federal government to immediately reform the Criminal Code of Canada to address the dangers facing our communities and implement meaningful bail reform to prevent violent and repeat offenders from being released back into our communities.

It’s an honour for me to rise here in this House, as Solicitor General, to support this important motion.

Madame la Présidente, c’est un grand honneur pour moi de prendre la parole à la Chambre, en tant que solliciteur général, pour appuyer cette motion importante.

I always knew that sometime in my life I would be part of a story much larger than myself, in a province that gave me more opportunities than I had any right to deserve, and serve here as the 1,947th person to be elected to this House since Confederation on a journey in a community that helped me understand who I am, how I stand and where I stand, with my feet on the ground—just a man, here, in the people’s House of democracy.

Madam Speaker, as MPPs, one of our most fundamental responsibilities is to preserve law and order in our society. It’s obvious, as I’ve said many times all over this province, that when we have a safe community, we have absolutely everything. We have a place to work, and we have a place to play. We have a place to raise our families. We have a place to shop, and we have a place to pray. We have it all. Without safe communities, we have nothing. Safety is the springboard for all we have.

Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, about an event that took place this past Thursday. For me, it was very personal. You see, I had the honour of witnessing something amazing. Over 470 cadets graduated at the Ontario Police College—diverse and different, and on their way with eagerness to serve their communities all across our province. In my remarks to the graduating class, I asked a simple question: Why are we here? What is the essence of the meaning of keeping our communities safe? Some say we should try to do everything, to be everywhere, and to help everyone. But the goal is just too large, and it’s not realistic at times. I told the cadets on their day, “Do one thing for one person each day, and that way you can make a difference in a person’s life.”

Madame la Présidente, notre raison d’être ici est de faire la différence dans la vie des gens.

Madam Speaker, I dedicate my remarks to all of the police officers who we’ve lost in the line of duty and to the people in our communities who have been victims of violent crime.

For me, my own moment in time, the time I knew I came of age, was on September 12, 2022, on hearing the news of the tragic events pertaining to the passing of Constable Andrew Hong of Toronto Police Service. I came of age standing shoulder to shoulder with hundreds of police officers from Toronto as Andrew’s remains were brought with dignity to the coroner’s office later that evening. The lights of the motorcycles and the police cars are etched into my mind. I knew in that moment, when I came home, my life was changed forever.

In the subsequent weeks, again our hearts were filled with unbearable sadness on the loss of Constables Morgan Russell and Devon Northrup of the South Simcoe Police Service and, this past December, Grzegorz Pierzchala of the Ontario Provincial Police in Cayuga.

We also remember those whose lives were cut short, also sadly: Constable Yang of the RCMP, Travis Jordan and Brett Ryan of the Edmonton Police Service and, most recently—so recently—Sergeant Maureen Breau of the Sûreté du Québec. We remember Jeff Northrup and many others whose lives were lost in the years just preceding this.

These brave souls were lost in such tragic circumstances, but they will always be heroes in life.

Madam Speaker, violent crime has changed the lives of so many families in our province. I think of a remarkable organization who’s with us today in the gallery, Survivors of Law Enforcement, whom I’ve had the honour of running with during this past year’s Run to Remember. It was a run for me to remember the rest of my life. For us here today, it is doubtful that we can know how they feel when they lose someone like they have. Many, if not all of us, do not know what they know: that deep, black hole that opens up in their chest, where they feel sucked into it. Many, if not all of us, do not know what they know as to how mean and cruel and unfair life can be. In a personal way, I feel honoured by these families, that they have let me into their lives to listen and to learn about their loved ones, and I have learned some special things. First, they taught me that your loved one may have left this earth, but they never leave your heart; they will always be with you. And second, they taught me that the best way through pain and loss and grief is to find purpose.

I think of the names I saw etched into the National Police and Peace Officers’ Memorial on Parliament Hill this past fall, and the names that will be added in the weeks ahead at the memorial here at Queen’s Park. Each name etched represents a scar on a family’s heart.

Madam Speaker, we know to be human is to be a storyteller. All the narratives we construct—the true ones and the ones we tell ourselves are true but may not be—are acts of self-construction, prisms of understanding by which we build our own identity. We tell all sorts of tales to clean up wrinkles in our own lives. We put the spotlight on certain moments.

But here’s the thing: The uncomfortable truth that we need to confront now is the reason why I’m speaking here today. This story is about the events that shaped my life, as tragic as they were—are undeniably true.

The common thread of the tragedies of our fallen officers is that they sacrificed absolutely everything to keep us safe.

Ourselves are defined by other selves, those who are physically here and those who are present in our hearts, and I know this because I know they are all here with us.

Our purpose, especially now, is to fix what is broken, and we need to go where the clues take us—what is so obvious. I learned, perhaps unexpectedly, about the bond that is universal but perhaps not well-known or advertised, and this is a bond about a brotherhood and sisterhood. And we are honoured that many representatives of the associations of this brotherhood and sisterhood are with us today, and we are grateful to them. You see, the brotherhood and sisterhood look like Ontario, and we’re proud of that. Notre diversité est notre plus grande réussite. Our diversity is our strength. This brotherhood believes in our province and in our future, and they stand shoulder to shoulder in good times and in sad. The work the brotherhood and sisterhood do to keep us safe is righteous. Madam Speaker, one can say there is an absolute righteousness when we run to find the truth. And now, the truth finds us in this moment of a call to action.

Today, we can decide to act. By supporting this motion, we can show our constituents and show the federal government how fundamental it is to implement bail reform now, so we have safer communities.

Our time since September 12 changed everything. And, sadly, we continue to see more officers in Ontario and across Canada be killed in the line of duty.

For me, the Premier and our government, today’s motion is personal. We are proud to support our police officers and everyone who keeps Ontario safe. Our support for them is heartfelt and enduring.

Madame la Présidente, pour le premier ministre et pour moi, c’est personnel. Nous sommes fiers de soutenir nos policiers et tous ceux qui assurent la sécurité de l’Ontario tous les jours.

Madam Speaker, today’s motion is an important step. It’s a critical opportunity for Ontario to speak with one voice to the federal government. But it’s by no means our first step.

I am proud to serve in this government. And, as I’ve said many times, there has never been a government in the history of this province and in my generation or in this country that cared as much about our safety as our government. And it starts at the top. It starts with our Premier for making public safety a priority. We can all be proud that our Premier has led the way in this country when it comes to public safety. It was our Premier who joined together with all his provincial and territorial counterparts to demand bail reform from the federal government. And it was our Premier who supported both myself and our Attorney General in working with the federal government to improve public safety and implement bail reform. These were key topics at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings, both last fall and just a short month ago. It is our Premier who knows that a safe Ontario is a strong Ontario.

The fact is, we need the federal government to step up, and that’s what today’s motion calls for.

Our government went to Ottawa, as I said, just last month to advocate for urgent bail reform. The Ontario delegation sat down with Canada’s Attorney General and Canada’s Minister of Public Safety, along with our provincial and territorial ministers. When we were there, we insisted on change. I remember the advocacy that I made, as well, with our Attorney General when we were at a LEIT meeting this past fall in Nova Scotia—I might add, at the moment we learned of the passing of Constables Northrup and Russell from south Simcoe. We underlined the need, then, for the Liberal government in Ottawa to fix the gaps in the Criminal Code. Some of these gaps exist because of the Liberals’ Bill C-75, while other gaps are longer-standing issues which must also be addressed.

The current bail rules in Canada not only allow repeat and violent offenders to recommit serious offences with little or no consequences, but they truly incentivize this criminal behaviour because there’s little deterrent.

Madam Speaker, as Ontario’s Solicitor General, I hear again and again from our police associations and chiefs about how broken our country’s bail system is. These women and men put on their uniform with pride each day, but the current bail rules put them and our communities at risk of injury and death. These are incredible people who keep our communities safe. They deserve to come home safely each and every night.

Madame la Présidente, ce sont des gens formidables qui nous protègent au quotidien. Ils méritent d’aller travailler et de rentrer chez eux en toute sécurité.

We’ve been asking the federal government in Ottawa to strengthen our borders to stop the flow of illegal handguns coming in from entering the country. I’ve been to the borders, with my great friend and colleague the member from Sarnia–Lambton—I’ve been to Niagara; I’ve been to Sault Ste. Marie; and I was just recently a few miles away from the border in Thunder Bay. The narrative of the illegal guns coming into Canada is absolutely true. As I’ve said previously in this House, legal gun owners are not the problem, and the illegal users of firearms will not be surrendering their guns. I’ve said this in the House—and I’ve urged Minister Mendicino to meet me at the border and see for himself. I encourage the members of the opposition, especially those from Niagara, from Thunder Bay and from Windsor, to join our government in making these calls.

We have also insisted on a commitment by the federal government to long-term, permanent and sustainable funding of the federal Gun and Gang Violence Action Fund. Ottawa has an opportunity to fix it, and they should fix it now.

Madam Speaker, the evidence is clear: The status quo is not working when it comes to bail rules.

I can say that it is absolutely tragic—and I’ll talk about it again in a few minutes—that we were in the House just a week ago to hear the tragic news of young Gabriel being stabbed to death at Keele station in Toronto by somebody out on bail.

We need federal minister David Lametti to make good on his promise on bail reform, because it is time.

In the meantime, sadly, innocent lives continue to be lost.

Imagine that you are dropping off your son or your daughter at a transit station to go to school or to go to work. You would never imagine that they would never come home.

Today we remember Gabriel and Vanessa, who lost her life when she was just 31, the same age as RCMP Constable Yang. The wounds in our hearts are immeasurably fresh as we remember Gabriel, who was killed, as I mentioned, at the TTC station. No parent should have to bury their son or daughter. No parent should have to go through what the parents of Gabriel are currently going through.

It is absolutely tragic that Canada’s bail system is broken. But the government of Ontario is stepping up. The city of Toronto is stepping up. We need the federal government to step up as well. We must do everything we can so families don’t have this pain.

Ontario is taking action in the absence of the federal government. Our continued advocacy to the federal government is something that is absolutely important. I again highlight and showcase the fact that the Premier, in a matter of hours, got all 13 provinces and territories to send a letter to the federal government on January 13. It stated: “A reverse onus on bail must be created for the offence of possession of a loaded or restricted firearm in section 95 of the Criminal Code.

“A person accused of a section 95 offence should not have to demonstrate why their detention is not justified when they were alleged to have committed an offence where there was imminent risk to the public.

“A review of other firearms related offences is also warranted to determine whether they should also attract a reverse onus on bail.”

Madam Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the important work being done by my colleagues in this House. Just last month, the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, with the participation of my parliamentary assistants, the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore and the member from Sarnia–Lambton, issued a comprehensive report that further outlined immediate action that should be taken on bail reform. Five experts were asked a question: Will bail reform save lives? Time and time again, the answer is yes. One of the committee’s recommendations suggested an amendment to the Criminal Code, endorsed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. The amendment would define a “chronic offender” and put the onus on them to show why they should be granted bail. These are important, constructive, concrete proposals in the report. By supporting today’s motion, we can demonstrate our endorsement of the justice committee’s work and support the recommendations on bail reform.

There are a lot of things that we need to do, and we need to do it now. There is an urgency to do it now so more lives are not lost. Unfortunately, the bail system is broken, and it is churning out violent offenders time after time. This is unacceptable. Lives are at stake, and for me and the Premier and this government, this is personal. Disturbingly, we continue seeing instances of organized crime, gun and gang activity, and illegal weapons on our streets. We must be unanimous in our call to keep our communities safe.

As I travelled all across the province, stopping in regularly at police stations, from the Niagara Parks service—perhaps one of the smallest, although I’ve been to the Aylmer Police Service as well—to Waterloo, York region, and south Simcoe, I have met the heroes of today and tomorrow for myself.

It’s important, Madam Speaker, for us to stand today and to support this.

I thought about Constable Grzegorz Pierzchala of the OPP, a newly minted officer who had just been signed off to patrol on his own. I think it was his first day—it’s hard to believe—and by all accounts, he would have been an unbelievable officer. He was ambushed by a criminal who was coddled by the judiciary and was released on bail. It was absolutely callous. That’s what the federal government thinks of justice. We have to make a change. Grzegorz Pierzchala was only 28 years old.

Madam Speaker, as I conclude my remarks, I call on the federal government to act, I call on the opposition to fulfill their duty to keep Ontario safe, and I encourage all members to join me in supporting this motion. This motion represents the will of the people of Ontario. It’s not some empty gesture here in this Ontario Legislature. The federal government must take note and pay attention now.

Madame la Présidente, rien pour moi en tant que solliciteur général n’est plus important que la sécurité de notre province. As Solicitor General, there’s nothing more important to me than the safety of our province. We all have an equal right to feel safe.

Getting back to the beginnings of my remarks: No loss could be so central to our system of values, so core to who we are today than the loss of our own, those who gave their lives in the line of duty. And no amount of comment or reflection could capture the impact of those individuals. Their love for their families and our province was big, and their impact was broad. A part of our lives that we’ve taken for granted as being permanent is no longer here. Their memories must be for a blessing. It is time to do the right thing, and we know it.

Further debate?

I rise in full support of the motion now tabled by my honourable colleague the Solicitor General of Ontario. I rise in support of this motion because, well, I’m a human being; because I’m a member of my community; because I have relatives, loved ones, neighbours and friends who are fearful of what this city is becoming; but also because I try my hardest to represent the views of the people who elected me—the young and the old, the well-to-do and the dispossessed, the connected and the voiceless. I seek to represent everyone in my constituency. Don’t we all? But above all, I am a citizen, and I am a believer in the concept of civility versus chaos, of right and wrong. And today—in the spirit of this motion—I see a lot of wrong stalking my city. I see it across Ontario and across Canada. Be honest, my honourable colleagues: You see it too. In large part, it takes the form of a system of justice that favours the perpetrator over the victim. It’s a system that seeks root causes, when those root causes too often lie at the tip of a knife or the muzzle of a gun, or a can of flammable liquid and a match, or the raw, bare hands of a strangler. It is a system that assumes the best of the worst among us. And it has got to stop.

Canada needs meaningful bail reform. Serious violent offenders, offenders convicted of intimate partner violence, repeat violent criminals, offenders caught with illegal guns are all being released back onto our streets. As a result, many Ontarians are now afraid to walk down the street or take public transit for the first time in decades.

The people of Ontario are right to be frustrated by the failures of Canada’s justice system. Yet despite repeated demands from every single Premier across this country, led on this critical issue by Premier Ford, Ottawa has continued to resist making the necessary changes to keep our communities safe.

I fully recognize that there have been two distinct manifestations of random violence on our streets, subways, buses and streetcars in the recent months: those who are homeless and often have psychological challenges or challenges with addictions, who may have sought shelter from the weather in our transit system—they deserve our compassion, the right treatment, and comfort from the cold. But there’s a second category—and this is the point of my remarks in the House today, and indeed to this motion: those who are inherently violent and calculating; those who have committed offences in the past, often many times, and often violent offences at that, who are turned back onto our streets time and time again.

It’s all because of—let’s call it what it is—a perverted part of our federal justice system that essentially says, “Let’s give them one more chance, and then another, and then another, and then another.” And as we all know now, it has happened in our city again.

Speaker, this matter is very personal to me, as the member of provincial Parliament for Etobicoke–Lakeshore. We’ve seen the violence on our TTC creep into our neighbourhoods.

Tragically, just last week, as the minister mentioned, Gabriel, a teenager of just 16 years of age, was murdered on the TTC by a repeat violent offender out on bail. This hits too close to home. As the CBC reported on March 28, a young felon, charged with the unprovoked stabbing death of a 16-year-old boy at Keele subway station three days previously, had a rap sheet as long as your arm. He had been in and out of prison, both here and in Newfoundland and Labrador, over several years. He was wanted on an outstanding warrant for breaching probation conditions. Charges against him included low-level fraud, theft, mischief, arson, uttering threats, and failing to comply with court orders. He had been ordered not to possess any kind of weapon. He had previously been charged with one count each of assault, obstructing a police officer and failing to attend court. Yet despite it all, an innocent 16-year-old boy has been robbed of his future and snatched from his family forever.

But as all members of this House well know, this grisly roll call doesn’t end there. Here is just a sampling of the carnage in Ontario alone, with thanks to a January 17 National Post article:

On January 11, a 19-year-old Mississauga man was stabbed from behind by a suspect out on bail for a series of alleged violent crimes.

Last December 14, Peel police charged a man with two counts of attempted murder after he allegedly fired a gun into a group of men during an argument. He, too, was out on bail and was already wanted by the Toronto police for second-degree murder and attempted murder.

Last December 27, a man already out on bail for a string of firearms charges and assault on a peace officer was charged with murder in the death of a rookie OPP constable.

And on January 16, one of four accused in a violent London, Ontario, gold dealer robbery, during which the owner was shot dead, was granted bail, even having been found to be previously on bail after leading police on a car chase. That charge was laid while the suspect was already out on bail for gun charges.

So what do we do to end this litany of horrors thanks to what has come to be called Ottawa’s “catch-and-release” policy regarding violent offenders?

You could ask the federal justice minister, David Lametti. On March 7, he told the National Post, “I believe our bail system is strong and sound, but we are always open to suggestions for improvements.” I’ll just leave that one hanging out there for a second.

Or you could ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition, right here in the chamber. On March 28, in Brian Lilley’s column in the Toronto Sun, the member was referred to as follows in her response to calls for more police to tackle this epidemic:

“Stiles said calls for more police were fruitless and just Ford playing politics.

“‘The solution is to address the root cause. We have a homelessness crisis. We have a mental health and addiction crisis,’ Stiles said.”

At least the latter part is true. But as noted earlier, we also have a crime crisis—a crisis of hardened criminals repeatedly let loose on our streets to reoffend, re-assault and often re-murder again and again and again.

On the matter of improvements: In our most meaningful attempt to remedy these lax federal bail rules to date, this House convened special legislative justice committee hearings over January 30 and January 31, inviting expert testimony on how reform to these laws could hopefully save lives. As parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, I took a lead role in these hearings, with my colleague the member from Sarnia–Lambton.

Here, in my mind, is the key quote from sworn testimony—this one is from a question put forth to OPP commissioner Thomas Carrique: “Yes, I do believe that bail reform will save lives. The experience of police officers in our communities will testify to that. The data where we see ... violent offenders while out on bail committing further violent acts will corroborate that.”

Throughout these hearings, we heard a constant and concerning theme: Serious violent offenders, those previously convicted for intimate partner violence, repeat violent criminal offenders, and thugs caught with illegal guns are being routinely released back onto our streets thanks to the dysfunction of the Canadian bail system.

Our committee’s report, unanimously supported by all three parties, was tabled in the Legislature on March 20, 2023.

The time for stalling and excuses from Ottawa is over. The time for action is now. Until that happens, our government is doing everything we can to confront violent crime within the scope of our own jurisdiction.

In addition to demanding criminal justice reform from the federal government concerning bail rules, led by Premier Ford, with the support of all Premiers, we have hired more correctional services and parole officers for Toronto detention centres. We have deployed new technologies to deter carjacking, and we have committed $75 million to fight cross-border guns and drugs by disrupting gang activities and their revenue streams. This investment also created a guns-and-gangs mobile prosecution unit, to name just a few initiatives, all designed to keep our community safe.

Speaker, in my role as MPP for Etobicoke–Lakeshore, every time I head out for constituency events I hear about the sense of outrage expressed by the people in my riding—I spoke to a man just on Friday, and I told him to watch, so, hopefully, he is watching—that follows the daily headlines of acts of violence committed by offenders out on bail. “Can’t you do something?” they ask. As parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, I always feel as though I’m making excuses when I try to explain that the Criminal Code and its bail and parole provisions are Ottawa’s responsibility.

But now, the ball is firmly in Minister Lametti’s court, thanks to the leadership of Premier Ford in marshalling the support of every single province and territory and pushing for an end to catch-and-release.

As the National Post so ably put it a short while ago, “It’s hard to get all 10 Canadian provinces to agree on much, but last week they agreed that the state of the country’s bail system is a disaster.” It all so simply is a disaster.

In fact, it is so commonsensical that I remain astonished that more people in positions of authority just don’t get it still today—and it goes like this: “Commit the crime? You do the time.”

It’s a pleasure to be here today in support of my colleague and my boss, the Solicitor General, and, of course, my colleague from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, who I was on that committee with, and who does such a great job in speaking up on intimate partner violence. I told her, “Make sure you touch on that”—because in my remarks I don’t, and I think it should come from her. She did an able job there.

We’re here today to stand in support of safe communities, as the Solicitor General said. We’re also here today to stand up for Ontarians. We’re here today to demand justice for those whose lives have been lost to violent crime, including our police officers. Because when we have safe communities, we have everything.

Unfortunately, the federal government continues to be soft on repeat offenders of violent crime. Let me remind you, Speaker, that when a motion to strengthen bail reform was presented before the House of Commons in February of this year, it was shot down immediately by a federal government set on their view that there’s nothing wrong with the current Canadian bail system. I think the general public would differ with that.

That’s why we’re here today. That’s why I’m standing here today in support of the Solicitor General’s motion. The motion, once again, calls on the federal government to repeal measures which force judges to be lenient towards repeat offenders and dangerous career criminals. There’s no room for leniency and wishful thinking when we’re talking about repeat criminals who have demonstrated a pattern of endangering our communities through reoffending time and time again. The federal government must respond to the call to action from the provinces and the territories—I actually represented the minister in Ottawa at that conference, and there was unanimity amongst the whole room, from all across the country and territories. They need to ensure that repeat violent offenders, especially those accused of serious firearms charges, do not find themselves back in our communities because of a negligent bail system. The safety of law-abiding citizens of Ontario and Canada must take precedence. The very concerns that this motion aims to address have been echoed not only across this province but nationwide.

Speaker, I was honoured to join our government in March at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting in Ottawa on bail reform. There, we said, in no uncertain terms, to federal minister David Lametti that the time is now for meaningful national bail reform. Safety can’t wait. Our Premier and our Solicitor General led the way in establishing consensus among the Premiers of all 10 provinces and three territories and in calling for bail reform, along with the Solicitors General and Attorneys General of those other provinces. It’s clear to me that we’re all on the same page in wanting safer communities for Canadians. Why, then, is the federal government continuing to reduce the penalties for violent criminals, placing reoffenders back in our communities to wander the streets without any accountability? This is unacceptable.

Violent crime under this federal government has gone up over 30%, and gang-related crime is up over 100%. Given this grim reality, our provincial government will continue to fight for real federal bail reform.

That’s exactly what the Standing Committee on Justice Policy has worked on and presented in its report, as my colleague mentioned earlier, on March 20. As a member of that committee, it was important to me that we had a chance to listen to the OPP commissioner, in addition to the police chiefs and association leadership from across the province.

The people of Ontario and the people who keep us safe have a clear message: Bail reform will save lives. If you’re a repeat weapons offender, you should not get out on bail if you fail to demonstrate that you can be a safe member of this community. As of right now, the catch-and-release bail system is not the right solution.

I want to reassure every member here that I, along with the Premier and the Solicitor General, believe in the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” But it is not right to shift the burden on police services by leaving them to deal with repeat offenders being allowed back in the community.

With the introduction of federal Bill C-75 three years ago, the system that was built to ensure public safety has become preoccupied with clearing backlogs. This has undoubtedly led to more dangerous criminals being released on bail when taking these individuals into custody was the appropriate action—not only this; we have seen that our current system has been failing to ensure that repeat offenders released on bail show up and attend court. This is also unacceptable.

As I’ve already mentioned, these very same concerns have been echoed across the province.

I’d like to share the words of someone from my own community, Sarnia police chief Derek Davis, who explained the issue very clearly: If there is a warrant for someone’s arrest for missing their court date, “we arrest you and immediately release you, and if you don’t attend that court date, rinse (and) repeat.”

This harmful catch-and-release has left the local police force in my riding—and I’m sure across this province—among others, to urge the government to take another look at the rules as written.

I encourage all members of this House to speak with your own local police chiefs and police association members. Learn about the challenges on the ground. It will become evident to you how necessary today’s motion is and how much we need meaningful bail reform. The purpose of this motion today is to answer those calls for change.

As of December 30, 2022—to go back to my community—in the community of Sarnia, the local police had been in contact with 230 individuals 20 or more times in the previous calendar year. That’s 4,600 times that police had to respond to these same individuals.

Considering such frightening statistics, how can anyone argue that the current status of the bail reform system is adequate enough to keep the people of Ontario and our nation safe?

Let me elaborate further on one specific case in my community. A serial offender facing probation, assault, mischief, and break and enter charges had contact with the police 116 times in a one-year period—that certainly is “rinse and repeat.” Included in that number were well-being checks, warrants, arrests, conversations, and being the subject of complaints. I can’t think of a worse case of resources being wasted on one individual—where there are many other calls that get put on the back burner because of one individual. Imagine how many times this is happening across this province every day. Placing the burden on police officers to deal with such repeat offenders time and time again consumes a vast number of resources and prevents them from being able to respond to emergency situations, where they’re needed most. This is just one example. Unfortunately, this is not unique to my community.

The current bail system certainly needs serious changes.

How many chances must a repeat offender of violent crime be given before it is time to prioritize the rights of law-abiding people who deserve to feel safe on the streets of their communities?

It’s my hope that through this motion, we no longer will have to ask these questions, and that the federal government will finally listen to the calls from our province.

The immense and proven threat to public safety will continue to grow out of control without drastic and immediate reform to the Criminal Code of Canada. For the safety of the people of Ontario and right across this great country, this matter cannot wait. The time for action is now.

Further debate?

I’m really pleased to rise and address this very, very important issue and get some further context to where we are and how we got here. It’s something that we hear about in our ridings. It’s something that we hear about from family and friends. And certainly it’s something that we hear about from those who are the victims of crime. We actually even hear about it from some of the offenders—and some of their perspectives on how this works and how this works for them sometimes.

I’m going to refrain from talking about any cases in particular, of course, because that’s the right thing to do, and I expect we will all do the same thing. But I want to talk about how policy is made and how these kinds of things happen and come to change.

As we all know—but not everybody knows—there are two lists of powers in this country: There’s the provincial list and the federal list. It’s in the Constitution. It’s fairly clear who does what in many of these pieces. Where the province is charged with running the administration of justice and appointing the Ontario judges, the federal government is charged with running the Criminal Code and where we turn the dial on that, and appointing Superior Court judges and Court of Appeal judges. So we have this partnership where the federal government appoints certain judges but the province is entrusted to run the system itself, and then we have overlaid on that the Criminal Code. A large percentage of the Ontario judges who are appointed by our government—and previous governments—deal with Criminal Code matters. So, again, we have another overlap, and it becomes very complicated to have a conversation when you’re dealing with one system but many fingers in the system. So, as in other ministries, we have what are called federal-provincial-territorial meetings, which are meetings of the ministers of the relevant ministry—in this case, the Attorney General’s office or the Solicitor General’s office. And we meet with our counterparts from across the country on occasion to talk about issues that are important to all Canadians. We will often meet as the provincial and territorial members, and then we will, as a group, meet with our federal counterparts. This happens as need be and on a fairly regular basis—once or twice a year.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that we’ve been dealing with some of these issues since I’ve become the Attorney General. There are conversations we’ve had with our colleagues in Alberta and Manitoba and New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, of course, and the territories—all members from across the country—and the alignment that we have on some issues just shows that although we have great diversity in Canada, we share some common values. But I have never seen before—and I’ve been watching politics for a very long time—what our Premier did, what Premier Ford did. He penned a letter, and every provincial and territorial leader signed on to that letter and said to the federal government, “We need to do something different. We need to do something better.” I’ve never seen that before on any issue. Even on health care, there are different voices. Education, transfer funds, all sorts of things—it’s rare, if it has ever been done before, that everybody came together to say, “Here is our collective position. We need you to do something.”

The act of that letter, on January 13 of this year, set in motion something that we at the provincial level, at our provincial-territorial table, have been talking about since I’ve become the AG. The letter calls for very clear change. It calls for change in the Criminal Code itself, which, as I mentioned, is a federal responsibility. It’s something that affects all of us, but the federal government holds the pen on it. We’ve been talking about firearms and rural crime and community-led public safety and all sorts of things back from 2019, and before. We more recently had raised the issue of bail and how it operates or doesn’t operate and the importance to our communities of keeping them safe and having people be protected. But it wasn’t until that letter that the Premier wrote, which all other provincial Premiers and territorial leaders signed on to, every one of them—that set things in motion, but it wasn’t the letter alone; it was our front-line services, the people who see it day to day. It’s the police officers who are on the front lines, who are dealing with a whole myriad of issues, whether it be mental health or social supports or crime as we know it. This was an issue they cared about a lot.

I saw that Mark Baxter with the Police Association of Ontario was here moments ago. His leadership and the leadership of the associations has been critical in the dialogue. I can tell you, it’s not just our police; the RCMP are engaged in this, and their association.

It caused a meeting to happen with the chiefs of police of Canada. And that meeting with the federal government, with our federal counterparts—Minister Kerzner and his federal counterpart, Minister Mendicino, and my counterpart, Minister Lametti, had a meeting with the chiefs of police. I just happened to be at the graduating ceremony for the 500th graduating class of the OPP. I was there with Minister Kerzner, and the meeting was happening at that moment. When I left that afternoon, a phone call was had and they said, “Would you be willing to meet? We’ve heard from the chiefs of police, and we don’t think they’re asking for too much. We think that we might be able to get there.” Of course, Mr. Kerzner and I said, “You name the time and place, and we’ll be there.”

So that meeting came to be on March 10 of this year. All of our colleagues from across the country got together—some virtually, as need be. PEI was in a position where they were into an election—they were into a writ period. They couldn’t participate in signing on to the final communiqué, but they were in a position to be there to listen and to give some guidance.

I can tell you, during those meetings—and parliamentary assistant Bob Bailey and I went due to double-booking, because we weren’t going to move this date. If they wanted us there, we weren’t going to ask for a movement. So it was just, “Who can go? We’re going to go and make our points.”

I can tell you, the collegiality, the co-operativeness—again, I’ve been going to these meetings. I’ve been all over the country doing these federal-provincial-territorial meetings. At the previous one, before the March 10 one, we didn’t actually get a communiqué out. That’s sort of what happens with these—at the end, you put out a joint statement. Well, we just couldn’t agree as provinces, collectively, and territories on some of the issues that were on the table. But at this one, on March 10, a communiqué did go out. A communiqué went out talking about the importance of bail, bail reform, and how it works and how it doesn’t work. I’ll tell you, Madam Speaker, it was really—I don’t want to say that it was a shock, but the level of co-operativeness with the federal government on this issue was heartening. So I look forward to holding their feet to the fire to take action. I really look forward to them following through on some of the things that they said they would be willing to do.

I’ve talked to my federal counterpart, Minister Lametti. We did a tour of the new Toronto courthouse recently and had a chance to connect again. Of course, I raise it at every turn—how important an issue it is for us and our communities, to keep them safe. So I’m glad that we’re talking about it today. We have to talk about it. We have to let people know it’s important to us. We have to let the federal government know it’s important to Ontario. They’re hearing it from the other provinces, as well, and they need to take this step—not just words, not just a study, not “Let’s think about it. Let’s create some options.” We need some concrete action. We need to move the dial, because anything that deals with guns and blades—and Manitoba raises bear spray as a significant issue in their jurisdiction; bear spray is being used for crimes on buses and around. Anything like that needs to be taken more seriously, and the bail system needs to deal with that.

There is a concept in bail called the ladder principle. Effectively, it says that you have to do the least restrictive thing for somebody, and that makes some sense. It sometimes puts the justice of the peace or the judge in a position to have to make a tough decision on what the least restrictive thing is. The federal government did pass a bill, C-75, that codified what were previous Supreme Court decisions like Antic, and there was another follow-up case that codified the ladder principle. What we’re talking about when we talk about bail reform is changing who’s responsible for making the argument—the argument being, “Should the person be let back into the community, or should the person not?” The way that it works, really, is that the crown has to demonstrate why the person shouldn’t be back in the community. As you move up the ladder, the onus is on the crown prosecutor to make that case. And my friend Jess Dixon, the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler, did this for a living, so she knows the mechanics of this better than I do, to be honest with you—she was front-line, having to make these decisions, having to put forward our best foot. I’ll tell you, it’s not an easy job. But the onus, in some situations, shouldn’t be on the Jess Dixons of the world. The onus should be on the accused who is using a gun, or using a blade, or using bear spray or doing certain things. It should be a reverse onus. They should have to show why they’re back out in the community.

That’s what we’re asking the federal government to do—to make some changes, to pass the onus from the crown to the accused. This is done in some instances—this is not a unique or novel thing—but with the increased violent crime that we’re seeing, it’s critical that the alleged perpetrators and those who are then subsequently found guilty have gone through a system that respects the rights of the community and the individuals, our neighbours and friends and family. There is no excuse, when somebody has used a gun in the commission of a crime, why they should not have to explain why they should be let out into the community.

I am getting concerned about the increased amount of crime happening we’re seeing, not just in numbers, but in severity. That’s a real challenge for our communities. It’s a challenge for our front-line officers, for our mental health workers. It’s a challenge for our neighbours, our friends. It’s a challenge for us, running a system to tackle the most serious and sometimes heinous crimes that are happening. And it starts with bail. We need to be keeping some of these people off the streets—the repeat offenders, the violent offenders, the people who are using guns, knives and, again, bear spray, which isn’t something that I’m familiar with, but Manitoba is very, very vehement about this. They want to make sure that their communities are safe, with things that are otherwise fairly easy to get.

Madam Speaker, again, in the bail process, we have this ladder system, as I mentioned, with levels of severity.

I want to talk about sureties, for a moment. With bail, sometimes somebody is a surety—somebody promises that they will help protect the community from the alleged accused, and it goes in connection with bail. So yes, you may be freed into the community—not held in a correctional facility—with a surety who posts money and makes a promise to the court, to the system, that they’ll be partially responsible for what’s happening. I can tell you, we’re talking about bail today, but the surety piece of that is something that should be drawing our attention. I’m not saying that the federal government has to do everything, because we need to do our part. But I think the surety is an important piece of the puzzle. I think that’s something that we’ll give further input into, as well.

Here’s what we do: We don’t just stand by and say that it’s somebody else’s fault, somebody else’s problem. We’ve been investing a lot of resources into what I call the SWAT teams of lawyers. So if it’s a gun or gang issue in Peel or in other parts of the province and somebody’s up for bail, we send in the SWAT team of lawyers to put the best evidence forward, to gather the best evidence to make sure that the accused is faced with the facts of what they have allegedly done, and the judge or the justice of the peace has to take that into account. So we’re sending in our best and brightest on these very focused pieces. We’re doing our part. We’re making sure that happens.

The other thing that we have to do and we have an obligation to do is to make sure that the individuals hearing the matter—the justice of the peace and the Ontario court judges—are at the top of their game. That’s why there’s a very rigorous process for appointments.

Madam Speaker, there are 299 Ontario court judges in this province at the moment, and I’ve appointed approximately 70 of them; maybe a few more than that. I’ve appointed approximately 100 of the justices of the peace. I’ve seen a lot of applications—I’ve seen a lot of backgrounds; I’ve seen a lot of community involvement; I’ve seen a lot of people who care about the community they live in, and they want to make the best decisions for their communities, for their loved ones and for the people who are victims of some of these crimes. I see that they want the tools—but if the federal government doesn’t do what it needs to do in terms of bail reform, we’re not going to give them the tools they need to get the job done. Again, we’re sending in our best and brightest for these bail hearings, so we’re doing our part for the hearings. It’s really important that the federal government come to the table with bail reform so that we have not only the best rules and the best people and the best evidence for the very qualified and the best hearers, the JPs and judges—to make the decision, to protect our community, to make sure that we’re doing the right thing.

Madam Speaker, I can’t stress enough how important it is that the federal government act soon, and that we get some resolve to this so that we can start talking about other parts of the system that need to be improved. I’ve had a great working relationship with my federal counterpart. I don’t want to make it sound like we’re at odds on everything. We’ve had some very productive discussions; it has been very collaborative. But I’m standing here, really, just to say that it has to happen soon and our communities are waiting for it. People are talking about it. They’re concerned. Some are apprehensive. We’ve seen the stories in the newspapers. We just have to do more, we have to do it soon, and we have to do it better.

I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about some of these things that are very important to me—something that I talk a lot about in meetings and that I hear from our excellent partners in the policing world and our judges and JPs and all those who help manage people in crisis, and the victim services that are out there.

Further debate?

I’ll give a gentle reminder to use ministerial portfolios or riding names when referring to other members of this House.

Further debate?

It’s always an honour to rise in this House to speak on behalf of the great people of Toronto Centre. In today’s debate, we’re going to be speaking on a very symbolic motion regarding bail reform in Canada. I’d like to begin my remarks by explaining the context of why we’re having this debate.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. Bail has evolved along with our justice system, and the people working in the justice system have been calling for sensible reforms to many dimensions of the justice system for decades. It predates this government.

Unfortunately, it took the tragic shooting death of OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala on December 27 to bring bail reform back on the political table. I’m glad we’re having this conversation. It’s absolutely important. This young, dynamic officer, who was at the beginning of his bright policing career, was taken far too soon. He is missed by his family and his friends, both in the general community and within the policing community. I have no doubts about that.

We have seen people fall at the hands of violent crimes, and we must do more to protect our communities, including our front-line officers. The police have a very difficult job. Sometimes we task them with jobs that are far too big. We ask them to be social workers and mental health support workers. We ask them to do everything—and we resource them not with all of those services and supports.

The neighbourhood community officers in my community are exceptional. I have the privilege and honour of working with 51 division of the Toronto police. They are the busiest division in all of Canada. They tell me oftentimes that they can’t do it all.

We know that first responders oftentimes run into a building when others are running out. They are the ones who deserve our gratitude and support.

I want to take a moment to thank the hard-working police officers, the paramedics and the firefighters who keep Toronto and Ontario safe every single day.

The accused who was charged with the murder of Constable Pierzchala was on bail at that time, and he failed to appear for his court date in August, just months before the shooting. This spurred the provinces to write a letter—including the Premier, and thank you for his leadership on this—to demand more of the Prime Minister, asking the Prime Minister to improve and make stricter bail provisions.

The federal government has yet to table their bail reforms. We know that is coming. Minister Lametti has mentioned that on several occasions. I have read about his remarks in the media. They have specifically said that they will work with the provinces to target those bail reforms. All of that is under way. And we have this motion before us.

On January 31 as well as on February 1 of this year, the Standing Committee on Justice Policy met to investigate how we could improve the bail reform system. As the opposition critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General, I participated in both of those full days of hearings. I was a committee member. We heard from many dedicated and brilliant Ontarians who work in law enforcement and the legal system. We had police chiefs, lawyers, executive directors, and corrections officers all take the time to actually come and speak to our committee and offer free advice. We did not hear from everyone, unfortunately, because the hearing process was so truncated and expedited. There were only two days to register for the hearings. We did not get a chance to hear from, for example, judges, justices of the peace, or crown attorneys—the very people who are absolutely critical in the administration of justice in Ontario. Their voices were entirely silent in that process. What we did hear were some really strong suggestions that were real and evidence-based. The speakers who did appear before the committee asked us to consider many other things as a part of the continuum of community safety and bail reform. I’m going to speak to some of that today, because I think it’s important for us to make full this conversation of what is before us.

I came to Queen’s Park largely to effect change; I know each and every single parliamentarian wants to do the same thing. You want to serve your community as best you can. You want to drive home real solutions to real-life problems and not just tinker at the edges, not just make symbolic gestures or—perhaps, sometimes in the political theatre—be performative. You want solutions, and so do I; most importantly, so do our communities. They expect that from us.

What I am grappling with is that we have a symbolic motion before us which is supportable—but it could be improved, and I’ll speak to that in a bit. We have a motion before us that is asking the federal government to do something that they’ve already said they’re willing to do. We have a motion that points the finger at the federal government—in particular, Justin Trudeau—about how those real changes can be brought into effect but doesn’t speak to what it is.

What we heard from the speakers at those two full-day committee hearings was that there is real change in real time that can actually happen in Ontario, if the government of the day decides to take real action.

What we know is that not all risk can be avoided simply in the administration of bail. Nothing is that simple. We need smart solutions to make sure we get to the smart outcomes that we anticipate.

New Democrats, on this side of the House, really believe that it is possible to reduce crime by ensuring that the most dangerous offenders are not falling through the cracks of that revolving-door system that was spoken about. That revolving-door system is largely in existence because the justice system is under-resourced. We have to ensure that people do not fall through the cracks. We have to ensure that mental health supports and health care as well as housing are in place for people who need them so that they don’t have to be in our system anymore.

Jails are not housing, detention centres are not housing—just like we know that hospitals are not a form of housing.

Speaker, there was an undertone at the committee—and I want to share this, because I think it was really important, and I’m going to name it explicitly today. The undertone was that the responsibility is all at the federal government and that the federal Liberals in particular can do much more to keep Toronto, Ontario and every other jurisdiction safe. I don’t think I’ve heard from the Prime Minister that he’s not going to be there at the table, but we keep having the government point the finger back to the Prime Minister, saying, “Do more, do more,” when he has already said, “Yes, we are going to do more.”

I seems as though there are some in this House who would like people to believe that the responsibility for reforming bail lies exclusively with the federal government, in order to distract from the fact that more can be done provincially to address this issue. This government has been in power since 2018. Five years later, what has been accomplished? How can communities be made safer, and what are the significant reforms that can come forward?

The Ontario NDP will continue to push for real, full bail reform. That’s something we are truly committed to, because getting tough on crime is not enough when you aren’t getting smart on crime.

The Ontario NDP has been and will be wanting to take immediate action by securing additional resources for criminal prosecutors—something that the government can do right now to ensure that everyone receives a bail hearing in a timely fashion.

We also are asking for more increased funding to legal aid—something that will actually ensure the fair and efficient administration of the justice system.

We need to ensure that police resources are allocated to specifically address the most dangerous offenders, and that it does not result in the criminalization of those who are experiencing poverty, mental health issues, homelessness, or who are struggling with addiction.

We need to ensure that everyone has access to housing and mental health supports.

We will continue to push for a full study on bail reform.

It’s absolutely critical that we recognize this motion is part of a campaign by this government to frame the bail system as overly lenient. Frankly, that barely scratches the surface of what experts have been telling us. They’re the same experts who appeared at the committee. This is where we need to be able to lean into it.

So let’s answer this question: Is the criminal justice system too lenient? Based on real data, the pretrial remand imprisonment rate in Canada and Ontario is higher than that of almost every other comparable Western European nation as well as our most obvious comparators: England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, and Scotland. Countries such as Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands have a bail system that will focus on rehabilitation over incarceration, and they all have intentional homicide rates that are less than what we have in Canada’s intentional homicide rate.

So why is Ontario failing? When it comes to bail and remand, Canada only—

Interjections.

Thank you, Speaker. I’m sure that all members of this House would extend our well wishes to our friend who just took a little tumble. Hopefully, she’s going to be okay. It looked like a spill.

When it comes to bail and remand, Canada only appears moderate when we’re compared to New Zealand, Australia, and the prison capital of the world, the United States. I cannot stress enough, when making that point, that countries that imprison more citizens per capita than any other OECD country—the United States is a far more dangerous country to live in than Canada.

To be frank, I think it’s important for us to recognize that sometimes when language about being tough on crime is said, it oftentimes is a dog whistle for “tough on crime on specific people.” When the rates of incarceration are much higher for Black, Indigenous and people of colour; the most vulnerable, including the homeless, those living in poverty, those living with mental health and addictions, we know that “tough on crime” means “tough on them.”

Statistics will show that the number of people held on remand in Ontario jails is evidence of how bail systems have become more, and not less, strict. In the 1980s to the 1990s, pretrial detainees represented 23% to 30% of the prison population. Today, remand prisoners account for more than 70% of all inmates held in Ontario’s correctional system. Ontario simply has one of the highest proportions of such inmates.

So it’s incredibly important for us to task the solution to the right problem, and in this case, I think that we will probably benefit by listening to the experts who specifically work in the systems we are talking about. I want to be really clear in my remarks and to say that those who work in our correctional services are exceptionally hard-working, dedicated individuals. They have very difficult jobs, but they’re also not being resourced for success, and they have been really clear that we’re not going to create safer societies simply by under-resourcing those systems. You can use a lot of words, but unless you actually look to innovate and put forward resource solutions, it’s not going to produce any results.

As noted by the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, the Office of the Chief Coroner recently released a report on the conditions in Ontario jails which identified overcrowding, mistreatment, the lack of supports and programming. According to the Elizabeth Fry Societies, these findings make it difficult to argue that holding more people in pretrial custody—they have not been sentenced—would enhance public safety. Rather, it would cause significantly more harm to the individuals and public.

In her written submission to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, Dr. Jennifer Foster stated that being held in detention forces inmates to harden in order to cope, and that is happening without them even being convicted. Hardening continues after they are released, requiring further support and treatment to recover from detention. You put them in detention, and they don’t have pathways to rehabilitation or services. The longer you keep them in detention before they’re convicted—if they’re sentenced—they come out more dangerous.

Witnesses to the committee stressed to members of this House that our criminal justice system cannot be expected to eliminate all risks.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association pointed out that a pattern of breaching court orders does not necessarily mean dangerousness, yet we continue to release people on bail conditions such as curfews, prohibitions from returning to home, and perhaps bans on possessing drugs and alcohol. According to the CCLA, people who fail to comply with those court orders oftentimes do so not because they disrespect the court, but simply because they’re struggling to survive; they physically, mentally can’t do it. They need supports and programs to ensure that they can comply.

Finally, the committee was urged to consider that for young people in particular, rehabilitation and reintegration are the key to long-term protection in communities. We need to invest in young people so that they can have a speedier resolution to those youth-oriented cases, so that they can access community services and they can come back and be with their families. That pathway to wellness requires investments and interventions.

Speaker, these objectives demand that we need to better resource the court and corrections system—changes that this motion does not address.

What kind of changes did the committee ask us to consider? Let’s start with the biggest gap in our bail system—the one that I would love to spend more time investigating, should this government hold a full study on bail reform.

One particular speaker at the committee really left me with a lot to consider. I was quite struck by how much knowledge and deep understanding he had about the corrections system. Mr. Scott McIntyre, a 30-plus-year probation and parole officer with the Ministry of the Solicitor General, outlined for the committee a proposal to create a new unit responsible for all aspects of community supervision in the criminal justice system, including bail, parole and probation. As explained by Mr. McIntyre, probation and parole supervision and bail supervision have a number of things in common. In addition to the fact that both involve community supervision, they both also have a “common defect.” Under this government, which has now been in power for five years, the system currently lacks certain things. The system needs to ensure compliance monitoring of those conditions, such as house arrest and curfews. The system needs to seek the whereabouts actively of individuals who have breached their bail and probation, conditional sentence or parole conditions. The system needs to have arms and legs to go out and get individuals who have breached. We have a system that issues warrants—but no one going to investigate afterwards.

Mr. McIntyre proposed the creation of a community corrections compliance unit consisting of a separate classification of peace officers under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Solicitor General—and that those responsibilities could be split evenly between the Attorney General as well as the Solicitor General. These new peace officers would then have a mandate to do some of the following: conduct community compliance checks of persons subject to community supervision orders for bail, probation, parole sentencing; and we would attach certain conditions to them, such as house arrest, curfews, geography, employment, and non-association. It could also seek the whereabouts of individuals wanted for breach of release conditions and execute outstanding warrants for their apprehension. It could also transport individuals back to the court of jurisdiction, and this could help address situations where the police come in contact with jurisdictions out of the area. Oftentimes, that’s hundreds of kilometres away, because people are not bound to one neighbourhood; definitely, they’re not bound to one city and certainly not one province. The police officers and the associations and the forces and services do not have the time nor are they resourced to actually transport people back and forth between the jurisdictions, and that’s where, oftentimes, people fall through the cracks.

Mr. McIntyre also suggested that bail and show-cause hearings for accused people with a supervision history with probation and parole services—those officers could use supervision records to provide the courts with information regarding a person’s risk, including the record of compliance with prior terms of community supervision, and make recommendations to the courts on the suitability for release. This was actually quite interesting. Why is this not being done?

The fact that Mr. McIntyre came forward with these very tangible solutions—and he informs me that he has actually brought this before several governments, so the responsibility doesn’t lie squarely at the feet of this current government; in the previous Liberal governments, the same recommendations were brought forward, and actions were not taken.

I think we need to be able to clearly recognize that the subject matter experts who came to our committee brought forward a number of excellent recommendations, but they’re not in this motion, and they certainly weren’t acted upon during the budget release, which is, of course, one of the most powerful tools—the most powerful tool, the apex of all policy tools—that could have actually effected real community safety and change.

Mr. McIntyre also noted that the bail supervision transfer payment agencies such as the John Howard Society, Elizabeth Fry Society and Salvation Army are not able to perform the feet-on-the-ground supervision around compliance and monitoring that’s needed. So you have organizations that the government has asked to work with those who are out on release, but you haven’t provided them with any of the resources to do that on-the-ground work.

There are over 4,500 warrants for offenders who breached their release conditions, whose whereabouts are unknown. This is a very serious matter, where there’s a gaping hole in the bail monitoring and supervision system that the government has the powers to take action on today—this government—but has not.

It’s evidently clear that if such a unit was created, as suggested by Mr. McIntyre—obviously, we need to have further study and consultation, but it could also yield extraordinary results and close a massive gap that’s before us right now, which is why Mr. McIntyre’s recommendations to me were so illuminating, because they were practical, they were very specific; they weren’t just symbolic. They were bang on, based on what we have now heard about the so-called catch-and-release system.

I believe that Ontario needs to place bail supervision under the Solicitor General’s correctional services’ control, like the vast majority of Canadian provinces. Therefore, Ontario is not a leader; we’re the laggard. Ontario, right now, is one of the few provinces where bail is not under a community corrections compliance unit—where there’s a separate classification of peace officers employed under the Solicitor General’s correctional services.

These are just a few examples of the recommendations that were brought forward. There are so many more, and although I have some time to speak about the recommendations, I don’t have enough time to bring forward the recommendations of two full days of hearings that I really think members of this House would actually benefit from listening to.

I want to be able to also speak a little bit about the officers of the community corrections compliance unit, and specifically about how it’s so critically important to have them in place because they’re going to be on the ground and providing supports. Probation services have great records on offenders’ needs, risks and responsivities, but unfortunately, that information is not shared with the bail court. So you’ve got people who are appearing before judges and the judges are deliberating without a full context and history in front of them. The judiciary would actually be making a more informed decision as to the risk of releasing an accused on bail if they had that prior information.

We know there are 4,500 warrants that are out and this government doesn’t know the whereabouts. Mind you, Speaker, this information came from a 2017 freedom-of-information request, but I’m pretty sure that those exact numbers can be, perhaps, even higher today, based on what we now know were the trends.

We know that officers are doing a fantastic job of writing up breach warrants and then putting them into the system, but then we also know that there’s nobody chasing after them. This is a significant barrier and a gap in the system, Speaker.

The province of Ontario currently has a repeat offender parole enforcement unit. It’s called ROPE; that’s their acronym. Their website indicates that the ROPE unit “is a multi-agency, provincial team that locates and apprehends parolees unlawfully at large in the province of Ontario, as well as anyone who:

“—escapes from secure custody;

“—escapes from or walks away from non-secure custody;” and

—who has become “unlawfully at large by violating bail, parole, or intermittent sentence terms.”

“The ROPE squad also assists other police services with locating and apprehending high-risk dangerous” individuals.

Officer Pierzchala was killed by someone who was out on bail and who failed to appear in court. Why was he at large? Was there no one looking for him if he was so dangerous? We heard about the rap sheet as long as an arm.

Carolyn Jarvis, a reporter, found out this information about the ROPE squad: They pull in 800 offenders per year and an estimated 90% of them are federal parolees. The problem there is that there is nothing like this for provincial offenders. This is a provincially run unit looking after federal parolees. It’s not chasing after provincial parolees. The provincially run ROPE unit does not perform compliance monitoring. It appears only to write warrants. It executes warrants, but it doesn’t follow up.

Mr. McIntyre asked this government, as well as the previous government, to do the following: Bring bail supervision under the corrections umbrella, like the majority of Canadian provinces, cancelling expensive transfer payments to agency bail supervision contracts and creating that Ontario community corrections compliance unit with the aforesaid mandate. It is only then you will have a viable solution within corrections that will be able to respond to the challenges of the day. It will do a lot, I think, in restoring public confidence. It will do a lot in ensuring that the threat to public safety is reduced, and it is entirely within the power of this government.

Speaker, it wasn’t just Mr. McIntyre who had a lot to share with us. There were other individuals, as I noted. It was important that the honourable member from across the way who represents Etobicoke had repeatedly asked in her questions to every speaker who appeared at the committee, “Does bail reform save lives?” The answer, largely—with two exceptions, as I recall—was, “Yes, but,” and then they would go into a list of other things that would be extended from bail reform that could also improve life quality and save lives.

But that hasn’t been the focus of the government. The government hasn’t spoken to the “but here are the other solutions” in the body of this symbolic motion.

The committee members were asked on a number of occasions, “Would it be helpful to have a province-wide, centralized body to oversee bail monitoring, compliance and supervision?” The answer was, “Yes, of course. Do it. Why is it already not being done?”

Toronto Police Chief Demkiw responded that he absolutely supports the idea of having that province-wide, centralized body to oversee bail monitoring and compliance. He then shared with us that the Toronto police already have taken steps on their own to actually move toward a development of a bail-compliance dashboard, something that he was really—and I would say rightfully—proud of. He shared that he was already working with Durham Regional Police to make sure that the information on that dashboard could be shared with the two jurisdictions that are sitting side by side.

Chief Demkiw noted that the Ontario Provincial Police and the government have already expressed some, albeit limited, interest to expand that dashboard concept. This government has the power to bring it province-wide. Yet we know it has hasn’t been done.

Speaker, I honestly believe that this government’s time would be better spent not debating a symbolic motion, but in pursuing the idea that Chief Demkiw brought forward to help us that day, to create that province-wide compliance unit.

But Chief Demkiw was not the only witness who brought forward tangible solutions that could be operationalized. The Ontario Association of Police Services Boards also said that Ontarians would benefit if there was a province-wide bail monitoring system. They also further added this—and I want to share the spokesperson from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police’s remarks today. I want to read this into the record. He said, “Our message to you today as police leaders is this: We want to look at ways to improve how the bail system addresses repeat violent offenders, firearms offences and intimate partner violence. This is an issue that cannot be addressed in isolation and requires a coordinated, multi-faceted approach ... including federal legislative reform to the bail provisions in the Criminal Code.” Here’s the other piece: “provincial amendments to the Ministry of the Attorney General’s policies, guidelines and directives on bail; and sufficient resources and funding from all levels of government to ensure adequate staffing and expertise in bail courts, improved training, and sufficient police resources to enforce bail compliance”—not in the motion.

The spokesperson from the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police continues with this: “In relation to the Ministry of the Attorney General, the OACP also urges the government of Ontario to invest in additional crown and judicial resources. Resource shortages in Ontario have resulted in overburdened bail courts and systemic delays. Funding for additional crowns, with a focus on specialized bail/firearm crowns, is required to ensure the bail system works efficiently and in a way that promotes public safety and respect for the charter.”

Speaker, I now wish to focus on the kinds of reform that we need in social services so that it can interact with the administration of justice and bail. I don’t want us to cover this motion that’s before us today and not consider some of those substantial limitations, because the other experts that came to the committee shared this with us. This includes a submission from the Canadian Mental Health Association: “CMHA Ontario makes the following recommendations:

“Further investment in bail support programming to ensure that vulnerable individuals, including those living with mental health and substance use issues are connected to community mental health, addictions, and other social supports.

“Mental health and substance use supports must be more readily available and accessible within the community:

“—Community mental health and addictions agencies are experts in supporting vulnerable populations.

“—CMHA branches provide mental health and addictions treatment and counselling, mobile crisis services, court diversion and supportive housing.

“Mental health and substance use/addictions screening of all individuals on admission to a correctional facility is necessary to ensure individuals with mental health and substance use issues receive the medical support they require.”

This is part of the solution, Speaker—another very important set of recommendations that were brought forward by the Canadian Mental Health Association. It’s not just words; they’re already on the ground, embedded in our community to deliver those supports. What they need is more money. And interestingly enough, the government voted against it just a few weeks ago.

So all of those solutions—and we only heard from two days of speakers. I already shared with you the limitations of not hearing from the justices of the peace, the crown attorneys and the judges. They haven’t even added their voices to this debate yet. And guess what? They administer the system. All of those opportunities and all of those recommendations should be informing this debate, but instead, we’re debating how it is that the federal government should do more to improve the bail system, when almost—actually, I do think every single expert that came before us said everybody has a piece of ownership on this problem.

Mental health, substance use and addictions screening for all individuals being admitted to correctional facilities is a very simple baseline. Who is going into those facilities? What is required to keep them safe, but also to keep others safe? Because they’re not going to be locked up forever, Speaker. They will come back out, and if they haven’t received the supports that they need in order for them to be rehabilitated and to reintegrate back into a general population, then you’re going to be, at some point, releasing them hardened and making the general population less safe.

And we cannot ignore the fact that the Ontario courts and correctional systems are overrepresented with people living with mental health and addictions, which is actually a health problem. There has been no consistency in the mental health and substance use screening upon the admission of going into a correctional facility. You don’t know who is going in. You don’t know what their needs are. You don’t know how they’re going to come out. Many individuals who do need support will never get the support while they’re being held in remand. In detention centres, they don’t get those supports, but they’re also staying in the detention centres far too long, which is why their sentences, when they do get sentenced, are so short, and they have not received the proper supports that they need so that they can be rehabilitated.

The Canadian Mental Health Association of Ontario recommends that all individuals be screened for mental health and substance use within 24 to 48 hours of entering a correctional facility. I’m sure that’s a standard that’s never met, but it’s a standard that they would like to see in order for us to really be smart about addressing the issues of public safety.

Mental health supports within correctional facilities should be implemented with the co-operation of mental health and community-oriented facilities and services. Something that I learned during the COVID pandemic was that people were being released from the detention centres in great numbers—just congregate settings, two-metre separation distance; got to let them go. Well, you never did an assessment when they were in there, but you also released them without a housing plan. That’s something that I know that the Toronto police flagged repeatedly, over and over again, and I suspect that other police associations did the same thing. If you’re releasing people in the communities, then you better be sure that they are safe to go back into the general population. That was never done. I understand that it was the pandemic, but you never had the information beforehand. You had no data to work with. And what did we see? An explosion of some of the violence that we are seeing right now in public spaces and on the TTC because of the effects of those actions.

This is getting worse largely because nothing is being done to address the systemic problems. It just so happens that the social determinants of health are also the same social determinants of safety. They’re exactly the same. So if you want a safer Ontario, you invest in the social determinants of health, and that includes proper housing and employment opportunities. It ensures that the people have access to health care and mental health care when they need them, that they live a life free of discrimination and violence, and so forth. It’s well documented.

Speaker, the point about housing is absolutely critical, which is why I want to drill down on this: because the Standing Committee on Justice Policy heard from many witnesses and there were many written submissions about how inaccessible and unaffordable housing makes compliance. Therefore, the bail terms people are given are most likely impossible for them to honour, so we’re setting them up for failure.

The worst part is that it’s very expensive. Every time you have somebody cycle through the system without a proper resolution to safe, adequate housing, so that they can start on a path of recovery and rehabilitation, guess who’s paying? The Ontario taxpayer. So not only are we less safe, but we’re paying for a system that doesn’t work, and we’re debating this symbolic motion.

Neighbourhood Legal Services provided another submission, and I want to share this: The major issue that they encounter is bail conditions in which people don’t have a home to return to. You pick them up, you put them in a detention centre, they’re charged with one thing or another, they aren’t receiving services, and at some point in time they’ve been in there for too long and you’ve got to let them go. They come back out hardened, as we have now learned, and it’s not their fault anymore, because now they’ve touched the system. Once again, now it’s our fault, our collective responsibility, where we failed.

So many of the social challenges that we have today are complex, and certainly we do need to recognize that we cannot police our way out of homelessness. The police officers will be the first ones to tell you, “I don’t want to go there.” They used to tell me all the time, “Oh, please don’t send us there.” I mean, I’m not sending them anywhere, but they have to respond to a public disorder, responding to another matter. They know that if that person had access to housing, mental health supports, addiction recovery, there would be a lot less police calls. That would make police officers safer. That would make our communities safer.

The results of decisions where clients don’t have housing have been catastrophic for Neighbourhood Legal Services. It includes a long list of conditions that are just not being met. It’s very important, Speaker, for us to recognize that people who don’t have housing are not going to be safe to themselves, and are not going to be safe, unfortunately, to others. I want to be very mindful that we should not be directing attention specifically on this population, because certainly not everyone is violent—I know that—but we do need to recognize that these systemic failures need systemic solutions.

And so it’s important for us to be smart on crime. It’s important for us to really focus on how we’re going to address bail reform in a way that makes everyone safer. That includes making the system work better, because those expert subject-matter witnesses who came before our committee brought smart solutions; they really did. But will the government be smart enough to implement them? That has yet to be seen.

Neighbourhood Legal Services made a number of recommendations, and I want to be able to share them with you and read them into the record. What they said is, “(1) There must be adequate legal resources provided to ensure that accused persons are able to meaningfully bring forward arguments about their housing in bail hearings, and that they can get legal assistance to seek variations of conditions which prohibit them from attending their homes.

“(2) There should be a presumption that accused persons will not be put under conditions not to attend their home or building.

“(3) Bail courts should be required to consider housing impacts on an accused. They should be given explicit guidance on factors to take into account, including the availability and viability of alternate accommodation, the costs of alternate accommodation, and the ability of the accused to afford alternate accommodation. Bail conditions should be subject to review if an alternate housing option becomes unviable.”

If they can’t go back to their home because it’s not safe, or if they don’t have a home to go back to, then where are you sending them? Into the TTC? Into the subway tunnels? Where are we sending them? Into vacant homes? Into the stairwells and in front of door stoops of businesses? Where are you sending them, if they’re not being sent home or if their home is unsafe? If they are trying to get away from the criminality that they are embedded in, they really probably shouldn’t go back there.

Bail courts should be given guidance on constructing the narrowest possible conditions so the conditions can actually be met. If they are so general, they may not work, such as:

—not to attend the same floor as a complainant, witness or co-accused;

—not to communicate with a complainant, witness or co-accused;

—to maintain a certain distance from a complainant, witness or co-accused;

—not to attend locations in the building when it becomes known that the complainant, witness or co-accused is present in those locations.

All that being said, if people are under-housed and the conflict that brought them into direct contact with the criminal justice system or the correctional system—you can’t send them back there. They’re going to be back out on the street in no time. How are we going to be safer? We are not. It makes absolutely no sense.

I think it’s important for us also to be able to smartly talk about the history of colonialism and systemic racism. I want to note that, even though the Black and Indigenous populations are overrepresented in the courts and the criminal justice system, they certainly were not overrepresented in the hearings. We didn’t hear from them. It just was a shame that there was no opportunity to hear from them.

I know that I was scrambling as I was trying to understand that we’re going to have a conversation about bail reform and not we’re talking about the people who are actually directly impacted, which is why I want to share with you the written submission that we received from the Nishnawbe-Aski Legal Services. This organization was created in the 1990s to address the shortcomings in the administration of justice within Nishnawbe Aski Nation and to improve access to justice for members of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation.

According to this organization, Indigenous people are vastly overrepresented in Canada’s jails and prisons. Moreover, the numbers continue to rise, despite the release of a Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Gladue, more than 20 years ago. That decision required the courts to consider all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances, with particular attention to the circumstances of Indigenous offenders. Subsequent court rulings have held that the Gladue principles were not limited to sentencing. They also apply to all circumstances where an Indigenous person’s freedom is at risk, including bail hearings.

This organization has argued that the most important and critical moment in a criminal matter is bail. What happens is so predictable. If the accused is not granted bail, the chance of them entering a guilty plea goes up significantly. This reflects the reality that no one wants to wait in jail for a trial when they are being offered the option of being released for time served. The Supreme Court has noted that Indigenous people are more likely to be refused bail and that this reality contributes to the over-incarceration of Indigenous people.

You want to talk about truth and reconciliation, Speaker? Here is an opportunity for us to deal with what has happened within the Indian residential school system. These are real-life situations that aren’t just necessarily about talking points about being tough on crime. “Tough on crime” without getting to actual solutions doesn’t get us to safer communities. I am confident that every parliamentarian here is committed to building safer communities for all of us.

I know I am. My son is almost four years old. He is about to be in school. We live in downtown Toronto. I’ve got to get him across Yonge Street so that at some point in time he is going to be able to walk to school by himself. I am so committed to building safe communities, but we cannot go about it just by talking points. This is so real for me. It’s so real. And it’s real for other community members, including those from the rural and northern communities and Indigenous stakeholders who were not present in the committee hearings.

I think it’s important for us to recognize that for some of the First Nations people in northern Ontario, 23 of the 34 communities are fly-in communities. Where are the courts? Where are the judges? I’ve now heard that you can’t even get a hearing. You can’t even get access to justice because those facilities aren’t there.

There’s just so much more that we can talk about. I want to share with you, Speaker, something that was shared by Roland Morrison, who is the chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Police Service. He described a number of aspects that are unique to the bail system in his jurisdiction. In fly-in communities, bail hearings are conducted either by audio or video, technology and weather permitting—

Interruption.

The member from Toronto Centre may continue.