Yes, it’s back to that amendment to restore the powers of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. That’s what I’m considering about.

I also asked the Attorney General: Did he think that it was appropriate for a government that’s under criminal investigation to be appointing judges? And I will read his response. He said, “There were four candidates who applied to become the Chief Justice, and as I’m charged with making that decision—the establishment thought that maybe they should make the decision for me and give me a recommendation.” Well, that’s not what the establishment thought; that’s the role of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee that the NDP is fighting to have restored through this legislation.

The Attorney General said, “I thought that wasn’t really the appropriate way to go forward. I sat down with each candidate for an hour. Politics never came up. It’s not appropriate. The opposition may not understand. Judges don’t take direction and it would be foolish to try. It would be crossing a line.”

So I just want to harp on this for a second. The Attorney General, who was interviewing candidates because he wanted candidates, in his own words, with similar values and views to his own, and who is reporting to a Premier who wants Conservative and not NDP or Liberal judges appointed, said in these interviews, “Politics never came up. It’s not appropriate.” So there’s a contradiction. There’s a hypocrisy here, in that if we are to have access to independent and impartial judges, then he should not be interviewing them. He should not be asking them questions. In his own words, “It’s not appropriate.” His actions and the words of the Premier are not appropriate. So he should be saying to the Premier, “The actions, the words that you said were not appropriate.”

Interjection.

The other response that the Attorney General made to a question about these judicial appointments and the powers of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee was that he said that the Liberals appointed Liberal judges.

I used to be a high school teacher, and often kids do things that they’re not supposed to do. It’s part of being a teenager. And then when you call them in, they sit before you and you say, “Look, you did this thing. You weren’t supposed to do it. You broke the rules,” they’ll often say—their first response is often, “Well, Jimmy did it first.” Okay.

I’ve got to say, the Attorney General’s response that, “Yes, we’re trying to appoint Conservative judges, but the Liberals did it first,” it’s sort of like Jimmy’s response. The response that every teacher gives is, “If Jimmy jumped off a cliff, would you jump off a cliff?” If the Liberals appointed partisan judges, should you appoint partisan judges? No. In the words of the Attorney General, “It’s not appropriate.” It’s not appropriate to be appointing partisan judges. It’s not appropriate for the Attorney General to be interviewing, having private interviews with candidates for the Chief Justice position.

And the most recent twist on this, on how we are going to get independent and impartial judges, is that yesterday the Attorney General said in the media that the judges become independent after they are appointed. So they go through a process where the Attorney General interviews them. He determines whether they have appropriate Conservative credentials. He determines whether they have values that align with his own. Then, after they’ve been appointed, they become independent. But what he’s missing there is that, in section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it doesn’t just say that the judge has to be independent. And I don’t know that you become independent after you’ve been vetted, chosen and hired by somebody who’s asking you about your values and trying to align them with their own—

Interjections.

The reason that I bring it up here is that we’ve already seen bias, or evidence that seems to point to bias, in some of the tribunals and the tribunal appointments by this government.

There’s the Ontario Land Tribunal. The Ontario Land Tribunal is where community members or municipalities who think that a developer—or when a developer tries to build something that’s beyond what’s allowed within the official plan of a community, they can go to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The community members and the municipality can take them there. This government has appointed a bunch of those overseeing the tribunal, and the Hamilton Spectator said that 97% of the decisions are now in favour of developers. This is the kind of bias.

How independent are those tribunal appointees after they’ve been appointed if 97% of the time they’re actually favouring developers? It’s scary. It’s scary because it shows the kind of bias that can creep into a system if the government is making partisan appointments. We do not want to see that happen in our courts.

The other thing that this government has done, when we’re talking about access to justice: They cut our legal aid. When they got into power in 2018, one of the first things they did was they cut legal aid by 30%, or $133 million, per year. The shame of this is that it means that low-income people do not have access to a lawyer. Even the cut-off for legal aid is $17,000 per year. If your annual income is beyond $17,000 per year, you can’t even access legal aid.

When you think about all the challenges—whatever issue that people have to go to courts about, if they’re being renovicted or demovicted or illegally evicted and they need to go before a tribunal, they’re not able to access legal aid if they make more than $17,000. Well, if you’re able to survive in this province on $17,000 per year, then you’re doing something incredible. You sure as heck do not have another $10,000 or $20,000 to hire a lawyer if you’re being illegally evicted from your place.

The government is talking about efficiency in this bill. The Enhancing Access to Justice Act is supposed to improve the efficiency of our court system. But the Chief Justice of Ontario George Strathy—this is from a newspaper article—said, “What we judges can say is that reducing legal representation for the most vulnerable members of society does not save money. It increases trial times, places greater demands on public services, and ultimately delays and increases the cost of legal proceedings for everyone.”

If the government wants to increase access to justice, the first thing that should be in this bill is not just a restoration of that 33% of legal aid funding that they cut but, actually, an increase in legal aid funding, so that people who need a lawyer can access a lawyer, so that they’re not going into courts without the proper documents, without proper representation, and they’re not clogging up our courts as the judge tries to navigate through somebody who is not prepared.

The other thing that the government needs to do in order to increase access to justice is to end the chaos that’s happening in our courts. I’ll give the case of Emily. This was in the media a little while ago. She was raped in her home. She took the rapist to court. She went to the hospital. She went to trial. She actually testified in the trial. You’ve got to think about the courage that it takes to go through all of those steps in order to have your day in court and in order to see justice.

What happened was, after she had already testified, the delays in the court case—and these were caused by staffing shortages in court and by the chaos created by this government in our court system—went beyond 18 months.

People have a charter right. The person charged has a charter right to have a trial within an allotted time, and that allotted time is usually 18 months. So when it hit 18 months, the judge threw out the case.

So this woman had gone through all of the trauma of having to relive that experience, of having to go to the police and go to the hospital and go to court and actually testify with the person that she’s complaining about in the courts, and then to have the trial thrown out on a technicality, on the fact that this government has not provided enough funding for our courts.

And one of the judges, Judge Jones, in this decision about this case said, “This case should serve as a chilling reminder that this inexcusable state of affairs must never be allowed to happen again.” He attributed it to the inappropriate funding for the courts, that there isn’t enough funding. And this government has actually just cut the base funding—in their fall economic statement, they just cut the base funding for our courts.

So when this government is talking about access to justice, they need to increase the base funding in our courts so that we have the staff in our courts so that trials can be heard on time, so that trials and cases like this are not thrown out.

They need to restore the funding for our legal aid services so that everybody who needs access to legal aid will have access to legal aid.

Most important of all, they need to restore the impartial and independent process for appointing judges. We cannot have partisan judges appointed in this province. It’s a violation of the rights of all of us under the charter to an independent and impartial judiciary.

Order.

Start the clock. The member for Spadina–Fort York can continue.

Thank you to the member for Spadina–Fort York. During committee for Bill 157, government members voted down a motion to increase access to legal aid. We know that when more people have access to legal aid, they get their fair day in court. It can speed up processes because people are not representing themselves. They’re not well informed, because they’re not lawyers, on how the process works.

How does a lack of access to legal aid affect residents in your riding?

I believe the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore is talking about the budget bill. And the budget bill—the way that this House works and the game that’s played is that they always say, “Oh, you voted against this. You voted against this.” Well, in a budget bill, there are all kinds of things.

There’s a gross underfunding of our public health care and our public education system. Under this government, there’s been an inflationary cut of $1,200 per student in our schools. That’s what’s in the budget. And there may be some good things—some funding for transit and things—in that budget as well, but we don’t get to pick and choose.

And so we voted against the budget because we believe in public education and public health care. This government was underfunding them in order to create a crisis, in order to privatize those systems.

So no, we’re not going to vote for the privatization of those services. We will hear this again and again. The government will always say, “Oh, you voted against this,” and they will cherry-pick something—

I’ve sat on committees for the last five years. Many times, we’ve brought in friendly amendments to pieces of legislation. There was a piece of legislation about expanding broadband to rural communities, and it was supposed to be—in their speeches, they all talked about rural, remote and Indigenous communities, but it was nowhere in the bill. We brought in amendments just to insert those words, and the government voted them down.

They do not understand that the role of the Parliament and the role of democracy is to listen to the other side and to take that into account so that you can improve the legislation so that you’re not making so many mistakes and that you’re not having to reverse every other bill that this government passes—

These things are urgent and need to be heard. But instead of having a lawyer so that the process can be heard and a decision made and people can move on, the court’s time is being taken up—

I listened with interest to the member from Spadina–Fort York’s speech. I noted with interest that while he had some suggestions on things that could have been put into the bill, he actually had no criticism of the bill. So my question is, will the member from Spadina–Fort York and his caucus be voting in favour of this bill when debate is finished?

We’re making it easier for victims of crime to sue an offender. We’re protecting children and youth in this piece of legislation. We’re going to limit interruptions to child protection trials. So many good things that I think we all agree on in this House are being put into this piece of legislation. I’m not going to put the member on the spot on whether he’ll support this or not, but if the opposition chooses not to support this piece of legislation, what would that member say to someone in his riding who asked him about why he didn’t support this legislation, seeing as the NDP has no criticism of the piece of legislation?

Entertaining discussion, as always, this morning. I was intrigued, my friend from Spadina–Fort York, how often you’re interrupted because I’m starting to realize that the government really doesn’t like criticism. Really—they don’t like it internally. We’ve have had five people other there jump ship. There’s probably going to be more. We have a Premier under criminal investigation by the RCMP, and you keep getting interrupted.

My question is this, my friend from Spadina–Fort York: Why does this government have such a hard time hearing criticism? Do you think that might be why they want to hand-pick judges, they want to hand-pick people that mirror their values?

And on transit, I have to just say for the record, the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore, right now, her crowning achievement is a hole in the ground at Mimico station. It’s not much to brag about.

It was certainly an interesting perspective of something; it wasn’t really about the bill. So I want to continue on the questioning of transit. I know the member opposite lives in Spadina–Fort York. I know that area extremely well as I used to live in his riding.

It has the GO trains. We have Exhibition Station. We’re going to grow that. We have the 509 streetcar. You have so many streetcars. Everybody takes transit in that community because you don’t want to have a car in downtown Toronto. It’s almost impossible to have a car. There’s nowhere to park.

I’m wondering the NDP and the member opposite voted against historic investments into our transit system.

Absolutely. I’ve done a lot of work with victims of gun violence. One of the things that this government did is that they took out—for victims of violence, there was up to a $25,000 allotment that was given to them. This government took that away. And the disruption in somebody’s life, in a family’s life when somebody has become a victim of gun violence, whether they’ve been able to survive or not, is incredible. A lot of these people are in low-income families. They do not have the financial resources to actually weather that crisis. So one of the things that the government should do is restore the victim allotment so victims of violent crime can get some funding to help them get through that period and that trauma.

That’s time. We’re going to move to further debate.

The member for Guelph for a quick response.

I’m just wondering, in the time we have left, member for Spadina–Fort York, if you couldn’t impress upon this government that in fact you brought a very important message today, that if they want to actually preserve access to justice, you have to fund the court systems that we have, and in particular, as you mentioned, the victim support groups that can be there for families in their time of need.

We talk about faith-based hate crimes, and they are on the rise. We hear about that everyday on the news. I was actually knocking on doors on Friday in my riding and was disappointed to hear somebody who said some things I thought were awfully cruel—not about me, but about others who I care about.

The Victims’ Bill of Rights already allows victims of hate-based crimes to seek civil damages for emotional distress and related bodily harm. One thing in this bill is changes to the regulations. They’ve added terrorism offences, which are often hate-motivated; hate crimes which are targeting clergy; and disruption of worship. As we hear about that more and more, I believe those changes are important, and now these victims can charge or sue for emotional distress.

Does the member support that, which is in this bill, and will you be supporting this bill—

I’ve noticed this government cuts first, instead of “measure twice and cut once.” Here, we’re seeing a layer of transparency in terms of changes in policing that affect already marginalized and racialized communities. Can you guess at how this might impact marginalized communities when we see proposed changes that aren’t made public and there is no stakeholder and community feedback?

I listened with interest to the brief remarks from the member for Guelph. He didn’t have much time.

Certainly we hear from constituents and Ontarians across this province that there are huge concerns about what the Premier is saying about the politicization of the judicial process. I wondered if the member would like to take a little bit more time to elaborate on why this is so dangerous to democracy and why the Premier should reverse his decision to appoint those partisan members to the judicial committee.

I rise to speak to third reading of Bill 157, a bill with 19 schedules. There are some good schedules, like schedule 18, that enhances victims’ rights. But I have an obligation to express some serious concerns with this bill, starting with schedule 1, which changes the regulatory framework for architectural technologists. Since 1969, the AATO has been the statutory regulator for architectural technologists in Ontario. This was reaffirmed by the courts in 2022. Yet the government has made a change to this regulatory framework without any consultation with architectural technologists, who have raised serious concerns around this particular change.

Secondly, I want to raise concerns about schedule 4 and, in particular, concerns raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario about the provisions in schedule 4 that weaken the transparency and account-ability of the public consultation process for making changes to critical regulations governing the Community Safety and Policing Act.

I think it’s important to put into the record a quote from the privacy commissioner:

“Transparency around the regulation-making process under CSPA is even more compelling given:

“—the increasing adoption and deployment of emerging information technologies in policing (such as artificial intelligence and facial recognition) that put Ontarians’ access and privacy risk at heightened risk, and

“—the heightened public interest in enhanced transparency and accountability when it comes to both the governance of police powers and the mitigation of systemic discrimination associated with policing.”

Nothing that was changed in this bill at committee addresses these serious concerns by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and it would be nice to know from government why they haven’t addressed these concerns.

Speaker, I want to close by saying that if the government was serious about enhancing access to justice, they would start by repealing Bill 245, which politicized the political process for choosing judges, especially through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee changes, which the Premier has now quadrupled down on, saying he wants to appoint like-minded judges. The politicization and the Americanization of our judicial system is dangerous, it’s wrong, and the government needs to backtrack on these changes now.

We have heard over and over from legal experts saying that the process that was used to appoint justices was working fine until the Premier came along and brought in American-style politicalization to that process, which I believe is dangerous for people’s access to justice in this province.

Rightfully so, the Information and Privacy Commissioner has raised serious concerns around this, especially as it relates to marginalized communities across the province.

Further debate?

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

On Sunday, I attended a celebration of life for Mr. Craig Connell. Craig made an incredible difference in my life and, judging by how full that room was, on many others.

I first met Craig as a fellow board member on the board of Dairy Farmers of Ontario. I can honestly say I have never disagreed with anyone as often and as vehemently as Craig Connell, and I have never enjoyed someone’s company so much.

Craig was the first person I told that I was going to run for MPP. We were standing at a bar at an event. He asked me if I was going to run for the board; I said, “No, I’m going to run for MPP.” He said, “Oh, you’d be great,” and as I was walking away, I heard him mumble, “My God, he might run for the NDP.” He came over to my table, and he stopped and he said, “I have an announcement to make.” He put his hand on my shoulder and he said, “John here is going to run for MPP, and if he was in my riding, I’d even vote for him, even if he’s running for the Communists.”

He leaves behind Moira; his daughter, Alison, and his son, Lloyd, and their families; and an incredible business legacy with Wicketthorn Farms. And he leaves behind an incredible legacy to all of us for all the things that he fought for. He emigrated from Scotland and brought his skills to this country, and made all our lives better, whether we know it or not. On all our behalf, thank you very much.

I appreciate the question from the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore. If the member will recall my debate remarks, I opened by saying that some schedules in this bill, particularly schedule 18, which is what this question refers to, are good parts of this bill. Absolutely, we should make it easier for victims of crime to sue an offender for emotional distress.

I also think we should make it easier for the public to comment on changes to police regulations, which is why I’m raising concerns in schedule 4 of this bill along with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

It’s my privilege to rise today and inform the House that this past Sunday, in front of a capacity crowd of thousands of raucous fans in Sarnia, the Lambton College women’s basketball program won their first-ever Ontario Colleges Athletic Association championship with a convincing 78-56 win over the previously undefeated and number-two-ranked team in Canada, the Algonquin College Wolves.

With the historic victory in the provincial championship game, the mighty Lambton Lions secured the school’s first-ever invitation to the Canadian Collegiate Athletic Association championship tournament, being held next week at Lakeland College in Lloydminster, Alberta.

Led by coaching prodigy Janine Day, and conference player of the year and first team All-Canadian Breanna Pretty, the 2023-24 Lambton Lions utilized a smothering full-court defence and relentless, fast-paced offence to dominate on the hardwood this season, compiling a 19-2 record so far. The average margin of victory for the Lions this season is nearly 29 points per game.

As the Lambton Lions prepare to make the trip west to the national championship tournament, I want to say to all the coaches and the players at Lambton College, on behalf of the Ontario government and all the members of the Legislature, congratulations, and good luck. We will be cheering for you. Go, Lions!

Last week, I was pleased to welcome the Associate Minister of Housing to the city of Brantford to announce a $3-million housing investment from our government as part of the Building Faster Fund.

This funding was awarded to Brantford because they were able to exceed their housing target by 8% last year. Brantford broke ground on a total of 788 new housing units, unlocking an additional $400,000. Brantford should be proud of the work that they have done to get shovels in the ground faster. I am honoured to represent a city that is dedicated to ensuring that residents have a place to call home, and I am appreciative that our government provides the necessary tools to help the city of Brantford to achieve their goals.

Brantford continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, and I am grateful to all those in the Brantford–Brant com-munity, including Mayor Kevin Davis, for working with our government to meet the development and investment needs of our community. I am thankful every single day for the incredible working relationship that I have with the city of Brantford. With the support of these provincial funds, our community will sustain its expansion, while creating new job opportunities and business growth. Brantford will continue to be the best place to live, work, play and raise a family in Ontario.