I want to thank the member for their statement. She talked about going back to the basics. My background is under the child protection act, and that was just a short year and a half ago, two years ago. One of the things that was prevalent for me was the victims and not giving them the amount of rights that they required. And this actually proposes the Victims’ Bill of Rights, which makes changes that empower victims to go after the offender for bodily harm, for distress, for harm, for hate crimes. Do you not think that that is a positive step, where they can go after the bad actors?

Good afternoon. I rise today to speak on third reading of Bill 157, the Enhancing Access to Justice Act, 2023, and share some of the reasons why I am supporting it. I’m pleased to be sharing my time with the hard-working member from Carleton.

As has been said by the Attorney General and others, this bill, if passed, will improve access to justice for more victims of crime, improve community safety and modernize and simplify the court and its operations. As someone who is a strong advocate for victims of crime, I am pleased to support this bill, as it represents a positive step forward to assist people to better access justice.

First, let me say a few words about public safety and access to justice for victims of crime. Keeping our communities safe and increasing access to justice for victims of crime is a key priority for me and for this government. Ontario’s justice system needs to be accessible and responsible to all Ontarians, especially those who need it most. That’s why we are proposing changes to the Victims’ Bill of Rights that would make it easier and less traumatizing for certain victims to sue convicted offenders for emotional distress and related bodily harm.

Currently, three types of crimes are identified in the Victims’ Bill of Rights where a victim can sue the convicted offender for emotional distress. These crimes include assault by a spouse, sexual assault, and attempted sexual assault. Our government is proposing to expand this list to include victims of human trafficking, victims of sexual offences against a minor or a person with a disability, and the publication or distribution of a voyeuristic recording or an intimate image without that person’s consent.

Speaker, as my colleagues here today will know, in November 2022 I introduced a private member’s motion titled Keira’s Law in the Ontario Legislature. This motion was named after four-year-old Keira, who tragically lost her life as a result of an apparent murder-suicide. It was unanimously passed in this House, and it called for the education and training in intimate partner violence and coercive control for provincial court judges and other professionals in the Family Court system.

Since then, our government has taken further action. We’ve passed the Strengthening Safety and Modernizing Justice Act, which now mandates that all newly appointed and existing provincial court judges and justices of the peace must undertake education and training in gender-based intimate partner violence and coercive control.

These amendments were largely thanks to the tireless advocacy of Jennifer Kagan, Keira’s mother, and the hundreds of women who shared their stories and provided their support for Keira’s Law.

But we haven’t stopped there. Our government has zero tolerance for violence against women and children in all its forms. We’ve invested nearly $247 million to support victims of violence and almost $29 million in violence prevention initiatives. We’ve invested $5.9 million over two years through the Victim Support Grant Program to enhance capacity to support survivors of intimate partner violence and human trafficking. And late last year, the Attorney General announced a one-time $2.13-million investment to the Partner Assault Response Program, to supplement the annual $10.6-million allocation.

People in my community of Oakville North–Burlington are already seeing this funding in action. From 2022 to 2023, Halton Women’s Place received about $2.5 million in funding to deliver emergency shelter services under the violence against women program, the Transitional and Housing Support Program, and the Family Court Support Worker Program. Additionally, at the end of 2023, SAVIS, Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services of Halton, received $98,600 to implement an overnight crisis line to offer immediate support for volunteers and service users. And $100,000 was given directly to the Halton Regional Police Service’s human trafficking unit.

There is well-documented evidence that victims of these crimes can experience long-term effects, like post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and other mental health challenges. We continue to listen to victims like those in Keira’s family, and through Bill 157 we are making the key changes that will increase their access to justice. These proposed amendments will make it easier for victims to sue their offenders for emotional distress in civil court.

Speaker, our government recognizes the serious nature of these crimes, and we are taking action.

Let me focus for a moment on the steps we are taking and, through this bill, proposing to ensure that Ontario’s justice system and laws meet the demands of the 21st century.

Together with the judiciary and all partners across the justice system, we continue to harness new and existing technologies to improve and expand access to many different services.

Our goal has always been clear: to facilitate a modern and accessible justice system that works for everyone. Ontarians deserves nothing less.

About a year ago, we officially opened the new Ontario Court of Justice building in Toronto. This new courthouse brings most of our criminal court services from six different Ontario Court of Justice locations into one accessible, state-of-the-art courthouse. It accommodates virtual and hybrid hearings, and it has conference settlement rooms and enhanced security features. It can accommodate the unique needs of drug treatment, Gladue services, youth and mental health court users, and provides supports for victims.

Our government is also in the midst of rolling out expanded digital justice solutions to deliver more justice services online. Digital transformation in the justice sector is long overdue, and we are succeeding in our efforts to make 21st-century technology a permanent fixture in the administration of justice in Ontario. The Courts Digital Transformation Initiative is an important and significant milestone in this new era for justice in Ontario and will be the most significant single step forward in the digital evolution of justice in Canada.

In 2021, our government launched the Justice Accelerated strategy to break down long-standing barriers in the system and move more services online and closer to Ontarians regardless of where they lived. This includes rural, northern and First Nations communities. Since then, we have:

—expanded electronic filing to more than 700 types of civil, family, bankruptcy, divisional court and small claims court documents through Justice Services Online;

—committed $65 million to virtual and hybrid hearings;

—expanded our online court case search tool to ensure the public can search basic court information in select civil and active criminal cases without having to line up at or call a courthouse; and

—substantially increased funding for Community Legal Education Ontario.

As the Attorney General says, this is the way of the future, and it’s what the people of this province deserve. As a lawyer myself, I welcome this change.

Yet despite all of our advances, some of Ontario’s court processes remain outdated, leading to inefficiencies and challenges for court users. That’s why we are putting forward proposals in this bill to change the Courts of Justice Act and other statutes, creating flexibility and filling current gaps in procedures. We are also proposing changes to make the procedures for judges in the Court of Appeal and Superior Court of Justice to deal with vexatious litigants more flexible to help reduce the use of court resources and delays. These vexatious litigants rob our courts of time and resources which are better used for legitimate attempts to resolve disputes.

As the minister said when this bill was introduced, if passed, the Enhancing Access to Justice Act will ensure that Ontario’s justice system remains fair, remains responsive and remains accessible for those who need it the most, while continuing to keep people safe. I encourage all of my colleagues in the House to support this bill.

You’re not that old.

I’m turning 39 next month—or this month, actually. At the end of March, I’m turning 39. But I can tell you now that I still have not and probably never will walk into a cannabis store with my father, because if I did, he would probably ground me. I might be the member for Carleton, but my dad is the father of the member for Carleton. I might be MPP Ghamari; he’s Mr. Ghamari.

But having said that, Madam Speaker, it’s so important that we are able to have these conversations and that we give people a safe place to talk about this. The fact that people are able to buy recreational cannabis in a safe place and have it be regulated is so important. I in fact toured Tweed when Tweed was still operating in Smiths Falls and I saw the stringent measures imposed in how they controlled it, how they regulated it in Health Canada. As a government, one of the most responsible things we can do is to ensure that the cannabis market is properly regulated in such a way that we’re combatting the illegal market. That’s why this bill is so important, and I hope that everyone supports this piece of legislation.

We’re also expanding options for fire safety enforcement. We’re proposing changes to the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to enhance enforcement and compliance by enabling the future development of an administrative monetary penalty framework.

We’re also strengthening the bail system. We need to strengthen our bail system to ensure that high-risk and repeat violent offenders comply with their bail conditions. In September, in fact, we launched the intensive serious violent crime bail teams. These teams provide dedicated crown attorneys and business professionals with expertise to work with police province-wide on bail matters involving serious and violent crimes, including firearm offences and serious repeat offenders.

I’ve spoken about terrorism a few times and how this piece of legislation is going to make it easier to combat terrorism. I’ve spoken several times in the Legislature and outside of this Legislature about the terrorist Islamic regime in Iran and how they influence Canadian society. I’m very proud to be part of a government that takes the threats of terrorism seriously, because my parents came to Canada in 1986 to escape a terrorist, Islamofascist regime. They came here because they wanted to live in a free and democratic society.

We respect our democratic institutions. We respect our democratic values, and as legislators, it is our responsibility and duty to make sure that we protect our democracy. That is why it is so important to support this piece of legislation. It is so important to support Bill 157, because the measures that we are putting in place are making sure that we are keeping Ontario not just free, but safe and secure.

That is why I am proud of this government. I am proud to work with Premier Ford under his leadership and support this piece of important legislation. I will be voting for Bill 157, and I hope everyone in this House will as well.

Now I will give the rest of my time to my colleague, the member from Oakville North–Burlington.

I recognize the member from Oakville North–Burlington.

Thank you to the two members who talked about this bill—in particular, in referencing to violence against women.

We used to have a program in Ontario called the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Under that program, victims, survivors of these violent acts would get up to $30,000 in compensation, including $5,000 for pain and suffering. But the Ford government removed that program and replaced it with the Victim Quick Response Program+, which means victims don’t get as much. There’s also a timeline of filing an application within 45 days of the crime for emergency expenses, and only up to six months to file for counselling. A lot of these victims under this new program would only receive—the majority of them—$1,000 funding. In committee, the NDP asked this government to increase those amounts, because I hear the concerns.

I certainly don’t question their motives around this bill, but why would the government vote down increasing that compensation for their new Victim Quick Response Program+? It isn’t a replacement to sue someone civilly—

We’re going to move to questions.

Thank you very much to the member opposite. I know that you also feel very strongly about issues as they impact women and children and domestic violence.

There has never been a government in Ontario that has done more to support women and children, particularly in this particular vulnerable area.

As you know, the Ontario government is investing an additional $18.7 million this year to prevent and address violence against women and girls. This is in addition to the amount of $247 million that I mentioned in my remarks.

Thank you to the member for Thornhill.

I think that many of us in this House share the concern of this rise in hate. Hate has absolutely no place here in the province or in Canada. This is something that both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General have said many times, as well as the Premier, and we all support initiatives to be able to mitigate acts of hate.

What we’ve been doing is, through the Victims’ Bill of Rights, allowing victims to sue their convicted offender for emotional distress caused by certain crimes. We are proposing to add the following new crimes for which a victim can sue for emotional stress. They include:

—terrorism;

—faith-based related crimes that we already had included in this section—will now also be able to apply to clergy and/or religious worship;

—motor vehicle theft;

—sexual offences against minors and other offences not already included;

—human-trafficking-related offences not already included; and

—violent crimes and other offences causing a threat to personal safety—

One of the things I would like to say, particularly as a lawyer who used to actually practise using legal aid certificates, is that this is the only government in the last 25 years that has made significant changes to support legal aid. The hourly fee structure for roster lawyers had not been changed in 25 years. The hourly rates and block fee rates had not been increased since 2015. This is the very first investment in nearly a decade. It’s the first increase since October 2023. A second increase will come into effect on April 1, 2024, and the third increase will come into effect on April 1, 2025, to be able to support those individuals who are working in the legal aid field, because obviously it’s important that all individuals be represented when they have issues before the courts.

I think that’s what is important here—to recognize that the victim is usually traumatized as it is when acts of violence occur, and it’s so important for us to be able to actually listen to victims and be able to address their emotional and physical trauma.

Introducing this legislation will actually make it easier for victims of crime, whether it’s terrorism, whether it’s human trafficking, whether it is individuals who themselves have experienced sexual violence—to give them an opportunity to seek a civil remedy through the courts and not have to go back and relitigate the trauma they faced. For us, these proposed changes really go at the heart of remaining fair and responsive, and listening to victims who’ve experienced this kind of traumatized violence.

I do think that you’re crying wolf a little too much, and let me explain to you why. Committees provide to the Attorney General advice on applicants for possible judicial appointments, and the practice for decades has been that the Attorney General makes appointment decisions at their own discretion and recommends to cabinet.

Two members in question here are two of several on this committee, including three judges.

Under previous governments, members of committees donated thousands of dollars to political parties, including the Liberal Party.

We will continue to appoint judges through public and in-depth recruitment processes. I emphasize that this process is separate from the independence of judges, once appointed to their positions. And I am very happy with the process, as a lawyer.

Thank you.

Next question.

I want to thank the member for her great speech.

I have a question, and I think I know the answer to it—at least the first part: Does the member believe that finance, the ability to pay, should be a barrier to justice in Ontario? And if she doesn’t believe that, which I’m sure she doesn’t believe, why won’t her government properly fund and increase legal aid so that everyone has access to the justice they deserve?

In my previous career, I spent a lot of time in courtrooms covering stories involving criminal acts. Far too often, the focus was on the criminal and not on the victim.

This particular piece of legislation is proposing changes to a Victims’ Bill of Rights—back in 1995—that will give victims the ability to sue convicted offenders for emotional distress and related bodily harm for crimes of terrorism, motor vehicle theft and hate crimes targeting religious groups, as well as sexual offences and human trafficking.

I want to ask the member from Oakville North–Burlington why it is important, in her opinion, for our government to bring these changes forward and how they will impact the lives of victims.

We have been seeing in this province some shocking moves by this government to politicize judicial candidates. Recently, the Premier made disturbing statements about his desire to increase political influence over judicial candidates. He wanted like-minded judges. His comments have caused alarm in the legal community and absolutely lowered the public’s trust in Ontario’s justice system.

During committee, this government could have taken a step to reverse this damage by voting for an NDP amendment that would improve the independence of the judicial appointments committee, but this government voted that down.

The entire legal community is completely disturbed by this attack on the judicial system and a tenet of our democracy.

As a lawyer, is this disturbing to you? And why do you think this government didn’t support that amendment at committee?

I’m very pleased to be able to stand in my place as the proud member representing Oshawa in this House.

Actually, it’s an important conversation that we’ve been having. We’re discussing Bill 157, the so-called Enhancing Access to Justice Act. This is a significantly sized bill, in that it has 19 schedules, 19 separate areas of focus in this bill. It’s possible to agree with lots of stuff that the government does and still have more to pull—because this is a missed opportunity. When you title a bill the Enhancing Access to Justice Act, I think people might get their hopes up, especially those thousands and thousands of people who are standing in a queue or waiting for their day in court, so to speak, waiting for their tribunal hearing, hoping that they can have legal support or some guidance through our chaotic systems. I say “chaotic” not to undermine them, but I think right now, we’ve seen such a degradation in our systems. And I’ll speak about that later—especially our tribunal system.

We’re at a point that if the government doesn’t really listen to the folks who are giving them good advice on how to make things better, we’re going to see things get really bad, even worse than they are now, and quickly. So, Speaker, what we have here, we have a bill—and I think I’m going to stand here, as a New Democrat, and say hopefully all of us, but certainly those of us on this side believe that everyone in Ontario deserves equal access to justice.

There have been years of this government; the government before, which was the same government; the government before that, which some days I feel like it’s the same government—they have underfunded and cut programs that have left Ontario’s court system in crisis. There are unprecedented delays and a massive court case backlog. We have seen cases, and the member who serves as our justice critic shared some very tough-to-listen-to stories about people whose cases have not had their day in court, and the perpetrators of very violent and terrible acts against them have been allowed to walk free.

That speaks to the problem in our court system because cases, including those involving the sexual assault of a minor, impaired driving and other serious, violent acts, are being thrown out because they’re moving too slowly through the courts. Many courtrooms are closed due to staffing shortages, others due to poor states of repair. Some are actually physically falling apart. There’s a range of challenges.

The Conservatives have dramatically cut legal aid and made it even harder for many Ontarians to access justice.

As I said, there are 19 schedules in this bill. Unfortunately, they fail to address some of the biggest challenges, not to say that they don’t address some of the pieces. There are some—I will say random, and that’s not even to diminish them, but there’s kind of a smattering of changes. I’m curious to know who requested some of them, because when we hear stakeholder groups across the province clamouring for change and support, those big issues are not addressed in this piece of legislation.

I would say the bill is disappointing. It touches on many issues that desperately need improvement, but it doesn’t meet the moment to address and fix those issues that the bill mentions. It recognizes that people are talking about it, but here we don’t see the fixes.

I will say, as I mentioned, that our justice system is in crisis. A case having to do with sexual assault of a minor and, as I said, drunk driving and other violence—they’re moving too slowly through the court system, so they have been thrown out, sometimes due to closed courtrooms.

I will say that the minister responsible for this file—this is not his first day. This is a minister who I will give credit where credit is due—there are some members over there for whom I wouldn’t be so quick to say this, but this particular minister is bright and capable of understanding these challenges. So I do believe that the minister knows how complicated these challenges are. We would hope that by this point in the journey with this government, we were further along to fixing them, especially when many solutions have been offered.

The government has been making some financial investments, for example, in the tribunal system. And yet, it’s so bad. It’s the worst that we’ve seen it. So money isn’t quite enough when we’re dealing with systemic challenges.

Speaker, one of the things that I would like to talk about as we’re standing here debating a bill called Enhancing Access to Justice Act—folks in our community right now have been seized with the story of the Premier now quadrupling down—is it still only quadrupling? Has he quintupled yet?

Quintuple hasn’t happened.

No? Okay—but doubling down, tripling down, quadrupling down on like-minded judges in the appointment of judges.

I’m going to read here from a piece. Law Times: “Legal groups voice concerns over”—I’ll say Premier—“repeatedly saying he wants ‘like-minded’ judges.

“Advocates’ group, Criminal Lawyers’ Association, CCLA, and FOLA all fired back at the Premier.

“Several legal organizations have spoken out about Ontario Premier”—name—“repeated statements since last Friday that he wants the judicial appointment process to produce judges who are ideologically aligned with his Progressive Conservative government....

“‘We got elected to get like-minded people in appointments,’ he said.”

Another quote from the Premier is, “I am not going to appoint some NDP or some Liberal. I have made it very clear where I stand with judges.”

Going on, he reiterated his support for like-minded judges and said, “We’re going to triple-down on making sure communities are safe. I’m sick and tired of judges letting these people out on bail. We’re going to hire tough judges. That’s what we’re doing.”

The Criminal Lawyers’ Association reminds this government that, “Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy.... We echo the concerns of other Ontario legal organizations and urge your government to appoint qualified, principled, impartial judges of the highest calibre regardless of political affiliation. Judges must be free to make fair and impartial decisions—often difficult decisions—without concern for whether or not their rulings align with the government of the day.”

Also, at the press conference where the Premier made the initial comments, he said that judges were releasing too many criminal suspects on bail while their cases proceeded through the court system. He said that in every appointment, he is looking for “tough judges, tough JPs ... to keep guys in jail.”

“The Advocates’ Society’s letter said that a judge’s role is to apply the law to the facts of the case, not to implement government policies, such as being ‘soft’ or ‘tough’ on crime.

“‘To suggest otherwise violates the separation of powers ingrained in Canada’s constitutional order, and undermines the judiciary’s independence as the third, equal branch of government,’ said the letter....

“‘In the view of the CCLA, it’s imperative that judicial appointments remain non-partisan and based on merit to ensure that the charter right to bail is implemented in a way that upholds the rule of law’....”

We’ve been sharing a lot of the reaction of the legal community in this room. I’ll say a favourite of mine is this: that the chair of the Federation of Ontario Legal Associations, Douglas Judson, had said, “For the legal community, the Premier’s comments reflect a ‘fundamental and, frankly, juvenile misapprehension’ of the importance of judicial independence to democracy....”

In FOLA’s statement on the Premier’s comments, “the organization urged” the government “to ‘de-politicize and return independence’....”

Speaker, what I found interesting about this story—beyond that it’s upsetting, and meddling in the judicial side of things is not what we’re supposed to do—is people in the community really don’t like this one. Folks who may or may not generally share their politics or have political opinions in their every day—because most people are too busy to tune into what happens in this space and place. A lot of folks out there are like, “What are they doing?” So they’ve pushed a button here.

Speaker, I will also return to what I had been talking about, with the experience of people in our community, those backlogs, the challenges. Here’s a letter that I got from David. David wrote: “Hello Jennifer,

“I have been trying to get an answer as to why the courthouse service counter hours are only 9-11 and 2-4?...

“I got to the courthouse today before 1:30 p.m., and there were already 12 people waiting for the counter to reopen at 2 p.m. But the stats won’t show the demand for this service because we all have to wait until 15 minutes before the counter opens to be able to get our ticket to wait for our turn to be served. Isn’t access to justice a right in Ontario?”

That is maybe a small piece of the big picture, but this is how this individual is experiencing it: standing in line to get help, and where’s the help? And where’s the answer to “Where’s the help”?

I’m sharing this as I had reached out, of course, to the Durham Community Legal Clinic. Our legal clinics in our communities—I imagine that all MPPs in this space have them on speed dial. We’re all connected to the legal clinics, because we do our best to serve people who come through our door, and many folks have many needs, and we don’t give legal advice—except the Premier, but the rest of us don’t give legal advice.

As a preliminary point, I want to say, it’s important to note that community legal clinics are funded out of the general legal aid budget; they’re not funded separately, so the cuts of 2019 to the Legal Aid Ontario budget impacted clinics as well as other legal aid services.

These are some points shared—we’d reached out to Patrick Gillespie, the executive director locally. He said, “In 2019, the provincial government cut its contribution to” Legal Aid Ontario “by one third, or approximately $130 million ... clinics continue to strain due to underfunding. Particularly, clinics face a recruitment and retention crisis regarding their staff. Chronic underfunding is making it impossible for community clinics to hire and retain staff, particularly lawyers, who can be better compensated elsewhere.

“Clinics have been asking the provincial government and LAO for an infusion of additional resources to respond to this crisis.

“The LAO financial eligibility requirement is too low, forcing us to turn away many clients in need; however, the challenges with recruitment and retention pose a problem in addressing that need even if the financial eligibility rate was increased.”

Making it local, but probably you could extrapolate this to other communities in the province: “Durham region is one of the largest catchment areas in the province with an ever-growing population ... and service need; yet, it is served by only one clinic when much smaller areas have many more.”

As he had shared, “The move by the government and their ‘digital-first’ program to keep Landlord and Tenant Board tribunals online has had a negative impact on marginalized, elderly and low-income clients. This approach favours those who can afford technology.” Yes, technology as an option, great; technology as that’s all you’re allowed to get, no. We all are hearing that, and we know this.

Here’s a letter. This is a tenant in my community; her name is Jackie: “I am a 70-year-old resident of Oshawa, who has lived in basement unit of a five-plex in Oshawa....

“I have lived here for almost 17 years.

“Always pay my rent on time. Apartment is immaculate. I have done all painting of walls and ceilings, backsplash, put down new flooring all on my own and on my own dime.

“I have three cats, two very senior that have always lived here, and go outside with a cat door because there is a field next door that they love to go to or just lay on my front lawn.

“I am a perfect tenant, and have been helpful all through the years because the landlord is rarely here, and I’m the one to contact him if pipes burst, washing machine breaks etc.

“I was given this N12 notice in September”—I’m going to move forward here. “I did not move out of my apartment ... and the hearing for the tribunal has been scheduled” for a date in April “through Zoom, which I have no idea about.” Just to replay, Jackie is 70 and is trying to live her life.

I will continue. Jackie has shared, “This is ridiculous and inhumane. What can be done about this? I will have to retain a lawyer for the tribunal meeting as I know nothing about Zoom meetings, and I will have an added expense for a lawyer.

“I feel I have grounds to fight this....

“Is there anything that can be done that you could advise or help me with? I have been sick with worry and stress for six months now, living in limbo, affecting my sleep, my livelihood, my job. Yes, I still work full-time....

“Thank you,” says Jackie.

There are lots of tenants with lots of experiences out there, and we’ve got a lot of people waiting in line at that tribunal.

This is a portion of a significant four-pager, and this is from Roxanne. She has written to me as an independent small landlord of one home/unit in regard to the Landlord and Tenant Board. She raises issues of lengthy waits of over a year, continued suffering by small landlords, abuse of the system, non-paying tenants allowed to appeal an eviction after failing to follow through on an order, tenants living in unsuitable homes that landlords refuse to repair, sheriffs are backed up for two months, as you are all aware. The list goes on and on.

I’m pulling just some highlights from Roxanne in the interest of time: “I own a home in Oshawa ... and have tenants occupying the premises....

“The arrears are now over $25,000. The next hearing” was “January 23 ... for an issue that was already granted a resolution with consequences. Need I even say, is a time slot that could have been used for someone who actually needs an adjudicator to sort out a serious issue. For example, how many tenants are suffering at the hands of landlords that don’t know their legal obligations or are deliberately making the life of a good tenant difficult in hopes they will just move out so the landlord can now have new tenants, new lease, and charge more. These tenants are waiting upwards of two years for resolution to their problems while non-paying tenants get appeals and second and third hearing dates and are allowed to continue abuse of the service.”

Roxanne says, “Thousands of landlords losing their savings, their properties, their shirts and going into serious debt to hang on to a property they worked hard to acquire while a tenant can ... stay in a unit and pay nothing until it finally gets to the point where a landlord now has to spend more money they already don’t have to pay for a sheriff and have them physically removed. Granted, the sheriff is a last resort and not always needed but the four-to-six week wait for a sheriff tells me that it is used frequently enough for those ... tenants that just refuse to leave....”

Man, I feel for people who are living in this kind of chaos and limbo.

The sheriff circumstance—that’s two months that she has to wait for that. There’s only one in Oshawa, apparently. And it says, “I am now approaching two years of stress and waiting.”

That’s Roxanne. Roxanne was speaking as somebody who has one unit that they rent out, trying to make ends meet in a community. A lot of us have small landlords who are our neighbours. And we’re in a crisis of—we don’t have enough housing. If this government can’t fix the tribunal, how many people are going to leave the system and say, “I’m not renting my basement anymore”?

I’m basically out of time, because I had this whole report highlighted and ready to go from Tribunal Watch Ontario, but I will read this bit that they have said: “There is little justice to be found for Ontarians who have to turn to Ontario’s busiest tribunal—the Landlord and Tenant Board. The LTB has been failing badly since 2019, when the current government began removing its experienced adjudicators and moved the LTB under the leadership of Tribunals Ontario, a mega-cluster of tribunals. The deplorable situation at the LTB is not getting better. According to the most recent annual report from Tribunals Ontario, the situation is getting worse. The backlog of LTB applications has grown to over 53,000.

“Despite increased funding and more staff and more adjudicators than ever before, the delays remain crushing and the number of cases resolved each year has continued to drop.”

It goes on and says, “This begs the question: What is going wrong at the LTB?”

I’ve got nine pages to tell this government what is going wrong at the LTB, but I’d be willing to bet that the minister and the ministry already know, and that is why we should have seen those solutions in this piece of legislation or action from this government.

For women like Emily—and I say “women,” because there are a lot of women who are struggling with even finding the—I hesitate to say strength, but to have faith in the system, to even enter the system, to come forward with an accusation and step into the system. And then to have gone all the way through it and to not get the day in court, to know that her abuser or the perpetrator had gone free—I don’t know the words to say to someone like Emily. But I do have the words to say to this government—and that is, Emily is not an anomaly.

There are a lot of folks out there who deserve justice, not only access to justice. What we can do to fix the system, we have to do.

We’re going to move to questions for the member for Oshawa.

Thank you to the member for Oshawa. You talked about the backlog in the courts and the delay. The government likes to say that it’s because we don’t have tough-minded judges, but in fact, it is the delay in the court system.

The most poignant—there are a number of poignant stories, but I want to share again the story of Emily, who was a young woman who was sexually assaulted in her home. She bravely took her rapist to court despite how difficult we can imagine that is, only to have her case delayed again and again, and then finally it was thrown out because it passed the 18-month timeline.

To the member from Oshawa, can you imagine the indescribable feeling of being violated not once, but twice by this system and a government who puts this bill forward and doesn’t put anything in there to make sure that something like this does not happen again in the province of Ontario?