I’d like to welcome Laura McIntosh and Catherine Vanett, as well as Michau van Speyk from the Ontario Autism Coalition. Thank you very much for those insightful conversations this morning and that very delicious breakfast.

I also want to extend my congratulations and thank you to JP Hornick, the president of OPSEU, as well as the correctional officers and the leaders from OPSEU that I met this morning: Rhonda Slaven, Ronald Lavigne and Johanna Sinclair. And a very warm, special welcome to Rocco Rossi, a friend and mentor from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. I hope you’re in the House. I can’t see you, but welcome.

Parents with anti-LGBTQ views recently disrupted a York Catholic school board meeting, making hateful comments such as, “Catholic schools should not allow transgender or LGBT students to attend.” With rising hate crimes, Ontario needs to ensure that all students are safe. The Premier must use his political voice to condemn discrimination and hate against the queer and trans communities who are being bullied and targeted for violence.

My question, Speaker, is, will the Premier fund 2SLGBT mental health supports and commit today to developing a policy to guarantee the mental health and safety of all students in every single publicly-funded Ontario school, including the Catholic schools?

I rise with great pride to speak on behalf of the people of Toronto Centre.

Last summer, the Big City Mayors’ Caucus asked the Premier for an emergency meeting. They wanted to meet with him to develop an emergency plan to address homelessness, mental health and addictions. The Premier has denied the mayors of the largest cities in Canada that meeting.

To this very day, the Auditor General of Ontario has specified that there is no credible plan and no coordinated strategy in the government’s plan to address homelessness. Why I talk about homelessness is because the Conservative government has also chronically underfunded mental health and addictions services, which are intricately tied to homelessness.

Many of my colleagues have already spoken so eloquently and passionately about the need to increase funding for mental health. They have spoken about it from a human lens, about the human impact. What I’d like to do is to actually share with you the impact from a financial lens.

Speaker, what I wanted to raise with you is that the economic development concerns from my community, which is the largest cultural corridor in the city and the province, as well as the largest financial district in the province—are saying that they need to see this government invest in mental health and addictions services. They have been very clear that if the funding is not there, they will continue to see a decline of the urban core—not just in Toronto Centre, but right across cities across Ontario.

Take, for example, the Downtown Yonge BIA. They have been meeting with government leaders, and at every single meeting they have said that their number one issue is around safety. They want to make sure that their community and visitors to the area—that their perception is that it’s safe, it is clean, it is viable.

We’re already seeing a worsening mental health crisis in Ontario, and largely because of the lack of mental health and addictions support, as well as funding for supportive housing to end chronic homelessness.

Cadillac Fairview, which is one of the largest real estate companies in Canada, recently announced that Nordstrom is leaving. They are closing 13 locations—including 2,500 people who will be laid off. This is going to have a detrimental impact to our neighbourhood. This is going to impact the vitality of our main streets.

Finally, Madam Speaker, the Downtown Yonge BIA has said that, according to their safe-streets strategy, mental health and drug use are both health concerns, and that they require clinical and social interventions. Police enforcement will only result in a revolving-door approach; it is not going to be enough. It is failing, and people need to have their backs—they need to know that this government is willing to invest in them and the mental health supports that they are desperately needing.

My question is pertaining to schedules 2 and 3. I’m just going to combine them together.

Having the retired judges go back to work seems to me like a form of double-dipping—not only are they accessing a lucrative pension; they’re also now accessing very substantial salary compensation. At the same time, it’s not a sustainable solution with respect to clearing the backlogs in the courts.

The Ontario trial lawyers have put forward a long-time position where they want to be able to remove the choice of a jury trial, especially for most civil matters. This is a long-standing position of the Ontario trial lawyers. It also means that Ontario right now is the last jurisdiction in the country that actually offers that. They’ve noted that it costs more—it’s more time to administer and not necessarily a good use of court resources.

Why does the government not invest in that type of red tape elimination, and why are they proposing something else that’s not sustainable?