Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We do share a border and lots of great companies that work along Eglinton in Toronto. I’m really proud that we were able to get all of the money out to small businesses to support them. I’m really proud that we’re doing a lot to save small businesses—all businesses, really—money in Ontario by saving them about half a billion dollars by reducing all of this red tape.

Under the former Liberal government, they had the highest cost of compliance for businesses in Canada, a total of $33,000 per business, which was at least $4,000 more than any other province. That is not a record that would draw businesses here, as my friend said earlier. We need to get businesses to come to Ontario so we have a prosperous economy for all of our workers and all Ontarians.

Certainly, he describes some of the red tape and the burden of bureaucracy and red tape on businesses and communities so that they can get things done. I think it’s very clear from what you read—and Alexis de Tocqueville put it better than just about anybody else—that it’s something that we need to address. We need to free people from the burden of red tape, and I’m very excited that we’re bringing forward yet another red tape bill to achieve that.

Government can be an undue burden. We have three levels of government in Canada: We have municipal governments, we have provincial governments and we have federal governments. It’s confusing for people, and it also poses a huge burden on people to achieve their ends. They have to make sure they’re complying with regulations of all kinds all the time, and I think the more we can do to streamline that, rationalize it and make it make sense so people can still get things done and so governments can still get things done—that’s a good objective and we should achieve that.

The member from Toronto–St. Paul’s.

Interjection: You’re not in your seat.

Questions?

Interjection.

We are on questions and comments, right? I’m just clarifying. Excellent.

I had an opportunity to listen to many of the things that the member was saying. Listen, he brings up some valid points, and I do appreciate any time he rises in the Legislature.

I want to go back just quickly to the question that I asked the member for London West. When we’re talking about eliminating red tape here in the province, looking at regulations that we can try to streamline or, quite frankly, eliminate if they’re redundant—my riding lost 12,000 manufacturing jobs, 12,000 good-paying jobs. These are jobs with pensions. These are jobs with benefits. These are jobs that people want, and we lost them to jurisdictions that had less red tape and regulation.

Just as a general question, does the member support the reduction of regulations here in the province, the reduction of red tape and things that will support good jobs, good-paying jobs, good, steady jobs for the people of this province?

I always enjoy being in the House when the member for Kitchener–Conestoga is in the House. It seems that when I’m not here, he seems to really ramp it up, and when I’m here, there are more cordial discussions that we have, because we have several sidebars. That’s something that a lot of people who are watching right now on the TV don’t get to see when the cameras are off: the work that gets done in this place.

I say to the member, of course I would support legislation that would be helpful, that would generate employment opportunity, economic growth in this province. However, a good part of my statement that was made today was actually on the bill. I talked about that. But I wanted to raise a flag and I wanted to hear from the government, who can tell me differently, is this government actually looking at Indigenous communities as being red tape? Because if you are not, then the consultation process would have taken place prior to this legislation hitting the floor of the Legislature.

I’ll leave that with you, my friend.

Merci au député d’Algoma–Manitoulin pour ses commentaires. J’ai une question sur la séquestration de carbone.

My question is about carbon capture and the sequestering of carbon. You talked quite a bit about it. It seems like an unproven technology, and it seems that there was a case in Australia where the government invested millions of dollars in carbon sequestration. It wasn’t very successful, and it seemed to be used more as an excuse for oil companies to continue burning fossil fuels rather than an actual way of reducing carbon output. Would you like to comment on that?

It’s a pleasure to join this discussion today on Bill 46, An Act to enact one Act and amend various other Acts. It’s the first red tape bill that our new Minister of Red Tape Reduction has brought forward, but I doubt very much that it will be the last, because it is something that we are absolutely seized on, on this side of the House.

And it didn’t start here. I’ve been around long enough to remember when former Premier Mike Harris was elected in 1995. He saw a province that had been governed by the party on the other side here for five years, and saw the absolute growth in red tape in the province of Ontario and what a constricting effect it was having on businesses and people in the province of Ontario.

I know they might get upset with me here, but socialists love red tape and bureaucracy. They absolutely love it. I’m not sure how they’re going to vote on this bill, but I’m sure they’re kind of conflicted because the people out there, they get it. Government is too big. It stands in the way of progress. Every time you talk to somebody on the street and you ask them, “How is this going?”—it could be their project to build a new home, it could be a project to build something in the community, it could be a public institution that’s going to be built in the community—the first thing they’ll say is, “I can’t believe the amount of regulations we’ve got to go through to get that done. It’s absolutely ridiculous.” You talk about other jurisdictions that get things done in a quarter of the time.

This bill is not going to fix all of it, but it does speak to the philosophy and the belief of this government and its members that we can do better. We can make Ontario much better by getting on with moving forward and not standing in the way.

I do want to appreciate the Oscar Wilde quote from the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler earlier today—I don’t have it in front of me—that the bureaucracy is expanding to serve the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. It may not be exactly the quote, but it certainly paraphrases it. That’s what happens as governments get bigger and bigger and bigger. The bureaucracy becomes more and more unwieldy, and the people aren’t even actually able to understand what a blockade it can be.

So you have to have a government that actually takes the position that we are going to remove some of that unnecessary regulation. I don’t know if there’s an actual definition out there, but to me, red tape should be defined as “unnecessary regulation that impedes the ability of society to move forward in a progressive and beneficial manner”—something to that effect; that’s my own definition.

But the members on the other side—while listening to this debate, I have to ask myself, do they really want to debate Bill 46, or do they want to regurgitate something else? Because I heard more about Bill 23 today than I heard about Bill 46. But there’s a news flash for you folks over there: We actually passed Bill 23. It’s now done. But I think youse are a bit conflicted on Bill 46. You actually barely want to speak to it.

With that in mind, Speaker, I move that the question now be put.

I’m very interested in the way this government interacts with our First Nations and First Nations leadership, as well as Métis. They obviously have something to say. They have governance and government in place. They have free and fair elections where they elect their leaders. They have elders who help to make sure that the right decisions are made, not just for today but for seven generations to come.

I’d like to ask the member from Manitoulin: What difference do you figure it would make if the government took the time to sit down with First Nations, listen to their ideas, listen to their way of life and listen to their knowledge to move bills like this bill forward?

I want to thank the member from Spadina–Fort York for his question, and he’s right. I did raise a lot of these comments, and a lot of those concerns I raised were under schedule 5. The huge concern I have is opening up treaty lands. See, I said that right, Speaker; it’s easy. We should all try to do that, instead of saying it the colonial way: “crown land.” We should be talking about treaty lands and what we’re doing to those particular lands in not engaging with First Nations communities and talking to them about how it’s going to be affecting the communities.

Also to your point, the intent, the idea behind this is that it’s supposed to be a wash. It goes in, but what it also does—there’s a new way of now inserting carbon into the ground which will push additional oil out, which will continue to perpetuate the idea of using oil. That’s something we should be thinking about, not only in this province but across the globe: getting away from fossil fuels.

Now, one thing we have to remember is: Watch out what you ask for. Because removing too much of that red tape also removes the oversight that we have put in place to make sure—why certain projects take longer to go through, why certain ones are successful and why others aren’t. The oversight is something that is very, very important, and sometimes removing some of the red tape eliminates that and takes away security from the variety of options and projects that are looking to move forward in this province.

As legislative representatives, that’s our role: to make sure that certain procedures, certain security measures are in place so that we keep the produce and the processes safe for all Ontarians.

A responsibility that we have as the Ontario government is to recognize that we are all treaty members. We are all part of this globe, and we need to respect the nation-to-nation relationship that is there, that is enshrined, that is their right. We should be consulting with them prior to any piece of legislation—

I think my job here as the elected MPP for Algoma–Manitoulin is to bring the lenses of how people feel and what their perceived sights are on what red tape is and how they can move the stake forward and how they can prosper as businesses. A lot of what they’re bringing forward is just—they need the ability to move their projects forward. They need to do it in a timely fashion. They want to do it in a secure way, as well—

I wanted to ask the member opposite—he had a lot in his remarks. But when we talk about red tape, a lot of us have different definitions of red tape. I just want to ask the member opposite how he would define red tape.

I just wanted to ask the member—you know, we talk about small businesses and helping them with red tape, and you were saying, in your definition, that you don’t want to overburden them and that you have to be cautious. I’m just wondering when was the last time you spoke to CFIB and what you heard from them and when your last meeting with CFIB was.

Point of order, Madam Speaker: If you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for us to see the clock at 6.

I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should consult with the public and its partners in the Family Court system to promote and ensure the availability of continuing education seminars for professionals in Ontario’s Family Court system, such as judges, justices of the peace, crown attorneys, custody assessors and social workers, on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control in intimate partner and family relationships.

This motion comes with a heavy backstory, and it’s an example of why it is so important we re-evaluate and apply new strategies to eliminate these horrific crimes. It’s about a girl named Keira Kagan—she was four years old, almost five. Keira’s mother, Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater, remembers her for her love of animals, sweet-natured soul and courageous smile. We say “remembers” because Keira died suddenly in an apparent murder-suicide at the hands of her father.

On February 9, 2020, Keira and her biological father were found dead at the base of a cliff at Rattlesnake Point Conservation Area in Milton. Jennifer Kagan-Viater and Keira had lived in Burlington, and were living in Thornhill at the time.

In the years leading up to Keira’s death, Dr. Kagan-Viater remembered an escalation in abusive behaviour by her ex-husband. Though she’d left him years earlier, she worried about the safety of her daughter during his unsupervised visits.

She said, “The abuse did not stop with separation, and it only got worse. Keira was used as a tool to get claws into me.”

She said she went to the courts seeking protection for Keira, and expressed concern about Brown’s violent and coercive behaviour, but she said she was met with hurdles.

She went on to say, “When I brought forward the evidence about abuse of Mr. Brown, we had a judge, for example,” say “that domestic violence is not relevant to parenting and, ‘I’m going to ignore it.’”

This motion is aimed at addressing a glaring gap in our family law system to ensure that judges, crown attorneys, justices of the peace, court assessors, social workers and other professionals have the information they need to keep women and children safe.

Jennifer Kagan-Viater, her spouse, Philip Viater, friends and supporters worked hard to spread the message about the need to fill this gap. I am proud to have Jennifer’s support for this motion and her commitment to see this become law in Ontario. This work is in honour of Keira and to ensure that no family has to mourn a lost loved one because of violence and abuse.

Violence against women and children is a blight on our society. All of us in this House know we need to fight it. It takes money for shelters and education. It takes teaching men and boys, women and girls that domestic violence of any kind is wrong. And it takes arming those who make decisions about custody access and child safety with the full information they need to keep everyone safe.

Last Friday was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, the beginning of the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence, running until December 10, Human Rights Day. The Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity joined me and MPP Pierre at Halton Women’s Place in our community to see the vital work they do.

This is also Woman Abuse Prevention Month. Yesterday, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services marked the month, as we all did, by wearing a purple scarf, the symbol of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses’s Wrapped in Courage campaign. And December 6 is the anniversary of the Montreal massacre. We mark all of these commemorations because we know we need to do so much more.

Forty-four per cent of women in Canada have experienced some form of violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Ending the relationship does not end a women’s risk of death; 20% to 22% of intimate partner femicides were perpetrated by estranged spouses within the first 18 months of separation.

In Canada, a woman is murdered every 2.5 days, ranging from 144 to 178 murders each year between 2015 and 2019.

And in 2021, the rate of femicide was trending even higher. Of the women murdered, 50% were killed by intimate partners and 26% by family members.

Women account for 80% of reported incidents of intimate partner violence, which affects all ages, races, ethnicities and socio-economic strata. Women at highest risk are those who are young, immigrants, refugees, Indigenous or living with disabilities.

In my own community, Halton Women’s Place took 2,200 crisis calls in 2021. Over the same year, Halton police responded to 3,500 intimate-partner-violence-related calls, made 890 arrests and laid 2,000 charges.

Data on femicide in Canada show alarming trends among non-urban and Indigenous women. One quarter of all murdered women in Canada are Indigenous.

The Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses published a monthly report on femicide. In September 2022, they reported 40 confirmed femicides in Ontario since November 26, 2021.

Furthermore, violent and aggressive behaviour towards female partners is not always weighted heavily enough to change outcomes during decision-making in Family Court, such as in child custody cases.

A report from the Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative included statistics on children killed in the context of domestic violence in Canada. There were 74 children killed, representing 9% of all domestic homicide victims identified in the period from 2010 to 2019. There were 54 accused identified in 52 cases of domestic homicide involving children; 82% were male. The majority of children killed were the biological children of the accused at 70%, followed by stepchildren at 24%.

Now, what these stats tell us is that the danger in cases of intimate partner violence does not end with separation or divorce. The most dangerous time for a victim of abuse is when she separates from her partner. According to research from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, when there is history of coercive control, violence and a recent separation, a woman’s risk of domestic homicide goes up 900 times. A study from the US found that 11% of 231 women killed by their intimate partner had been issued a restraining order; about 20% of those who had been issued a restraining order were killed within two days of the order being issued.

Jennifer drew my attention to the case of Jared Osidacz, an eight-year-old boy in Brantford, Ontario, who was killed by his father after a judge granted him unsupervised access.

In courts in Canada and other countries, one of the strategies used by abusers is victimizing themselves or alleging parental alienation. This is a tactic used by abusers whose interest is not in the best interest of the child or the ex-spouse but in controlling them.

We all know that abuse can be more than physical or sexual. Coercive control is part of the definition of family violence contained in both the federal Divorce Act and in the update our government made to the Children’s Law Reform Act in 2020. Both define it in the same way: “‘Family violence’ means any conduct by a family member towards another family member that is violent or threatening, that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour or that causes the other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person, and, in the case of a child, includes direct or indirect exposure to such conduct.”

We have the definition in our laws. We just need to ensure that training about domestic violence includes knowledge about coercive control and all aspects of intimate partner violence.

A federal bill, Bill C-223, introduced by Quebec MP Anju Dhillon, calling for training for federally appointed judges, passed the House of Commons with all-party support and is currently before the Senate. It follows on a law originally proposed by former MP Rona Ambrose for mandatory training in sexual assault law for judges. It was eventually passed as a government bill. The new law would add to this. This is what is needed in Ontario too, as Ontario regulates far more of the Family Court system.

The latest continuing education plan for Ontario judges notes that criminal law education conferences have recently covered a range of topics, including sex offences and sexual offenders and the meaning of consent in sexual assault cases. The plan does not appear to specifically reference intimate partner violence or coercive control in a family law context. The most recent Justice of the Peace Education Plan posted on the Ontario Court of Justice website includes two references to domestic violence issues.

We need to go further than this to ensure that decision-makers in the Family Court system learn about intimate partner violence, including emotional violence and coercive control. For too long, women have been silenced from speaking out about domestic violence and the trauma faced while navigating our legal system. That ends today as the Legislature passes Keira’s Law motion.

I would like to thank the Attorney General of Ontario as we take the first step to ensuring we have training about intimate partner violence and coercive control for Ontario judges, justices of the peace, crown attorneys and other professionals in our family courts. We need more tools to ensure all decision-makers know the signs of abuse so we can keep women and children safe.

To all those women who have suffered or are suffering: We hear you and see you. We know this is only the first step, but I’m going to keep working until we’ve found solutions. The best way that we, in the House, can honour Keira’s memory is to keep safe other women and children at risk from intimate partner violence.

I ask members in this House to support my motion. Thank you.

Mr. Yakabuski has moved that the question be now put. I am satisfied that there have been 25 speakers and over nine hours of debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion that the question be put, say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be put, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote is required. It will be deferred to the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

I am pleased to rise today to participate in this debate on private member’s motion 19. Certainly this is a motion that the official opposition is pleased to support. It calls on the government to promote and ensure the availability of continuing education seminars for professionals in Ontario’s Family Court system.

Now, in saying that this is a motion that we can support, I want to point out the contrast between the contents of this motion that was tabled since the election and the recommendations that were made by the coroner’s jury to the province of Ontario following the murders of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk and Nathalie Warmerdam in Renfrew county several years ago. In particular, I want to highlight recommendation 8, recommendation 28, recommendation 29, recommendation 31, recommendation 42 and recommendation 57, that all dealt extensively with training in our justice system.

Recommendation 8 requires “that all justice system participants who work with” intimate partner violence “survivors and perpetrators are trained and engage in a trauma-informed approach to interacting and dealing with survivors and perpetrators.”

Recommendation 28: “Review existing training for justice system personnel.”

Recommendation 29: “Provide professional education and training for justice system personnel ... which should include”—and then there’s a long list of content recommendations for what the training must include.

And then recommendation 31 is to “track whether mandated” intimate partner violence-related “professional education and training is completed by all justice system personnel.”

It’s one thing to promote and ensure the availability of training; it’s quite another to mandate training for all those who are involved in the Family Court system.

I just want to remind members—I think it was about a year and a half ago or so—that we debated in this place Bill 207. That was amendments to the Children’s Law Reform Act legislation that was brought forward by the Attorney General to recognize the fact that many of the cases that come before the family courts involve families where one partner, typically the woman, has been experiencing violence at the hands of the other partner, typically the man, and so the Family Court system is involved in making custody decisions.

At the time, Luke’s Place from Durham region presented to the committee and they made some recommendations to this government that were endorsed by a long list of women’s shelters and sexual violence agencies and gender-based violence agencies. One of those recommendations that was endorsed by all of these agencies involved in the violence against women sector was that “family law services, courts, and legal advisers must complete family violence and family violence assessment training and practice requirements.”

Unfortunately, at the time that Bill 207 was debated the government chose to ignore the recommendation to make that training mandatory. It appears that in the motion that is before us today, the government still wants to leave it up to the professionals involved in the court system to decide whether they’re going to participate in this training. We know from the inquest that was conducted in Renfrew that making the training mandatory is critical.

I also wanted to highlight a couple of other recommendations that were included in the coroner’s report, and in particular, recommendation 18, that says, “Recognize that the implementation of the recommendations from this inquest, including the need for adequate and stable funding ... will require a significant financial investment,” and they call on the government to commit to providing such funding.

Unfortunately, Speaker, we have not seen this government commit to coming to the table to provide the stable funding, the ongoing funding, that organizations that provide intimate partner violence support services need to help survivors navigate the justice system. In fact, we see an exemplary program, the Family Court Support Worker Program, which provides assistance to survivors as they navigate the Family Court system. We have seen that program—that funding is provided year after year. Agencies have to reapply. They never know whether the minimal dollars that are allocated are going to be there.

So providing the supports, making the training mandatory: That is what is going to have a meaningful difference for survivors of intimate partner violence in Ontario.

Further debate?

I would like to start my remarks by thanking the member for Oakville North–Burlington for bringing this motion forward. It is a motion that deals with a very serious issue, the issue of domestic violence, and it deserves full support from all of us.

I understand that this motion is inspired by Keira’s Law, a federal bill that passed in the House of Commons on June 1 of this year, with unanimous support of the whole House of Commons. The bill is currently at the second reading stage before the Senate.

The bill requires a justice to consider whether someone charged with intimate partner violence should be required to wear an electronic monitoring device, but more on point with the current motion, the bill also provides for continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control in intimate relationships.

The story behind this legislation is unfortunately one that is too common. Thanks to the determination of Keira’s mom, Jennifer, we now see Parliament taking action, and we need to do the same.

Keira was her four-year-old daughter, and she was found dead with her father on February 9, 2020, at the base of a cliff at Rattlesnake Point conservation area in Milton, Ontario. It is believed that this was a murder-suicide. The father, Robin Brown, had been abusive for years previously. The mother, Jennifer, sought protection for Keira through the courts. She expressed concern with her ex-husband’s violent behaviour. Unfortunately, like it was mentioned before, she was not taken seriously, with the judge saying that the domestic violence and coercive control of Mr. Brown were actually not relevant to Keira’s custody.

When I say this kind of story is too common, I mean that 30 to 40 kids are killed by their own parents every year in Canada. Some of the responsibilities fall with the courts, because they are failing the victims, because judges don’t have the proper training. Without the science of domestic violence, judges are ignoring clues that could help avoid such tragedies. Science cannot be infused, even for judges; it needs to be learned by those who have the power to make a difference.

All judges understand that in any domestic dispute, the interest of the child needs to be the priority. However, the interpretation of what this interest is can be wrong if the judge is thinking that the child must be able to see both parents and that fact supersedes any consideration of domestic violence. Domestic violence is not necessarily visual physically, and that’s why training is important. Training is not only important, it is critical.

I had the opportunity to speak to Jennifer just two days ago. She’s a brave mother who has shown great determination in bringing forward a proposed solution, not for her, because for her it’s too late, but to protect other children and parents from the infinitely tragic situation she has endured and the pain she continues to suffer. There is no more terrible loss than losing a child. We cannot let Jennifer down, no more than we can let down the children and parents who are at risk every day in this province.

The motion is a great first step. When I spoke with Jennifer, she said she’s grateful and she’s encouraged by this, so I’m totally supportive of this effort by the government. But we need to go further. We need to have conversations with the judiciary and the chief justices about the importance of making this a priority.

I spoke to the member for Oakville North–Burlington and to the Attorney General earlier this week, and I want to reiterate my offer to help and to collaborate with the government on moving this forward, to see concrete changes in our legislation.

Again, I want to thank the member for Oakville North–Burlington for bringing this motion before the assembly of Ontario.

The member from Ottawa–Vanier.

Janet Desormeaux, 43, of Sudbury, was killed on October 30. Janet will be remembered for her smile and her love for her family, a staple within her community and hockey arena.

Katherine Zollerano, 43, of Toronto, was killed on November 2. Katherine will be forever remembered and missed by many family members, friends and loved ones.

Danielle Strauss, 38, of Hamilton, was killed on November 10. Danielle enjoyed spending time with her neighbours on outings or playing bingo, and loved to laugh.

Jane Doe, eight years old, of Oshawa, was killed on November 12. The victim was like a daughter to many in her small community, and she had a bright future ahead of her.

Jane Doe, 41, of Kitchener, was killed on November 15. The victim will be deeply missed by her family, friends and community members. Two other victims, a 51-year-old woman and a seven-year-old girl, were also injured in this attack but are expected to survive.

Jane Doe of Milton was killed on November 22. The victim will be forever remembered and missed by her children, other family members, friends and community members.

Speaker, these are the victims of femicide in the last month alone. I rise today to honour and remember these women, as well as the many others who have been killed by those they knew well. Our thoughts, our prayers and our sorrow continue to be with their families and their friends.

Madam Speaker, every young woman, every girl, has the right to live in safety and with dignity, free from intimidation and violence. It is so important that the women in our communities who are affected by violence and exploitation receive the support they need, while offenders are held accountable through our justice system.

I am speaking today in support of this motion from the member from Oakville North–Burlington. Continuous education courses for our partners in the Ontario Family Court system will help to better inform those involved in the early warning signs of gender-based violence and will lead to preventive measures being put in place before it becomes too late.

This motion builds on our government’s many actions to address gender-based violence. Last year alone, we invested $11 million in violence prevention initiatives and nearly $200 million in services and supports for survivors of violence. The investment provides critical services, such as crisis lines, sexual assault centres and emergency shelters for women and their children. It also funds programs that connect women who have experienced violence with a wide range of supports; supports like safety planning, counselling, mental health services, supportive housing and culturally responsive healing programs.

I’d like to acknowledge the release of Canada’s first National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence earlier this month and our government’s endorsement of that plan. The plan is a historic milestone in fulfilling a lifelong plan and a lifelong standing commitment of all levels of government to work towards a Canada free of gender-based violence.

Ontario led the approach in forwarding the national action plan to the FPT forum of justice ministers with a written request that they commit to taking further action to improve justice system responses, including by holding perpetrators and offenders accountable.

In closing, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the professionals who are working on the front lines to support and comfort survivors of domestic and sexual violence and help them redirect their lives. It is difficult and often unsung work, but it is life-saving and life-changing.

Further debate?