I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly from the Elementary Teachers of Toronto.

“Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Elementary Teachers of Toronto to Stop the Cuts and Invest in the Schools our Students Deserve.

“Whereas the Ford government cut funding to our schools by $800 per student during the pandemic period, and plans to cut an additional $6 billion to our schools over the next six years;

“Whereas these massive cuts have resulted in larger class sizes, reduced special education and mental health supports and resources for our students, and neglected and unsafe buildings;

“Whereas the Financial Accountability Office reported a $2.1-billion surplus in 2021-22, and surpluses growing to $8.5 billion in 2027-28, demonstrating there is more than enough money to fund a robust public education system;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

“—immediately reverse the cuts to our schools;

“—fix the inadequate education funding formula;

“—provide schools the funding to ensure the supports necessary to address the impacts of the pandemic on our students;

“—make the needed investments to provide smaller class sizes, increased levels of staffing to support our students’ special education, mental health, English language learner and wraparound supports needs, and safe and healthy buildings and classrooms.”

I fully support this petition. I’m going to sign it along with all of these constituents and give it to Mikaeel to take to the table.

“Support Gender-Affirming Health Care.

“Whereas two-spirit, transgender, non-binary, gender-diverse, and intersex communities face significant challenges to accessing health care services that are friendly, competent, and affirming in Ontario;

“Whereas everyone deserves access to health care, and they shouldn’t have to fight for it, shouldn’t have to wait for it, and should never receive less care or support because of who they are;

“Whereas gender-affirming care is life-saving care;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the reintroduction of a private member’s bill to create an inclusive and representative committee to advise the Ministry of Health on how to realize accessible and equitable access to and coverage for gender-affirming health care in Ontario.”

I am proud to put my name to this. I will give it to Claire to take to the table.

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 4, 2023, on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario entitled “Support Gender-Affirming Health Care.

“Whereas two-spirit, transgender, non-binary, gender-diverse, and intersex communities face significant challenges to accessing health care services that are friendly, competent, and affirming in Ontario;

“Whereas everyone deserves access to health care, and they shouldn’t have to fight for it, shouldn’t have to wait for it, and should never receive less care or support because of who they are;

“Whereas gender-affirming care is life-saving care;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the reintroduction of a private member’s bill to create an inclusive and representative committee to advise the Ministry of Health on how to realize accessible and equitable access to and coverage for gender-affirming health care in Ontario.”

I absolutely support this petition. I have affixed my signature and will hand it to Savannah for the table.

It’s my honour to present a petition entitled “Health Care: Not for Sale.” 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;

“—10 employer-paid sick days;

“—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, will affix my signature and deliver it with page Mikaeel to the table.

Further debate?

I’m going to talk for the next 20 minutes about the budget because this is one of our documents and one of our efforts that is really going to propel Ontario through 2023 and into the future. All you have to do is look to the past to know exactly where the future is going to take us, and this bill addresses everything that we need to get us through this year.

I want to look back to some time ago when former Premier Wynne was on a stage with former CEO of Fiat Chrysler, Sergio Marchionne. Now, his exact words when the Premier asked him about expanding Chrysler in Ontario, he looked very quizzically at her and his exact words to her were: “This is not what I would call the cheapest jurisdiction.” He said to her, “You need to create the conditions to be competitive.” Speaker, I would attest that that is exactly what was done in the past, and that’s exactly what the Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit that is in this budget will do for the future.

Speaker, when you look again to the past, you can see what happens when you don’t do things like the Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit, investing in Futurpreneur, investing in places like Invest Ottawa and others.

The previous Liberal government, in their thankfully final report on the economy, threw in the towel on manufacturing and threw in the towel on Ontario. I’m quoting again from their final report on the economy: “The structure of the Ontario economy will continue to shift from goods-producing to service-producing sectors” and this will result in “shifting employment from goods-producing industries, in particular manufacturing, to the service-sector industries.”

Instead of fixing the problems that they created, they threw in the towel. They just gave up. They gave up on Ontario. They gave up on manufacturing. They certainly gave up on northern Ontario. We know that.

We were elected in 2018, and one of the very first instructions from Premier Ford to our entire caucus was that we’ve got to listen to what happened in the past, learn why 300,000 manufacturing jobs fled Ontario, why manufacturers fled Ontario and listen to what they’ve asked. They asked us to lower the cost of doing business. That’s exactly what we did, and that’s exactly what this budget will do through the Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit.

The Premier visited places like Ford, GM, Stellantis, Honda and Toyota, as well as companies in the tech sector, as well as companies in the pharma sector, and all of them said the same thing: “The cost of doing business in Ontario is too high. You’ve got to bring in some relief. You’ve got to lower the burden. You’ve got to lower the taxes in Ontario.” The very first thing that was done was the WSIB, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. Some people would call it workers’ compensation. That was reduced by 50%. There was so much money in reserves bundled in there by the previous government, taking it from the businesses and piling it into reserves that not only were so overstuffed, they far surpassed any financial requirements, they far surpassed any moral requirements to keep that much money. So that was cut by 50%. That was $2.5 billion annually in the cost of premiums saved by businesses without touching the benefits even a fraction. That $2.5 billion—the 50% cut—was only the beginning. From there, something called an accelerated capital cost allowance—that’s a really fancy way of saying that you can take your equipment and write off the cost of that equipment in-year. That’s a really novel thing to do in North America. Businesses, instead of writing their equipment off over years, can write it off in the same year. That saves businesses a billion dollars a year.

Then the red tape reduction bills began, a series of eight or nine of them now, that saved hundreds of millions of dollars every single year. All the taxes that the previous Liberal government had planned for January 1, all of those hundreds of millions of dollars of tax increases that were to come in on January 1, 2019, we wiped all of those off—gone. Hundreds of millions of dollars did not come on the tax rolls of these businesses on January 1.

The hydro mess that the Liberals created: We also immediately reduced industrial and commercial rates by 15%. You take that combination of capital cost allowance, WSIB, red tape, hydro, taxes: All of these things together at the time lowered the cost of doing business in Ontario by $7 billion each and every single year.

Speaker, you would say, as some have said, “Well, what did the government do? They lost $7 billion each year in revenue. How do you continue governing with that much loss of revenue?”

We’ve always said from the very beginning that lower taxes create jobs and create higher revenue. And nothing proved it more than the budget that came out last week, where we saw that now the annual total of savings is $8 billion—$8 billion in savings every year. What did that do, Speaker? Exactly what it was set out to do: 600,000 new jobs were created in the province of Ontario. That exactly is the result that you would anticipate—one of the two results you would anticipate.

Some 300,000 jobs were created before the pandemic; 300,000 jobs were created since the pandemic. Our government, with these changes—$8 billion a year in savings—created the conditions for those companies to create all of those jobs. Eighty-five thousand new businesses opened in the province of Ontario last year. Again, why? You’ve got a lower cost of doing business.

Again, $8 billion—yes, lower revenue to the province. How did that get made up? Higher employment—600,000 new jobs. Revenue to the government was $154 billion the year we were elected. This budget shows the revenue to the government is now $204 billion, a $50-billion increase, because lower taxes create higher revenue. That’s what’s happened here in the province of Ontario.

More of that is coming. You’ve got the Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit. That brand new tax credit is going to lower the cost of investing in Ontario for local manufacturers who want to grow their business, want to expand their business, just like the WSIB, $2.5 billion in savings; just like the capital cost allowance—in fact, this one is very similar to that—that saved a billion dollars. This is going to save $780 million for businesses to be able to reinvest that money in their companies, just like they did the last four years, where they hired 600,000 workers.

This is exactly what works. This is the formula for success for Ontario. This is going to provide a 10% refundable corporate income tax credit on the investments in buildings and machinery and equipment, all to use in advanced manufacturing and processing, all to build the things we need in Ontario, all of the reshoring that has gone on in the province of Ontario—I’ve talked about it before, a great company down in Windsor that makes Pine-Sol. Pine-Sol was never made here in Ontario. It has been reshored from the States into Canada, and who doesn’t love Pine-Sol? It’s now made here in Ontario, along with dozens and dozens and dozens of other companies that are making products in Ontario for the very first time. Why? Because we’ve lowered the cost of business. We’ve made it attractive to them. This Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit is the next step. That’s the next piece of the puzzle to lure even more companies here to work in Ontario and to hire our families.

If there was any doubt that there was any issue with this at all, think again. We’ll go back to where we were in 2019. Reuters news agency announced that $300 billion was going to be spent on electric vehicles, electric vehicle batteries and parts—$300 billion. Of that $300 billion, not one penny was earmarked for Canada or Ontario. Not one cent under the previous government was earmarked here. They’d given up. They threw in the towel. They gave up on manufacturing, turned manufacturers away, raised the price of hydro, raised taxes, raised all the costs of doing business and sent people fleeing. With $300 billion at stake, we got zero.

In a very short period of time after implementing the things that we talked about—things like this Ontario-made investment tax credit that’s coming, if passed—we now saw $17 billion in announcements made by all of these auto companies in 24 months, and that is before the Volkswagen announcement that was made only a few weeks ago. We’ll learn more about that in the coming weeks as they are here to make their announcements, and we’ll learn just how vast the plant that they plan is and how vast their investment will be, Speaker—without that: $17 billion. And that has prompted Bloomberg, another one of our media agencies, to rank Canada as second in their annual global battery supply chain ranking. We went from zero to second place in the world; first in North America, ahead of the US, incidentally.

We also heard from Site Selection magazine, the very company, the very groups that find sites like Ontario for all of these global companies, whether it’s in pharma, whether it’s in tech, whether it’s in auto—the site selectors gave Ontario the number one ranking. Ontario has been ranked as the most competitive province in the nation. We are the leader. We’re leading the nation in job creation; we’re leading the nation in site selection. On virtually every economic metric you can find, we are number one. Ontario is leading that pack every day of the week.

I’ve said this in this Legislature before, but I do want to repeat it: Every single day of every single week, Premier Ford gets what we like to call his one-a-day vitamin. We send him a text with the name of a company, the city they’re locating in, how many millions they’re investing, how many employees they’re hiring and whether we have any skin in the game. I bring that up again because nothing has changed. Every day—every single day—the Premier receives that note, because the economy in Ontario is robust. We have the same concerns that we see around the world, but we’ve been powering through it with announcement after announcement after announcement after announcement of companies that are investing here because they look at Ontario.

We’ve travelled to several countries in the last while attracting these businesses here, like Volkswagen, and they all have told us two things. The very first thing when we sit down with the executives, no matter which country we’ve been in or no matter what company we visited in that country—they tell us the same two things. It’s really interesting to hear this. The first thing they tell us is that they look in this very troubled world that is coming off a pandemic for the last couple of years, and they look at Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, they look at the elephant in the room of China and all of the turmoil that the world is going through and all of these tough economic decisions that have to be made. They tell us, to a company—they look to Ontario as a sea of calm. They say, “You are stable. You’re a reliable partner. We know what we’re going to get. We’re putting our money with you.” All of them have said that to us.

The second part of what they’re saying is that Ontario is a safe place. It’s a safe place for their executives. It’s a safe place for their employees. It’s a safe place for their families to be. It’s universal that they’re doing this, and that is also why they’re coming here.

You need the fundamentals in place. You need to have a skilled workforce. They like our 65,000 STEM grads we have. Every single year, we’re producing 65,000 science and technology and engineering and math graduates.

We have a tremendous life science ecosystem here: all of the companies that are making medical technologies, making pharmaceuticals. It is a huge life sciences sector. We’ve had $3 billion in new life science investments in the last couple of years.

They love our tech sector. I think for four or five days in a row the notes that I sent to the Premier were of brand new tech companies who are investing hundreds of millions of dollars here in Ontario. Look at Nokia: only a few months ago, $340 million invested in Ottawa. Telus: $23 billion invested in Ontario, 9,500 new employees coming to Ontario with that company alone.

Now, the Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit is the newest piece, the newest tool that we have in our tool box. We will now add this to the long litany of things where we talk to companies about how we lowered the cost of doing business by $7 billion. Well, it’s now $8 billion. When we put this Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit—we talk about 600,000 new employees. That number will grow too, because these companies are going to hire people.

There are a couple of other things that are exciting as well. In Ottawa, we’ve seen a real investment in the tech sector. If you look between 2016 and 2021, in San Francisco, they added 14,000 employees in those five years in the tech sector, brought them up to about 380,000 employees in Silicon Valley. But if you look between Toronto and Waterloo, we’ve added in the same period 88,000 new tech employees, just from Toronto to Waterloo. That brings us up to about 315,000, just between Toronto and Waterloo. We grew 350% faster than Silicon Valley in the last five years.

Speaker, if you add Ottawa, there are 555 tech companies in Kanata alone. There are 80,000—

I apologize. I need to interrupt the minister.

Pursuant to standing order 61(d), I am now required to put the question.

On March 23, 2023, Mr. Bethlenfalvy moved, seconded by Mr. Ford, Etobicoke North, that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Interjection: On division.

It is therefore resolved that the House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Pang moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr12, An Act to revive Artgem Granite and Marble Inc.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Mr. Pang moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr12, An Act to revive Artgem Granite and Marble Inc.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Mr. Vanthof moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr14, An Act to revive 1753461 Ontario Ltd.

Second reading agreed to.

Mr. Vanthof moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr14, An Act to revive 1753461 Ontario Ltd.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Ms. Pierre moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15, An Act to revive 816537 Ontario Inc.

Second reading agreed to.

Ms. Pierre moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr15, An Act to revive 816537 Ontario Inc.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Ms. Pierre moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr16, An Act to revive Flight Level Canada Inc.

Second reading agreed to.

Ms. Pierre moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr16, An Act to revive Flight Level Canada Inc.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 3, 2023, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address regarding bail reform.

It’s an honour for me to rise in this House today to support this important motion calling on the federal government to immediately implement bail reform.

Every morning, we wake up to headlines telling us about violent crimes that are being committed in our cities and towns across our province. These crimes are devastating for families and communities, and we must act to stop them now.

The region of Waterloo, which includes my riding of Cambridge, is not immune to this violence. Last week, it was reported that a 17-year-old youth from Cambridge was charged, having a loaded machine gun with two clips and a silencer, and drugs were discovered in a bag that was left on a Grand River Transit bus. The youth was charged with six counts of possession for purpose of trafficking, careless use of a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, carrying a concealed weapon, unauthorized possession of a firearm, failing to comply with a sentence order and possession of a weapon contrary to an order. The list of charges against this youth go on and on, and the fact that a loaded machine gun was being carried on a public transit bus is unsettling and a danger to the public at large. Women with young children, students and seniors use public transport every day and deserve to be safe as they go about their lives.

Just yesterday, minutes from my home, three male suspects carrying a firearm robbed a jewellery store in the middle of the afternoon. The store employee sustained minor physical injuries, but the trauma of being robbed at gunpoint will be long-lasting. This robbery occurred in a busy plaza where many of my constit people were shopping for Easter gifts.

These violent acts of crime that put so many people at risk of harm are unacceptable. We must act to ensure we’re all safe when we leave our homes.

On March 27 and again on April 1, police were called to reports of armed robberies at convenience stores in my riding. Again, the suspects in these crimes were armed with knives and were a threat to store employees, customers and other citizens in the area.

As we all know too well, first responders are not immune to the dangers posed by violent criminals. Last winter, two Waterloo regional police officers were stabbed, and two others were injured in what the media describes as a “dramatic takedown” in downtown Galt. In this case, police officers were responding to a single-vehicle collision, which is a typical call in the day for a police officer, but this would not be a typical accident investigation. The officers were stabbed during the attempt to arrest the suspect. Both officers suffered serious injuries and were hospitalized. These officers demonstrated courage and bravery, and they apprehended the individual, who posed a great threat not only to the officers but also to the community.

As I mentioned, these officers were injured in downtown Galt. This area is a tourist attraction for us, a place I frequent for coffee, haircuts and an area where I chose to locate my constit office. It boasts the Grand River, wonderful architecture and is a popular destination for TV and movie industries.

Last summer, mere steps from my office, a 27-year-old man was stabbed outside of a business. His injuries were so severe he required treatment in an out-of-region hospital. I want this to stop. When I grew up in Cambridge, we had none of this, and it’s just gone absolutely insane. It’s disturbing to me and many people who live in my riding when violent crime is happening right on their doorstep.

According to a recent news report, Stats Canada data shows that people in Waterloo region are reporting more crimes and worse crimes to police. Reports of robberies, assault, harassment, threats have more than doubled in the region since 2014. Behind each of these reports to the police are victims, people whose lives might never be the same.

Another news outlet reported that in 2020, for the third consecutive year, the violent crimes severity index in Kitchener-Waterloo and Cambridge made a dramatic leap over the previous year.

Madam Speaker, the status quo is failing us and our families. Current bail rules in our country are allowing repeat and violent offenders to recommit serious crimes. It is unacceptable that more and more innocent people are being put in harm’s way. How many families need to suffer needlessly when we can take back our neighbourhoods and our communities?

It never used to be like this. It was safe for a teen to walk downtown or go to school. It was safe for a senior to walk his dog in a park and it was safe for a new mom to take her baby to the mall. It was also safe for the police officer to wish his or her family a good day as they headed out the door to go to work in the morning, confident they’ll return at the end of the day of their shift.

Today, we remember the officers in recent months who have lost their lives while protecting their communities. My person across the bench here mentioned the names of these constables. It just breaks my heart that this is what is happening in our province. These brave officers have been committing to serve and protect the people of communities. They paid the ultimate price and we must always honour and remember them. They are heroes for life.

We also remember Ontarians with names like Vanessa and Gabriel who were murdered while using the TTC. Our thoughts are with their families and loved ones.

Madam Speaker, our government has to take action to do everything we can to protect innocent people from becoming victims of repeat violent offenders. Bail reform is needed, and we need it now.

Further debate?

Further debate?

It’s my pleasure to rise to speak on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe–Grey on this important motion calling on the federal government to immediately reform the Criminal Code of Canada and strengthen Canada’s bail system to better protect the public and our front-line law enforcement officers.

Those who are repeat violent offenders charged with violent firearms-related offences pose a very real threat to our communities and they need to be kept off the streets—period. In the context of this discussion, that starts with meaningful action and changes to the Criminal Code, an area largely within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Yesterday in discussion on this motion, we heard comments from across the floor that this motion is largely symbolic, and I reject that proposition, Madam Speaker. We have seen that this is not a new issue. While it is becoming increasingly critical over recent times, in the last eight months in Canada, we have lost eight officers in the line of duty, four of whom died in Ontario. Since 1990, statistics were that we generally lost less than one OPP constable or one law enforcement officer in the line of duty year over year across Canada. We have seen, in this past year, that we have not just a slight blip but a major increase.

But this is also a discussion about public safety. As my friend the member from Cambridge said in his comments, we are seeing public safety threatened, with names like Vanessa and Gabriel, young people with their lives ahead of them whose lives were cut short by needless and arbitrary violence, often at the hands of individuals who, for example, in the case of Gabriel, was wanted for violation of probation and parole terms in Newfoundland and had been wanted for a period of approximately six months.

We are here today discussing what largely has brought this motion into focus. It was the tragic death of Constable Grzegorz Pierzchala on December 27 in the line of duty on his first day as a full-fledged officer of the OPP, having passed his probation period. While making what should have been a routine traffic assist call, he was shot, and a young and promising career was cut short needlessly. The individual who has been charged with his murder was out on bail for violent offences, out on bail for assault of a police officer, out on bail for offences involving firearms and, in fact, had breached his terms of bail, had cut off his electronic GPS bracelet and had been off the charts for over four months. At the time of Constable Pierzchala’s shooting, this individual had been on the streets for four months in breach of his terms for bail.

I echo the outrage of police commissioner Thomas Carrique, who said that not only was his death tragic, but it was doubly tragic because it was needless and it was preventable. That is what is bringing us here today to speak to this motion and the need for change in the bail reform system.

Premier Ford took the action on January 13 of writing to the Prime Minister seeking changes to the bail system and changes to the Criminal Code system to expand the reverse onus provisions that would require an accused to show why they should be released on bail in very certain and specific circumstances, such as violent crimes, intimate partner violence and crimes involving weapons, and particularly guns. That letter was signed by all of the Premiers of the provinces and territories of this country coast to coast to coast, and we heard yesterday how unique that is, how universal the outrage of that event was and how dire the need for change is in that area.

This was not the first call. In October 2022, Minister Lametti met with the provincial counterparts and Solicitors General to discuss bail reform. It has been on the radar, and there has been no action. Even most recently, Minister Lametti, from the federal Liberal government, said that he believes our bail system “is strong and sound” but is always “open to suggestions.” I’m going to suggest that that comment that was made in March of this year is so disconnected from what we are seeing in our communities, in our streets, from law enforcement to civilian safety, that this motion is much-needed to provide the impetus for Minister Lametti to take these calls seriously. We need action; we need changes.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, and I was there for the vote on MPP Jones’s motion that we study bail reform and report back to this House. I can say that throughout the witnesses over the time that we heard—and this was timely. If we consider that Constable Pierzchala died on December 27 and that motion was brought on January 18, and this committee sat through January hearing evidence, and we heard evidence from over 30 witnesses—a few were written submissions, but most attended in person. You can find the witness list on page 29 of the report to this House. It’s an exhaustive list. It contains law enforcement, senior captains and commissioners. It contains witnesses from the Elizabeth Fry Society, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Prison Law Association, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, the Federation of Ontario Law Associations, and the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice. It was a very extensive and thorough hearing because this is an issue that this House and this committee took very, very seriously.

The discussion that came up on many occasions was whether we were broadening the net for bail restrictions or whether we were trying to focus in. What we heard through the evidence that was elicited through the hearings was that there are 2% to 3% of the criminal population, those hardened criminals, who will commit violent offences no matter what the circumstances are. It is this 2% to 3% that we are trying to target. I will talk later in my comments about some of the statistics we heard during those hearings, but it was very compelling, and it was very clear that there is a very small and hardened core of our criminal population who would seem beyond dissuasion, to the extent that, while being out on bail for one offence, potentially a violent offence involving a gun, they will do it again.

We heard instances in Ontario that were referred to by my colleague opposite in his comments yesterday, that there are instances in Toronto of about 60% of those who reoffended while out on bail once and then twice would actually commit a third offence involving a firearm and a violent offence. That is simply unacceptable.

We are not broadening the net in this exercise. We are trying to focus in, with a laser focus on making sure that we can identify who those potential offenders are and make sure that when we get to the bail process, we are putting forward the best case.

Also, we are asking the federal government to make sure that they expand the reverse onus provisions to cover those types of offences so that those individuals will come to their bail hearing not with a presumption that they are going to get out on bail—unless the crown can prove otherwise under the three principles, under the ladder principle and the R. v. Antic decision—but that they must prove to the satisfaction of the court why they do not pose a threat.

If you have committed a violent offence with a firearm or violent intimate partner battery, it seems to me that the balance needs to shift so it is the individual accused that has to show why they pose no threat to the public, as opposed to the current system, where the crown must establish why it is this person poses a threat to public or why potentially their granting bail may bring our justice system into disrepute.

This is what this motion is about. It is a very narrow motion, but it is one of the important recommendations that this standing committee made. There were 12 recommendations made in this report, seven of which apply to the federal government and five of which are for consideration by the provincial government. This particular reverse onus provision is one of the recommendations, and it is this recommendation that is the thrust of this motion.

What this motion being brought forward by our Solicitor General asks the federal government to do is to make changes to the Criminal Code to expand and enhance the reverse onus provisions so that people charged with these types of offences will not be released on the street unless they can establish why it is that they do not pose a threat to public safety or to the administration of justice in our province.

To the comments that we heard from the members opposite yesterday, my point is that this motion is asking for a very narrow, defined remedy that only the federal government can provide and that we think this is a necessary step that should be done immediately.

Constable Pierzchala died on December 27 of last year. I have to say, I was at his funeral in the Sadlon Arena in Barrie, and it was a very sombre and powerful event with thousands of law enforcement personnel and civic mourners from across Ontario. I would like to say that this is the type of event that we hope we only have to attend once.

However, it was my second attendance at the Sadlon Arena for a funeral for front-line law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty. In October of last year, two South Simcoe police officers, Constable Devon Northrup and Constable Morgan Russell, were both ambushed on a domestic disturbance call and died in the line of duty. That’s two funerals too many of this type.

We also have heard of the threat and risk of harm to our population, our residents across Ontario, as depicted by the stories of Vanessa and Gabriel most recently in the subway station in Toronto.

I would like to use some of my time this afternoon to talk about what we heard from the police chiefs and senior police officers we heard from during the course of the hearings at the justice policy standing committee on bail reform.

We heard, as I said, Commissioner Carrique’s comments that the death of Constable Pierzchala was tragic and needless because it was preventable and avoidable, and that his death, in Commissioner Carrique’s opinion, was not an isolated incident, but rather the consequences of a dysfunctional bail system. Commissioner Carrique further testified that it’s not rare to see violent offenders with a history of crime continue to break the law while on bail.

As I said before, this is not coming on the radar, from the police chief’s perspective, just because of recent events. Commissioner Carrique testified that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police identified this issue almost 15 years ago and called on the federal government to strengthen bail and sentencing laws back then. And we know from the discussion we’ve heard in this House that the federal Bill C-75, in fact, eroded our bail system and has led and contributed to where we find ourselves today.

The data we saw and heard at the Standing Committee on Justice Policy indicated that in 2021 and 2022, 587 repeat violent offenders who were free on bail committed bail violations that resulted in 1,675 charges for failing to comply. Of those 587 violent offenders, 464 were involved in serious violent crimes while out on bail and 56 of these serious violent crimes involved a firearm.

We also heard from Chief Demkiw from the Toronto police force that in Toronto, they actually were arresting individuals who were out on bail for violent offences, not on one, but on two occasions and were committing a third offence. Speaker, that’s unacceptable. We have to find a way to tighten the net—not broaden the net, but tighten the net to make sure that these 2% to 3% of our criminal population are held in remand pending their trials.

We also heard the impact on our police force from what has been termed a catch-and-release approach to bail. We heard from John Cerasuolo, president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, who read a statement from a retired officer:

“Catch and release is a very appropriate phrase describing what is happening out there. Over the many years, many of my officers have complained bitterly to me about having to apprehend the same criminals time after time when the criminals were once again released, rather than being held in custody until their charges were dealt with.”

The president of the Police Association of Ontario, Mark Baxter, shared his frustrations with the catch-and-release approach to bail by saying the following:

“Our members are frustrated to work within a system that is not prioritizing community safety. They are frustrated by apprehending a known offender one day and being called on their next shift to the same place, for the same reason, to arrest the same person.... Too often, with each release, the offender’s behaviour has worsened, and their negative choices emboldened, until the day comes that the individual becomes violent, or more violent, and the result is that someone in our community is injured or killed.”

Jon Reid, the president of the Toronto Police Association, was quoted saying his members of the association are “beyond frustrated” with the catch-and release approach to bail and said the following:

“If our bail system is designed and/or interpreted to justify releasing individuals into these circumstances, what message does this send to the community that they’re serving? The simple answer is this: It sends the wrong message to the people who protect our communities and those who seek to live in a peaceful and just society. It erodes confidence in the administration of justice.”

Speaker, our role in this House as legislators is to strike that correct balance to make sure that our public is protected, their safety is respected and that we arm our police officers, our front-line police enforcement, law enforcement personnel, with the appropriate tools to make sure that they can do their job, which is to serve and protect.

We know that we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our country, and we understand the balancing act that requires. But with all that we have seen in the past five years, with the calls going back to 2015, with the most recent events, eight police deaths in the line of duty in the last 10 months across Canada, four of those in Ontario—we’ve seen violent crimes and deaths amongst our civic population, the population that we are elected here to represent, and we need to make sure that we have the tools in place for our law enforcement and for our courts to make sure that our public is protected, while respecting the rights of the accused.

We believe that a requirement for change is necessary at the federal level to change the provisions of the Criminal Code to expand the reverse onus provisions so that bail will be granted to those who have earned it or deserve it, and that is to be determined in the circumstances. We need to arm our front-line crown prosecutors with the tools to make the best arguments to protect our residents. We have lost too many lives needlessly in this province, both in front-line law enforcement and among civilians. It’s time to act.

Further debate?

Point of order.

I’m honoured to be able to speak to this today. Many in this House who have been around here for a little bit would know that in my prior career, I practised law and spent a lot of time practising specifically criminal law. In fact, back in 2005, after being called to the bar, my first-ever position as a lawyer was as a staff duty counsel at Sault Ste. Marie courthouse, and I held that job for just shy of two years. I represented, from Monday to Friday, every single morning, every individual in bail court as the staff duty counsel. Every offender who got arrested and ended up in custody would be brought before the justice of the peace that following morning. I would speak to that individual and try to assist in the bail process.

My next position was as a crown attorney, and I spent a lot of time in the bail courts as well, but for that year I spent my time trying to have individuals held where it was in the interest of justice to do so. So I feel that I can come into this conversation with a bit of a different lens, having experienced bail with a very significant volume of cases, and certainly an appreciation of the process. I think one of the great challenges that I’ve seen specifically in the debate of this motion is that these are sometimes difficult legal concepts. Without having a great background in terminology like reverse onus; crown onus; primary, secondary, tertiary grounds for detention; and judicial interim release proceedings, sometimes things can get a little bit confusing.

I feel like, as members who have been elected by our communities representing specific political parties, sometimes we come into this arena—in fact, most times—and we’re wearing our jerseys, if you will. We take approaches for lots of different reasons. And when we have opportunities—and I have seen it; it’s a beautiful thing in this House when it does happen, when everybody can join hands together, and agree that we park politics. We park our politics because there is a common goal that we’re all after. I certainly have been an individual who has worn the stripes, and we all have. But I genuinely do believe, Madam Speaker, that this motion, this particular subject matter, is not a political one. This is really a tremendous—I hear the comments being made in the room, and I genuinely, for whatever it’s worth, with the greatest respect, don’t agree. I believe that this is not a political matter. When you look at what has happened in our judicial interim release provisions, specifically over the course of the last few years since Bill C-75 was enacted by the federal government back in 2018, what were already very difficult grounds to hold an offender in custody from a crown’s perspective—what was already hard became tremendously harder.

Interjection.

The bail provisions we have under section 515 of the Criminal Code outline the whole process of how an individual who appears before the courts can be released. And when you hear the term “crown onus,” virtually every offence—not all—is a crown onus situation, which means it is up to the crown in that particular instance to justify why the accused should be detained in custody. It is not up to the accused to demonstrate why they should be released. That’s what the reverse onus provisions are. If an accused comes before the court on a crown onus situation, which again is the vast majority of the cases, the justice of the peace, based on the written form of the law, must release the accused unless the crown has demonstrated that there are serious concerns on three grounds: primary, secondary and tertiary grounds.

Primary grounds are: Is there a concern that this person is not going to come back to court? One of the main things evaluated in that case is, do they have a fixed address in the community? Do they actually live there? Do they have roots?

The secondary grounds are the most common grounds where an offender is detained, and that is whether or not it is more likely the offender would commit another offence. Under those provisions of the Criminal Code, that is where usually you would see a detention and a justice of the peace, or a judge, in certain cases of capital offences or murder, must give a written decision that outlines why that person would be detained if there was to be a detention, because it is subject to a bail review process. That is at the Superior Court of Justice level.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, from probably thousands of bail hearings I conducted from both sides of the dais that every—“every” is a bad way to put that; that’s an unfair statement. The vast majority of those cases where there was a detention order made, the detention was premised on secondary grounds, meaning risk of re-offense.

Tertiary grounds are a public interest ground, and there was an amendment that one of the members opposite yesterday brought forward and a lot of what was being referenced in that amendment was something that spoke to these tertiary grounds, public interest grounds.

One of the things that, as a little bit of a legal nerd I can be—my community of Sault Ste. Marie has the landmark case for determining tertiary grounds. It was R. v. David Hall. I actually spent a lot of time watching that murder trial when I was just a young student and I wanted to become a lawyer. I would go into the courthouse and watch proceedings, and that case was being dealt with at the time. Justice Gladys Pardu of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, one of Sault Ste. Marie’s own, wrote the Superior Court of Justice decision. She is presently a member of the Ontario Court of Appeal, something that in our legal community in Sault Ste. Marie we take great pride in—the only member of our bench who ever went on to the Court of Appeal. She was the one who wrote that decision in David Hall’s case. That essentially established that in certain cases, the public interest requires that a person be detained.

Now, why do I say all this? What’s the point? It’s because, as I said earlier, I think it’s important that we have some context of what it all means, what we’re here really talking about.

These provisions of the Criminal Code—and it is the Criminal Code of Canada. It’s right there in the name: “Canada.” It’s federal jurisdiction. It’s entirely up to the federal government to make changes to the Criminal Code so that we are, as provinces and the courts within these provinces, able to interpret that legislation, that law in order to deal with whatever the issue may be. Of course, right now, we’re talking about bail, judicial interim release.

When Bill C-75 was put in place by the federal government back in 2018, they made changes to the provisions of bail whereby they created a much more watered-down version of the code, specifically on that secondary grounds, where most people were captured because of a high propensity of reoffence.

Now, those provisions have been watered down so much so whereby the principle of restraint—a lot of people have referenced the principle of restraint here—says that an accused should almost always be released unless there’s clear evidence that they had committed a serious violent offence or that they would be at risk of committing a serious violent offence.

The “catch and release” verbiage that is now being used is really an accurate depiction, because for a police officer who would at one time arrest an individual—even if it was just a series of repeated property offences, they would often arrest that individual, bring them into custody and bring them to a bail court justice of the peace to make the decision as to what to do with this particular accused. In that setting, that accused would have a lot of work to do in a bail hearing context to establish that they had a plan. A plan could be, “You could release me on the deposit of a large sum of money on my own recognizance, and I forfeit my money if I don’t come back,” or a pledge of a lot of money. The most common thing you’ll see is where a surety is brought before the court. Most of the time, people would bring their mom or their dad, some close loved one, because that loved one has to now establish—because we don’t have that US system here. We don’t have Dog the Bounty Hunter or anything like that. We have sureties. Sureties pledge money before the courts. They make promises. They put plans before the courts, and then a court can determine whether or not, in weighing that plan, to release that accused.

What does it all mean? Under the current provisions of the Criminal Code, that police officer at that first instance, if it’s just a property-related offence and there is no serious violent offender allegations within that particular charge, must release that accused on an undertaking, meaning a promise to come back to court, and maybe an undertaking with conditions—where you’re alleged to have stolen from the mall, therefore you’re not going to be allowed to go back to that mall, or you had a domestic disturbance and you’re not allowed to speak to that individual or go to their residence anymore.

Those were the nature of conditions that now are the most a police officer can do, hence where the terminology “catch and release” comes from. It’s very immediate. It’s not bringing them before a court. Oftentimes, an individual isn’t even making it to a court because the police have no tools left to detain an individual and even bring them before a judge so that that judge or justice of the peace can make the decision. It doesn’t exist anymore.

If you look at what has happened here, this motion—and it’s a motion. Those of us who have served in this House for more than just this past—and quite frankly, even if you’ve been here just since the 2022 election, I still think you’ve had enough exposure at this point. All of us have. Those of us certainly who have been here longer than that can all appreciate that a motion is an action taken by us as elected officials to say something that we believe, to say something that we want to see done. If you look at the specific words used in this motion—and I would like to read it: “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.” It’s a sentence that is asking the federal government to help, to take control of that book that they are responsible for, the Criminal Code of Canada, that governs how judicial interim release happens, and to edit it accordingly so that incidents like the tragic death of Gabriel Magalhaes—it’s not going to be impossible that it would ever happen again, no, but we have to take measures to try. We have to take measures to try to protect people. That is our job. That’s all of our jobs.

If one Premier can call upon all Premiers and get them all to sign a letter in the expedited fashion that was done in this case—again, politics aside, the fact is what we are trying to do with the spirit of these words on this page I just read—the spirit is that we are all joining hands here in this House, we’re putting aside political stripes and we’re calling on the body that is responsible in this case to deal with the particular issue and asking them for help. We’re asking them to do the job that they were elected to do. It’s not politics, in my humble and respectful opinion.

If we don’t take some actions, these types of offences, these extremely egregious, deplorable acts, will continue to escalate, will continue to rise; and they have only done so since 2018. You haven’t seen an increase and a decrease, an increase and a decrease. You’ve seen a consistent increase in the nature of offences that are appearing before our courts. Because it takes a little bit of time—I was having a chat with our chief of police in Sault Ste. Marie, Chief Hugh Stevenson, and you could see that. It’s like a graph just gradually moving up because offenders are starting to understand that they can’t be detained. A lot of offenders are completely appreciating that if I commit an offence of property, and I do it as many times as I want, that police officer can’t do anything about it. He must release me.

They talk, Madam Speaker. Individuals in that world talk a lot. It’s quite incredible. I remember speaking with—especially when I was a duty counsel and I’d speak to every accused, sometimes they could tell me more about provisions of the bail court than I would already know, especially when I was new. They would often be able to give me an education in those early days because they get it. The more and more they come in and out of those courts and they hear what’s happening in the room and they’re talking to the other people in the cells, they come to learn a lot and they come to know what they can get away with. What is imperative is that they know when they’re talking, they’re going to come to realize that things have changed and that their chances of release are going to be minimized, that they’re going to be restricted. And then they’re going to think a little bit differently about certain offences they might commit.

The seriousness of a lot of the offences that are occurring today, police officers being ambushed, being murdered, people being killed—the amount of serious violent offences and the increase in them is terrifying, quite frankly. The fact that people are afraid to take public transit, the way things have been happening, it’s certainly something that needs rectification, but there are also offences that a lot of people would still be really happy to know are not going to be okay either, like property offences. For anybody who’s ever had their car broken into so someone could take change out of the vehicle, that’s also something that’s very, very difficult as well.

But at the end of the day—I have mere seconds to go—I really hope that my words have imparted some kind of demonstration that this isn’t about politics. This is about doing the right thing.

Further debate?

It’s an honour for me to rise today to speak on this incredibly important issue. As I begin my remarks, I just want to give my profound thanks to all first responders, all of the people who go bravely into the jaws of hell, go into danger to save us, to protect us and they also seek justice for us.

Before COVID-19, I had the opportunity to take a ride-along in my community with Sergeant Mike Muscat. It was really an eye-opening experience. The date I selected was a Friday. It was also a warm day, and if that weren’t enough, Speaker, it was also St. Patrick’s Day. So it was an incredibly busy evening for Sergeant Muscat, and I was really so incredibly impressed by his engagement with the community, his level of knowledge, the way in which he saw folks and knew their names. He knew how to respond to them.

But what also struck me at that time was the need for mental health supports within our community. A number of calls that Sergeant Muscat had to handle were ones that were outside of his professional purview, ones where he could assist and do his very best, but ones where we saw that the government needs to step in and make sure that people actually have the supports they need within our communities.

London has also engaged in a brilliant pilot project. It’s called COAST. It is a partnership with CMHA Elgin-Middlesex, St. Joseph’s Health Care London, Middlesex-London Paramedic Service and London Police Service. Now, this isn’t something that has any government funding attached to it whatsoever.

The acronym, COAST, stands for Community Outreach and Support Team. What they do is, they ensure that for mental health calls, there’s a social worker, because we know that for many mental health calls, the mere presence and the sight of an officer in uniform can immediately escalate a situation. It’s brilliant. It’s shown such great promise and it’s one that this government, I don’t believe, has chosen to fund within its 2023 budget, which is such a shame. Because this is something I’ve heard from so many of these amazing front-line officers: They need to have those direct mental health supports in the community to support them.

This motion, on its own, is not enough; it’s nowhere near enough. Yesterday, the Solicitor General stated that the MPPs’ fundamental responsibility is to uphold law and order, but where is the urgency to actively and authentically legitimately address the problem this seeks to solve? In the letter that has often been referred to, with all of the Premiers calling upon the federal government, it was January 13, but where is the urgency to support the people who are on the front lines?

I worry that this is just a public relations exercise rather than authentically fixing the issues that face our communities, the issues that face our front-line heroes and the issues that face our justice system. The bail system, we can agree, is broken. But this, I don’t believe, is the way in which to fix it. The motion itself is vague and it doesn’t make any specific recommendations or address the real scope of the problem.

The Standing Committee on Justice Policy had just two days of hearings. I would posit that this motion does not encompass all of the recommendations that the committee heard. The government heard evidence that many people are being detained, awaiting trial. They have been accused of crimes principally related to mental health, addictions and poverty. In these cases, the root causes are not being addressed by the criminal justice system, and quite frankly, they’re often made worse, they’re exacerbated by more time spent in custody.

There have been long-standing calls for bail reform from a wide variety of stakeholders. Many of them work within the criminal justice system and they also work with survivors of gender-based violence. Some of the concerns include that the system is unable to adequately monitor people who pose a threat, particularly against their former intimate partners.

I want to also enter into the record some of the Conservative opposition’s words—they had 15 years in opposition, as you know, Speaker, and they made certain commitments that they have, I would say, failed to have achieved during the last five years of their being in government.

A Conservative member said—and this was on March 29, 2018, shortly before the election—“Liberal probation and parole policies prohibit officers from conducting compliance checks and monitoring their offenders’ adherence to probation and conditional sentence orders in the community.” And went on to say that the Ministry of the Solicitor General “says that the police are responsible for performing P&P compliance checks.” The “report clearly confirmed that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police do not agree that it is their responsibility to do that.” And the member asked, “Honestly, who is monitoring and who is performing compliance checks on the nearly 45,000 criminals who reside in our communities? Who is watching?” The member also called for 300 more probation and parole officers to support community safety. Has this government done that?

I also want to talk about the excessive, incredibly difficult delays that people wait to have a bail hearing. It results in unnecessarily long and unreasonable detention sentences for those people who have not even been convicted of a crime.

Daniel Goldbloom from the Ontario Bar Association referred to a case called Simonelli. In this case, there were dozens of serious firearms and organized crime charges. These were thrown out. The trial never happened because of the delays in getting a bail hearing. That is on this government’s watch. They did not attack organized crime, such as they would claim. They did not attack these people who are dangerous in our society, because the system that they support, that they are supposed to fund, is not functioning properly.

My question is, how can this government talk about the sacrifice of our amazing front-line heroes and do so little to actually support them? With us on the side of the official opposition, we want to see immediate action to make sure that there are adequate resources for criminal prosecutors to ensure that everyone gets a bail hearing in a timely fashion. Make the justice system work well.

We want to make sure there’s more funding for legal aid—funding that this government cut, hurting the most marginalized people, people who can least afford to have their justice be denied to them. This government has made sure that that happened. We also want to make sure that resources are being allocated to take on the most dangerous offenders, and we also want to make sure that we’re not criminalizing people because of their mental health, because of poverty and because they’re struggling with addiction.

Now, Speaker, I also wanted to point out that this government is looking at this in a very simplistic way. They’re not looking at the complexity of the system itself. They’re making this gesture. I think we can all agree that the bail system is not functional; however, they’re not providing the resources that are necessary to make sure that justice is being served.

I wanted to also point out that we had stakeholders who were not being represented properly. Members on the justice committee did not have the opportunity to hear from any judges, any justices of the peace, and they did not ask to hear from any crown attorneys. How can this government say that it’s listening to the front line when it’s not listening to the breadth and the important voices within our justice system? They were listening to simply the voices that they wanted to, but they weren’t even listening well to them.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, one of the groups that was selected to present to the justice committee said—pardon me, the Toronto Police Association. I apologize. They said, “There’s no time or resources for proactive initiatives.... There’s no time or resources to seek out those who fail to appear.” What the Toronto Police Association was calling for was investments in people—investments that this government has chosen not to make. We have this gesture of this motion, but we don’t see the actual resources that we need.

They go on to say, “Police have a responsibility—in fact, it is their most important responsibility—to maintain public safety,” but “it is not their responsibility to shoulder this alone.” It’s part of a very dynamic system which has many parts which work in harmony, which work together, parts that this government has chosen not to fund and has weakened, quite frankly, by their lack of funding.

The police association also goes on to say—and I would say, Speaker, that front-line officers know the system well. They see it every single day. So I hope that even though this government did not listen to them at committee, they’ll listen to them now, because also, their recommendations are thoughtful and they consider other parts of the justice system: “In discussing this, I would be remiss in failing to mention our other justice partners and stakeholders and the resourcing that they require. It is not lost on me, nor our members, that our assistant crown attorneys are also overworked, overburdened and require more resources. Also, our colleagues in probation and parole are overworked and require more resources. These are all important investments in public safety.”

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples also told the committee, “According to the Department of Justice study, the vast majority of individuals—over 80%—released on bail never break the conditions of their release. Of those who violate those conditions, 98% are administrative issues ... the solution is to address the poverty and service failures that cause crime in the first place.”

In my community, we have read tragic reports in our local paper several times a year about deaths that have happened at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. There in fact have been 21 inmate deaths at EMDC since 2009. This has been brought to this government’s and the past government’s attention again and again and again, but they refuse to act. In the most recent case, Jamie Briggs, who was 44, was found dead at EMDC only a week after his arrest. He never even made it to his bail hearing. Families, lawyers representing the deceased, coroners’ reports, the head of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Aboriginal Legal Services have all recommended that the facility be shut down and replaced with a more modern facility to prevent further deaths.

The jail was built in the 1970s, when it was built for 150 inmates. But Speaker, it was built for 150; it now has well over 450 inmates. Worse yet, the design of the prison is not conducive to the level of monitoring that is necessary. The corrections officers are placed in an area where they can’t directly see the cells. It’s a powder keg, and it has been for years. This government seeks to ignore it.

London lawyer Kevin Egan, who has represented many of the families who have called upon the government for justice and for action, has said that this is a system that is bound to fail. Also, Kevin Egan said, “The deaths are occurring at a greater frequency than the coroner can accommodate.” There are times in the past where three men were crowded into two-person cells and five into three-person cells, inmates sleeping on their floor with their heads in the toilets.

Corrections officers also have an incredibly important and difficult role. At EMDC, over the years, the overcrowding has resulted in the removal of staff areas. I can’t imagine that job, because in an area that has been known to be a powder keg, an area that’s difficult to supervise and an area that is overcrowded—they used to have a gym, because I’m sure during their day, it would be incredibly stressful and they would need to blow off a little steam; they would be able to go to the gym. That was taken away to incarcerate yet more people. Corrections officers are doing their very best, but this government is not supporting them.

I want to ask as well, when this motion passes, and if the federal government actually does something, what’s the solution for EMDC? Will the government be creating a new facility, an upgraded facility? Will this government step up for the corrections officers and the inmates at EMDC to make sure that they are in a suitable location? I remain doubtful, because we see gestures like this, yet we don’t see actual, substantive change.

Some of my questions remain unanswered. Where are the supports that front-line people have asked for? Why is this government so reluctant to provide them? Criminal defence lawyers have told this government that one of the biggest problems causing delays in our court system is the number of defendants appearing in courts who don’t have legal representation. Judges often have to pull them aside and provide them with the very basic training that they need, and that takes time. That takes away from justice.

When unrepresented people arrive at bail court, and their case is not heard, they’re returned back to detention, a time-consuming exercise that can occur multiple times. It’s a system that this government has really weakened. It can’t work more efficiently without adequate staffing and resources for legal aid. But in 2019, this government slashed legal aid funding by almost 30%. Legal Aid Ontario wrote:

“The legal system is less effective when it cannot operate with full efficiency. In a cost-benefit analysis of legal aid by the World Bank, it was found that failing to sufficiently fund legal aid programs does not save money, but rather displaces the cost to other areas of the legal system and increases the time it takes to resolve cases.” It’s bad business, Speaker. It’s a foolish investment, not making those upstream investments and paying yet more later and ending up with a system that doesn’t work well.

They go on to say, “Misplaced cost-cutting in one area can lead to more costs in another down the line, as seen with legal aid cuts ‘saving’ taxpayer money upfront but increases the cost of more self-represented individuals in the system.”

Justin Piché, who is a professor at the University of Ottawa department of criminology, provided the committee with some helpful figures about how this investment plays out. He cites Irvin Waller whose research indicates that “for every dollar spent upstream on violence prevention, $7 is saved in policing, court, prison and victim services costs incurred after victimization has happened.”

Speaker, on the official opposition side we support bail reform, but we also support it in a holistic way, in a way that makes sense with the system, in a way that we ensure our front-line officers have the supports they need, that corrections officers have the supports they need, that our court system is robust, that legal aid funding is appropriate and that we address the issues that matter the most. We need to make sure that people aren’t incarcerated for reasons beyond their control, such as mental illness, such as poverty, such as substance abuse.

We know that this government’s cost-cutting measures—they’re penny-wise and pound foolish measures—have resulted in a system that is not working for anyone. They have the opportunity to invest in those supports, to invest in mental health, to invest in truly supportive housing.

As I finish my comments, the city of Kingston has done some wonderful work in that space and they have seen the need to provide wraparound services for supportive housing to make sure that individuals have the mental health supports they need. It cost that city $18 million in one year, but they’ve shown such great progress.

I hope this government will see the province not in isolation but as a holistic system where they have to fund things like these to make sure we have a province that we all want to live in.

Further debate?

It is an honour to rise in the House this afternoon and join this debate to speak about the importance and the urgency of moving forward with the motion, government order 35. I’m proud to speak as the member for Durham in this regard and to speak in support of the government’s motion.

As my colleague the Solicitor General stated in this House, one of our most fundamental responsibilities as members of provincial Parliament is to preserve law and order in our society, and that’s because when we have safe communities, we have everything. As a new parliamentarian but also a veteran trial lawyer before our courts, as a citizen, as a family man, Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with that statement by the Solicitor General. It pains me to say that far too many innocent people have lost their lives at the hands of dangerous, violent criminals who should have been behind bars and not freely roaming our streets.

So I’m proud to stand here with my colleagues and pay tribute to the brave men and women of law enforcement who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty to protect all of us and our way of life.

I salute Constable Andrew Hong of the Toronto Police Service, Constable Morgan Russell and Constable Devon Northrup of the South Simcoe Police Service and Constable Greg Pierzchala of the Ontario Provincial Police.

I salute Constable Shaelyn Yang of the RCMP, Constable Travis Jordan and Constable Brett Ryan of the Edmonton Police Service and Maureen Breau of the Sûreté du Québec.

But I also salute the thousands of families and individuals—innocent Canadians who have been victimized by senseless acts of violence because perpetrators were released on bail while awaiting trial. We mourn the loss of all Canadians, of all of our fellow citizens affected by this and are deeply saddened that in recent months our leaders have had to give tribute after tribute to honour our fallen too many times. With each victim, the public is losing confidence in our justice system, a justice system that is meant to protect us.

Speaker, let’s be clear what we are voting on. Despite the initial amendment proposed by the member for Toronto Centre, there is government order 35, which states clearly and simply, based on the unanimous resolution from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy: “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 the intent of government order 35 is to protect all Canadians, including the vulnerable Canadians referenced in the amendment proposed by the member for Toronto Centre. It’s a redundant amendment, because “all Canadians” includes everybody.

The intent of government order 35 is to protect us all, because everyone who faces a violent offender with a firearm is vulnerable. There is no equality when facing such a criminal. So this is to protect all Canadians who face that. Who will it be next? A member of our own families? One of us in this House? Another police officer? Someone innocently shopping at one of our local plazas? One is too many. One more is too many.

The member for London North Centre speaks about this apparent approach where 20% do reoffend while on bail. That’s what he didn’t say when he mentioned the 80% who apparently don’t. That’s what we’re talking about, those rare cases. It reminded me to state before this House that I come here as a new parliamentarian, but I also, in my practice as a trial lawyer, acted as duty counsel for our fellow citizens, stood up for those accused of crime, serious crime sometimes, but “accused” because we all know that the charter protects the presumption of innocence. We all know that an accusation is not proof.

But when we look at the charter, consider these sections. Consider section 11(d), which guarantees the presumption of innocence. What sequentially follows is section 11(e) of the charter: No one shall “be denied reasonable bail without just cause.” Consider that. That is the right that’s guaranteed in the charter. That right is in the context of section 1, which guarantees that right not as an absolute, but as written. As written, it is “reasonable bail without just cause.” That is what cannot be denied.

That doesn’t mean that everyone gets out. That doesn’t mean we ignore the 20% who reoffend violently while out. That doesn’t mean they’re not presumed innocent until trial, but they will not be allowed to get out before trial, because they are a danger to public safety, because it’s not reasonable to allow them out. In fact, it is reasonable, there is just cause, to allow them to be detained. Because section 1, in guaranteeing all rights in the charter, states very clearly, these rights are guaranteed subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law ... demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

If one of our fellow citizens is threatened with violence, all of us are not free. That is why there is a balance in the charter. That is why there is a balance that guarantees reasonable bail, not bail for everyone, not for violent offenders.

The federal Liberal government is largely responsible for this unfortunate situation because it is the federal government that tabled amendments to the Criminal Code—the federal Liberal government supported now by the NDP. The federal Liberal government brought us Bill C-75, amendments to the Criminal Code that watered down the reasonable bail conditions that already existed. The problems that we’ve faced, the violence that we’ve faced, the dangers that we face, the loss of life that we’ve faced is directly attributable to these amendments from five years ago tabled by the federal Liberal government.

The solution is there for them to take action to repeal what they brought in, and we urge the NDP, His Majesty’s loyal opposition in this House, to support our motion, government order 35, unanimously to send a message to their federal counterparts to stop propping up a Liberal government that won’t take action to keep our communities safe and strike the right balance between innocent Canadians, innocent law enforcement officers and the rights of those accused of crime.

Consider what we’re voting on. Consider how we can only do so much. We are at this stage because of the leadership of Premier Ford, who galvanized support across the country, leading every other Premier of every other province and territory to urge the federal justice minister, to urge the federal government to act swiftly to stop the senseless violence, the loss of life; to stop the continued undermining of the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.

I happened to be taught in my years in law school by Professor Louise Arbour, who went on to be appointed to the High Court of Justice, then the Court of Appeal for Ontario and served so ably as a Supreme Court judge. She told our class in criminal procedure, when the charter was new—and she talked about the administration of justice being brought into disrepute. What does that mean? Well, it means that the charter, of course, in guaranteeing the right to presumption of innocence and reasonable bail, is such that—what happens to the public’s confidence when the premise of our system is it’s better that 10 guilty people go free than that one innocent person stays behind bars? That is the premise of our system. That’s the premise of the presumption of innocence. It’s the premise of the right not to be denied reasonable bail, except with just cause. But as Professor Arbour told our class over 30 years ago, what if it’s 50 guilty people that go free and reoffend in the process? What if it’s 100? What if it’s hundreds? The public starts to lose confidence. You can have the principles, but you must address those few violent offenders that have broken the social contract and are undermining the system of justice that we all look to for fairness and balance.

So the member for London North Centre fails, in my respectful submission, in his debate in this House to talk about what a proper balance is. We believe in the presumption of innocence. We believe in reasonable bail. But we don’t believe that that is an absolute. We do not believe that violent offenders who have offended previously should be allowed out while awaiting their trials. It’s as simple as that. The evidence is clear that there’s a connection between the few persons with that kind of history and the loss of life for our fellow Canadians, for our men and women in law enforcement.

What happens now, and the reason that the confidence of the public has been undermined, is that our current bail rules not only allow repeat and violent offenders to recommit serious offences, but they incentivize individual and organized criminal behaviour, because there is no deterrent, and innocent people are caught in the crossfire. How is the public expected to have any confidence in a justice system where the rights of the accused—violent accused persons, though few as they are; and as few as they are, the carnage and the life-changing outcomes that they bring about. Why are their rights outweighing the rights of families and individuals and law enforcement officers? That’s what this motion is about.

Believe me, if we could as a government amend the Criminal Code, we would do it. But the Constitution Act divides responsibilities between two levels of government. Under section 91, only the federal government has jurisdiction over the Criminal Code, so we will take no lessons from the member from London North Centre about what we fail to do. We are doing everything that’s possible for a provincial government to take action, but we actually do need to call upon the federal government to do its job, to legislate in its area of jurisdiction, to repeal the mess it started in 2018 and to take further action. And we are being very specific. The Criminal Code bail rules must be amended to create a reverse onus provision for violent offenders who have committed crimes with firearms—accused but presumed innocent, but nevertheless denied bail because there is just cause, because it is reasonable to deny them bail. That’s what this is about.

So we call on the federal government to take bold action to address this situation, which will only affect a few violent offenders, whether they act individually or whether they’re part of organized crime, to stop them in their tracks, to keep them behind bars to protect the public. That is what we call reasonable limits on charter rights prescribed by law in a free and democratic society, and demonstrably justified as such, because the charter has many rights. It’s about balancing those rights. The very first section of the charter says so.

Our motion and our call to the federal government to implement reverse onus for these few violent offenders when they have firearms and are creating imminent risk to the public—our motion calls upon the government to amend the Criminal Code within its constitutional jurisdiction to do something that is constitutional, that is charter-compliant. We are calling upon the federal government not only to actually legislate in their area of Criminal Code jurisdiction but to legislate in compliance with the supreme law of Canada, because the charter itself does not give an absolute right to bail.

That’s what the member for London North Centre doesn’t seem to understand. There is no absolute right to bail. Specific to violent offenders who put our lives at risk, they can and must have a reverse onus upon them so that they must show cause why they should be released pending trial. That’s the simple amendment. The solution is clear, straightforward and charter-compliant.

Now, many academics, lawyers and police officers have spoken out publicly about this. Many appeared before the committee, and that’s why we have a unanimous motion from the committee on justice policy. We know that the statistics—and I hate to talk about statistics, but it’s to make this point: that it’s only a small number of accused persons who will be affected by this. We know that over the last two years in the city of Toronto, 9% of accused persons already out on bail for firearms offences were rearrested on new firearms-related charges. That equated to 140 people committing new firearms-related offences who should not have been released back into their communities—140 people—but they can do incredible unlimited damage. They can forever end lives; they can forever affect lives—loved ones who will never come home again, be they law enforcement officers or innocent members of the public.

Over the same period, 37% of accused persons charged with shooting-related homicides were out on bail for various offences at the time of the alleged fatal shooting. That equated to 34 people who were out on bail while being involved in a fatal shooting; 15 of those were on bail for a firearms offence. And this is just Toronto, our provincial capital. This is unacceptable. This needs to stop. It is time for the Liberal government in Ottawa, propped up by the NDP, to make the changes to reverse the mistake they made in 2018.

Recently, hundreds of Torontonians took part in a candlelight walk to honour Gabriel, the 16-year-old young man who was fatally stabbed at a Toronto subway station. Like many senseless acts of violence, his is a tragic death and our thoughts are with Gabriel’s family and friends. It is egregious that offenders who have a history of violence, a history of using weapons or being charged with weapons offences, loaded illegal firearms—it is egregious that they are given the right to walk free pending trial. Their charter rights can and will be respected by the motion that is before this House and by the amendments that we urge the federal government to act upon.

We support the action of the city of Toronto in hiring 200 additional police officers to protect our streets and neighbourhoods, and we’ve supported the city’s police service with over $250 million in grants since this government took office. So we are doing all we can as a government. The senseless crime that is and has been unleashed in this city and this province cannot go on. The time for action is now.

To address the member for London North Centre further in his debate—because I listened to what he said. I sat and listened quietly and patiently, but he’s wrong. I urge his colleagues to reject what he said, join us on this side of the House and unanimously support this motion.

He talks about delays. I appeared before the justice committee of the federal Parliament two years ago as a barrister and solicitor before I was elected, and I gave them the simple solution to putting a pause on the Jordan decision that would eliminate what results from the so-called delay he speaks about—an easy solution, but again it is for the federal government to do. Federal inaction by the Liberal government, aided and abetted by the federal NDP, must stop. Let’s have His Majesty’s loyal opposition here, free to do the right thing and to send their own counterparts a message. I urge you, the member for London North Centre and all of the colleagues on the other side, to support this government’s motion.

I’m pleased to join the debate. I’ve been sitting here for the last day and a half, listening to the debate very carefully, and I’d like to thank the members on the government side who are here from the committee, MPP Hogarth and MPP Kusendova, and earlier this afternoon—he made a good presentation—was MPP Saunderson.

I join you today, Speaker, as the Chair of the justice policy committee, and I take myself back to the day the committee was considering the recommendations, 12 recommendations in that report I had the pleasure of tabling in the Legislature approximately two weeks ago. At that time, I read out all the names of the members of the committee, including the official opposition and a representative from the independents. In fact, it was the House leader from the opposition.

We went through all the recommendations. Members of the committee spoke to the context of each recommendation and then we voted. All the hands went up on each recommendation, including the official opposition’s and the independent’s. All hands went up on the 12 recommendations. So here we are today discussing an amendment to the amendment to the motion that the member from Durham put forward, going forward.

The report that I tabled highlighted a number of reforms that needed to take place. The committee heard from a number of witnesses who talked about a number of aspects, including mental health. We can debate that as much as we want; we can debate housing, we can debate other aspects, but clearly the report that was issued approximately two weeks ago by the standing committee was a unanimous report. The committee all put their hands up, including the official opposition and the independent, allowing me, as the Chair of the committee, to bring forward that report. Speaker, it did not contain the motion that was brought forward by the member from Toronto Centre. It did not.

Let’s talk about the motion, as the House leader, the Honourable Paul Calandra, did yesterday. I’m going to quote him from Hansard, if I may:

“The amendment” from the member from Toronto Centre “says the following: ‘Delete everything after “implement”‘—so if we had agreed with this motion, we would be deleting ‘meaningful bail reform to prevent violent and repeat offenders from being released back into our communities.’ The NDP, the official opposition,”—who supported the report—“want us to delete that. Then they go one step further in also wanting us to delete any message to the federal government through the House and the Senate. They want us to delete that and then replace it with the following: ‘meaningful bail reform to more appropriately evaluate’”—stay with me, Speaker—“‘evaluate.’”

Who needs to evaluate any more whether a violent repeat offender should be denied bail and left in jail?

All the hands went up. All the recommendations were adopted. “Take the report and report it,” which I did—adopted absolutely unanimously.

Speaker, nothing is more important than public safety. We understand that our police services are the front line that keeps Ontario safe. As MPPs, and in my case as a former municipal politician for 13 years, that is the main underpinning of what we do as representatives of our community. Make no mistake, Speaker, on this side of the House, we have one message: We have the backs of everyone who keeps us safe, today and every day, and we will do absolutely everything we need to do to help keep Ontario safe.

Speaker, too many innocent people have lost their lives at the hands of dangerous criminals who should have been behind bars, not on our streets. Led by Premier Ford, all provincial and territorial governments have joined the call of countless law enforcement officials to write a letter asking the federal government to take immediate action to strengthen Canada’s bail system to better protect the public and Canada’s first responders.

Speaker, OPP Commissioner Carrique appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice Policy which, as I said at the beginning, I chair. He had this to say about bail reform, and he referred to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, who passed a resolution in 2008 calling on the federal government to strengthen bail laws to protect the public “from those offenders who have clearly demonstrated their unrelenting willingness to engage in criminal behaviour that directly harms our citizens. This resolution called on the federal government to change bail and sentencing laws so chronic offenders are more effectively dealt with by considering their persistent criminal behaviour. As highlighted in the resolution, a minority of offenders commit most of the violent crime in Canada, and yet the dangerous nature of reoffending by these individuals is not adequately recognized in the current bail and sentencing practices. It is not acceptable that there has been no meaningful action taken to address the troubling and dangerous issues raised since 2008, and unfortunately, many innocent people have been victimized since....

“I strongly believe that Canadians deserve to live free from fear and protected from harm experienced at the hands of repeat violent offenders. Change needs to happen.”

Change, Speaker, needs to happen.

The commissioner concluded by saying, “As police officers, we understand the risks involved in going to work each and every day, but we do expect that the judicial and public safety framework will be in place to support us. Our officers and the public they protect deserve nothing less from their judicial system. Our officers, our community members and visitors to our province deserve to be safeguarded against repeat, known and violent offenders who are charged with violent and weapons-related offences while they are awaiting trial.” Our motion does that. We stand behind our police officers today and every day.

We also heard, as my committee members on the government side will attest, from the police associations representing thousands of police officers across the province who expressed their members’ frustration of what they see as a catch-and-release approach to bail.

The president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association read the following excerpt from an email he received from a retired sergeant who worked in northern Ontario, and it’s material to what we’re talking about today:

“Catch and release is a very appropriate phrase describing what is happening” out there.

“Over the many years, many of my officers have complained bitterly to me about having to apprehend the same criminals time after time when the criminals were once again released rather than being held in custody until their charges were dealt with.”

According to the president of the Police Association of Ontario, not only does the catch-and-release approach to bail place inadequate emphasis on protection of the public, it encourages escalating violent behaviour: “Our members are frustrated to work within a system that is not prioritizing community safety. They are frustrated by apprehending a known offender one day and being called on their next shift to the same place, for the same reason, to arrest the same person.... Too often, with each release, the offender’s behaviour is worsened and their negative choices emboldened, until the day comes that the individual becomes violent, or more violent, and the result is that someone in our community is injured or killed.”

Similarly, Speaker, Jon Reid, the president of the Toronto Police Association said that the members of the association are “beyond frustrated.” He related an incident from 2021 in which an armed bank robber seriously injured two plainclothes police officers during the arrest of suspects. One of the accused was released on bail within 24 hours, before both officers were released from hospital.

Commenting on this incident in an op-ed piece, Mr. Reid concluded, “‘If our bail system is designed and/or interpreted to justify releasing individuals in these circumstances, what message does this send to the community’ that they’re serving? The simple answer is this: It sends the wrong message to the people who protect our communities and those who seek to live in a peaceful and just society.” This 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.

Speaker, we’ve seen in communities across Ontario, across Canada, police officers come under threat. But, Speaker, you’ll know—and I know the committee members from the justice policy committee will attest to this as they speak later this afternoon—it’s not just about police officers. It’s about families, hard-working families here in Ontario. It’s about students. Speaker, I have two universities, Ontario Tech and Trent Durham, and I have a community college, Durham College. It’s about those students. It’s about new Canadians—the new Canadians who have come to the town of Whitby in five new developments. It’s about all kinds of people, Speaker, and what those people want and what families want. They want to live in a safe province of Ontario. They want to live in a safe Canada. That’s what they aspire to. That’s what they deserve.

I want to go back to what the Honourable Paul Calandra had to say on this debate, because I think it’s really material and I think he hit it right on, and I’m going to again repeat some of those aspects:

“The reason we’re having this debate here is to give them assistance in bringing the reforms”—what he was referring to was our police services. They’re bringing the reforms forward. “The reason why we’ve engrossed it to the Parliament, both the House of Commons and the Senate, is because we wanted them to hear a unified voice from the people of the province of Ontario”—I thought we had one. Speaker, I thought we had one. I think our committee members did. Our lead, the MPP from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, MPP Hogarth and I left that committee room thinking we had one—a unified voice. Well, here we are this afternoon, and we’ve taken a day and a half. Where’s the unified voice? Where is it? The hands went up. On every recommendation, the hands went up. The House leader from the official opposition was there. His hand went up all the time, didn’t it?

Here we are today debating an amendment to the amendment that never came up in the committee. How does that happen? How does that help our front-line providers? How does that help them? How does that help hard-working families in Ontario? It doesn’t. Again, I’m back to what the House leader had to say: “By removing and changing it to ‘evaluate,’ we’re in the exact same spot we’ve been in over the last number of years. We have to evaluate everything. What is there to evaluate?” Are we going to tell the OPP commissioner that we have to evaluate after he spent 20 minutes making a deputation? The police chief of the Toronto Police Service, from York—that we have to evaluate? What does that accomplish? Absolutely nothing.

You know, I think if I walked the streets in the town of Whitby tonight, the downtown core—they talk about it as the “four corners,” but it’s sort of a gathering centre, right? I think that’s true of most municipalities. If I stopped a couple of people and said, “I want to ask you something, should a repeat violent offender be let out on bail?” I know what they’d tell me real quick: “No, they should not be let out on bail.” That’s what we’ve been talking about. That’s what I thought we had consensus about. Did you not think that? I sure did. So then we get this amendment out of—I don’t know where it came from. It was never discussed for two and a half days; it just appeared.

But I want to be very clear. I want to be absolutely clear, Speaker, as was the honourable Paul Calandra, our House leader, who does an exceptional job. Let me be clear also as the Chair of the justice policy committee—and thank you, Minister Calandra, for that appointment. My committee members here on the government side will be equally clear—some of them are getting ready to speak too. We will absolutely not under any circumstances support the motion that would diminish what the people of this great province want.