Picture this grim scene 2,300 years ago in Asculum: The Macedonian general Pyrrhus surveys the battlefield. Roman legions, Greek phalanxes, elephants, archers and cavalry lie wounded and dying—a battle so costly that historical accounts disagree on whether any side won. Pyrrhus himself said, “If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.”

Today, picture this: paramedics lined up in overcrowded emergency rooms, overwhelmed ICU nurses, cancers going undetected, tent communities across Ontario, educators in physical danger because of understaffing, even idled ferries.

Why won’t the Premier accept the Ontario Superior Court ruling against Bill 124 and realize that any appeal would be at most a Pyrrhic victory? Don’t start another battle. Renegotiate a fair deal, and get to work on our real problems.

A very quick question: One of the amendments in this bill would allow a clerk of the court to set aside an administrative conviction. That’s something that really ties up—the old system would really tie up things. The new system that we’re proposing will free judges of the provincial—

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.

I’m pleased to be able to support the motion from my colleague representing Oakville–North Burlington, in particular that the government 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 the Family Court system.

One such partner who can assist the government with this critical consultative and continuing educational process is Luke’s Place, situated in Oshawa in the region of Durham, who I have worked with for a number of years at a number of levels, some personal. Luke’s Place Support and Resource Centre for Women and Children is a non-profit centre of excellence devoted to improving the safety and experience of women and their children. They’re the only stand-alone family law support centre in Canada for women who have been subjected to intimate partner violence. They provide direct services to hundreds of women and their children every year and share their expertise with other stakeholders, as cited in the motion, through training programs, resources, tools, research and mentoring.

What’s clear, as statistics and reports have highlighted, as well as the member from Oakville North–Burlington, is violence against women increased and intensified under COVID-19. I saw evidence of that, unfortunately, in the region of Durham.

Speaker, I am pleased to say that Luke’s Place stands ready and able to help effect the intent and purpose, the important purpose, of the motion before us this evening.

I thank my colleague in Oakville North–Burlington for bringing this important motion before us this evening. I urge all members here tonight to support it as well.