Thursday, May 14, 2026

The House met at 0900.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Good morning, everyone. Now a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection. Let us pray.

Official source

Prières.

Official source

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 13, 2026, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Official source

Bill 75, An Act to enact the Constable Joe MacDonald Public Safety Officers’ Survivors Scholarship Fund Act, 2026 and to amend various other Acts / Projet de loi 75, Loi édictant la Loi de 2026 sur le Fonds Joe MacDonald de bourses d’études à l’intention des survivants d’agents de sécurité publique et modifiant diverses autres lois.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Further debate?

Official source

MPP Robin Lennox

It’s always an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Hamilton Centre. Today we are speaking about Bill 75, and the articulated purpose of this bill is to try to promote community safety. On that, I can say that the Ontario NDP is unanimous and consistent in what we have said in the past: We believe that everyone should be able to live in safe communities and that we must ensure that no one is exposed to violence in the places where they live, play and learn. But how we get there differs wildly. Recently, I was at a vigil for a 16-year-old boy who was shot and killed in downtown Hamilton. His name was Nabil Askafe. A 14-year-old boy has subsequently been charged with second-degree murder. This was a shocking event for our community. Families’ lives are altered forever as they grieve the loss of their child. I attended the vigil for Nabil at Hamilton city hall just a couple of weeks ago. While there, we heard from his friends, his family, his teachers and his faith leaders. They called upon all of us as political leaders to take action to prevent this kind of senseless violence from taking place. Nearly everyone who spoke called for improvements in community safety through deep community care by investing in our young people and wrapping our arms around them to keep them safe, by ensuring the youth in our communities have safe and well-resourced schools, food to eat, a place to rest their head and programming that helps them thrive and realize their fullest potential. We heard calls to action to expand funding for recreational programming and safe spaces for our at-risk youth and to ensure that every single young person can see a path forward for themselves that is healthy and free from involvement in violence. Just as the vigil was ending and we were all starting to walk away, we saw police start running up the sidewalk up the street. Just as we were mourning the loss of one teenager, another teenager, a 19 year old, had been killed in another shooting happening just 200 metres away. These events are a stark reminder of the increase in violent crime involving youth in our community. We must do so much more to ensure that no family has to mourn the loss of their child to gun violence. We all agree that community safety is an essential priority. Every single person deserves to live, work and play in our communities without fear. Right now, we know that this is not the case for too many people. Too many Ontarians have experienced violence or have been failed by our justice system. The thing is, we know the work that needs to be done to make our communities safer. We know that if we improve the social conditions within our communities, we will put people in a position to thrive so that they do not become involved in violent crime. That starts with and includes poverty reduction, doubling Ontario disability support payments and Ontario Works and having a poverty reduction plan that actually uplifts people out of poverty instead of keeping them locked in legislated poverty. It means investing in education, ensuring that caring adults are in each and every one of our classrooms, preventing students from being expelled or suspended and getting into trouble and ensuring pathways for our students into meaningful training and educational opportunities. It means having a jobs plan that ensures that our youth and our young people see a path forward for themselves, an ability to provide for themselves and their family without becoming involved in violence or crime. It means ensuring that everyone is able to put a roof over their head and investing in supportive housing; we know for every dollar we invest in supportive housing, we save double that in saved social services, health care and justice costs. And it means ensuring that we have programs available to help people in our communities exit situations of violence. Just this spring—in March—in Hamilton, nine youth violence prevention programs lost their funding. We need to address those gaps and ensure that crime prevention is at the forefront, not just talking about putting more people in jail. But instead, this Conservative government has systematically dismantled those essential pillars of community safety, and so here we are today. They have underfunded our schools; refused to fund universal mental health care; caused record-high unemployment, including 17% youth unemployment; and they have widened income inequality year after year after year. Last year, we saw one million Ontarians accessing food banks and 85,000 people sleeping outdoors on our streets or in encampments. This Conservative government has failed to create the conditions for our communities to be safe and prosperous. They’re making it more and more difficult for people to get by, and we’re seeing Ontarians put in positions where they have very few options left to improve their circumstances. And so it’s difficult to hear this Conservative government talk about this bill as being one dedicated to promoting community safety. There are many issues in our justice system that require fixing, but this bill does not encompass all of those interventions that we need. We see some elements of this bill that are commendable and important, particularly elements that strengthen protections for animals against abuse and provide scholarships to family members of public service officers who tragically die in the line of duty. These are important changes, and I’m glad to see them brought forward. But unfortunately, rather than focus this legislation on those positive advancements and create dedicated legislation to see them through, this Conservative government decided to create an omnibus bill that includes both the commendable and the truly reprehensible. Schedule 2 of this bill is where we find the truly reprehensible. Schedule 2 significantly expands provisions for cash bail in Ontario, a system that will further erode our justice system and instill a two-tiered system based on wealth status. The proposed cash bail system would have its most severe consequences for those with limited financial means. Accused who cannot afford the required deposit will face prolonged pretrial detentions. Thus, schedule 2 will create a wealth-based system of pretrial detention—a system in which it is actually better to be guilty and rich than it is to be innocent and poor; a system in which the determination for pretrial bail isn’t determined by whether or not you’re a risk to the public or a risk to reoffend, but rather relies on an income test. An income test: Where is the justice in that? Make no mistake, cash bail is an attack on the working class. Already, we have a million people accessing our food banks, 85,000 people unhoused and sleeping on our streets and millions more living paycheque to paycheque. And with schedule 2, working class people and families who find themselves involved in the justice system will face impossible choices. Already, it is difficult to find sureties to take responsibility for an accused person when they are released on bail. Our overreliance on sureties is one of the issues with our justice system that our Attorney General should be fixing, not making worse. We could make our bail system more effective by ensuring that we invest the resources in bail supervision that will ensure that accused people meet their bail conditions without unduly burdening their family members and friends as sureties. But with an expanded cash bail system, accused persons will either need to find a surety who has a few thousand dollars cash in the bank lying around that they can use for bail—which, by the way, many working people in Ontario do not have access to right now—or sureties will need to liquidate assets in order to prevent their loved one from sitting in a jail cell for months on end awaiting pretrial detention. This will further push working-class people— Interjections.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Stop the clock. Sorry to interrupt the member. The side conversations and the heckling are not going to continue. I will return to the member to continue her remarks.

Official source

MPP Robin Lennox

A cash bail system will further push working-class people into financial distress at a time when they’re already struggling to get by under this Conservative government’s failed economic policies. On this point, I was alarmed to hear the Associate Attorney General say that making life more difficult for sureties was an intentional change in this legislation. As the Associate Attorney General said in debate, “If someone is going to take the risk of allowing that individual to come out and put up the bail, then there should be real consequences for that individual as well.” Maybe “if those conditions were a ... bit tougher,” and “tougher on the family as well, there would be less ... crimes.” I wonder if the Attorney General will stand by that. Ontarians deserve to know if the government considers it just for family members of an accused person to have to suffer financial hardship, including worsening stress and stigma, simply because a person they are related to has been accused of a crime. That’s not justice. It is a blatant attack on the working class and an attempt to further instill a two-tiered justice system in which the rich are able to walk away free while the working class are held in jail for months or years awaiting trial, many of whom will go on to be found innocent. Already, we know that the wealthy escape justice far too often. They’re able to hire slick defence attorneys and strike deals, while working-class people scrape together every dollar for their defence. This will further exacerbate that problem. With cash bail, individuals and families will have to bear stiff upfront costs just to make bail. That’s money that’s not going to paying for their legal consultation or defence, meaning we will likely see rising caseloads for our public defenders, who already can barely meet the demands in our courts. We know that low-income individuals, racialized communities and people struggling with mental health and substance use are already disproportionately impacted by the justice system. Expanding the use of cash bail deepens these inequities while doing little to actually improve community safety. Like so many other pieces of legislation that come from this Conservative government, schedule 2 in this bill will cause more problems than it solves. First, we have heard from organizations like the Ontario Bar Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association that schedule 2 is likely to be deemed unconstitutional and jurisdictional overreach. The Conservative government must know that this schedule is likely to face constitutional challenges. In particular, the Bail Act amendments may be determined to be beyond the powers of a provincial government if the imposition of cash bail requirements is found to be a matter of criminal law and criminal procedure, and thus strictly under federal purview. If this is the case, Ontarians deserve to know: Will the Conservative government spend their tax dollars on millions in legal fees for a constitutional court challenge? Exactly how much money is this government willing to spend to keep poor people in jail simply because they are poor? Ontarians deserve to hear the answer to that question. In addition, there have been a number of other issues in this legislation that have been highlighted by organizations like the Ontario Bar Association and others that have a deep interest in ensuring that our court processes run smoothly, that justice is well served and that we do not see further injustices because of problems in our court system. Already, we know that our courts are overburdened. We do not have enough judges, enough administrators in our courts, enough time for cases to be heard before they are thrown out. In Ontario, we have seen hundreds of sexual assault cases thrown out because we could not make sure that those cases had their day in court in the allocated time. Because of Jordan’s Principle, we have seen sexual assault survivors who have come forward—who have been so courageous in bringing forward their truth—and they have been told that their case will never be heard because we cannot make space for them in our court system. That problem will only be worsened by the cash bail system. As many legal experts have warned, cash bail will put increased stress on our court system. We will see more court hearings related to cash bail, related to the administration of the cash bail system, and that will further slow down our court processes. We risk seeing more cases thrown out because we cannot guarantee them a trial date within the required period. That is not justice. We will also see a disincentivizing for sureties. Sureties have been given a disproportionate role in our bail supervision system because this government has chosen to put more responsibility onto family members and friends of the accused than they are willing to actually invest in appropriate bail supervision, or in making sure that if someone does not have their day in court or return to their day in court, that bail amounts are recouped. We could actually just invest the resources in recouping forfeited bail amounts rather than requiring payment up front, but that’s not what this government is choosing to do. Instead, we know that the introduction of mandatory cash bail will significantly deter or prevent individuals from acting as sureties. It will also mean that those sureties have to take on significant financial risk up front, and they may not be able to see that money back for months or for years. We also know that we have significant overcrowding in our jails. Overcrowding in our jails is not just a significant health and safety problem, both for the people working in our jails and for the people currently incarcerated, it also is a major barrier for people accessing justice through our court system. We have seen, over the past several years, because of worsening conditions in our jails, more cases are being either stayed or sentences are being shortened because, in this province, judges have to take into account the conditions in pretrial detention or in our jails when deciding on sentencing. That means that, with this provision, we will see more people in our jails awaiting pretrial detention, more overcrowding. We risk having more cases stayed and thrown out because the conditions in our jails are so poor. This happened, just recently, in October 2025. We saw the Ontario Superior Court stay first-degree murder charges against three men because they experienced “torturous” treatment that they suffered while awaiting trial—they were in pretrial detention—at Maplehurst Correctional Complex in Milton. We will see more of those types of situations happening. That is not justice served. But also, we know that there are several examples where sentencing has actually been reduced because of the conditions in our jails and in our prisons. How does that match up with what this government’s stated goal is, which is to ensure that those who are at risk of reoffending are kept in our jails? It just doesn’t make sense. Beyond that, we know that there is also a very significant risk that when we introduce a cash bail system, we also increase the likelihood of wrongful convictions, because you can only imagine that if you are unable to pay your cash bail just because you are poor, even if you are innocent—there are many people for whom they would have to be weighing whether or not they want to wait months or years in jail awaiting their trial, or whether they would rather plead guilty to be able to just, hopefully, see a shortened sentence allotted and hopefully see release earlier. These are going to be the impossible choices that we are putting in, and that is not justice served. We do not want to see innocent people pleading guilty simply because they cannot make cash bail. It’s shameful. We also know that there are alternative measures to be able to achieve the stated goals of Bill 75’s policy. For example, we could consider investing in the bail recoupment system so that when someone does not make their day in court, we are able to more efficiently recoup lost bail amounts. Right now, that is a tremendous issue, and that will not be fixed. We could also improve the bail system by improving the persistent delays within the justice system itself. As previously raised by the Ontario Bar Association, there have been substantial delays between an accused who is in pretrial custody being requested in court and their actual attendance in court. These delays directly contribute to overcrowding in Ontario jails, where a substantial proportion of inmates are actually held in pretrial detention. Again, we don’t know yet whether they are innocent or guilty; they have only been accused, and yet they are taking up a majority of the spots in our jails. How is that protecting public safety? The provisions in this cash bail system do nothing to predict whether or not someone is a risk to the public, whether or not they are a risk to reoffend, whether or not they are innocent or guilty; it simply adjudicates whether or not they are able to pass an income test. Again, I would say that is not justice; that is a cheap populist trick to try to say that you are doing something while actually doing nothing. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the time to speak on this bill.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Time for questions.

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

I want to thank the member for her remarks, which really resonate with what I’ve been saying all along. Your comments on bail reform are really on point. The constitutionality of that I’m sure is going to be challenged. More importantly, this is so the wrong way to go about keeping criminals behind bars. As you noted, many people behind bars are just on remand, waiting for their day in court. This is just going to put more pressure on our justice system and on our jails. We all know that keeping people in jail costs a lot of money; we’re talking about over $300 per day. How could that money be better invested to really help people?

Official source

MPP Robin Lennox

Thank you to the member for your question. I think it is really important. When we think about the investment of public money, we need to know that what we are investing in is going to yield the desired outcome, which is, as we have all agreed, community safety. We know that keeping someone in jail is actually the most expensive place to possibly keep them. We could take that money and invest in community programs that promote community safety, like, for example, the nine youth violence prevention programs that I talked about being defunded in Hamilton. We could invest that money in violence prevention because I’m sure that many of us would agree that we would rather violent crime never take place than see more people convicted of violent crime. Why don’t we prevent the harms rather than just focusing on locking people up after the harms have already occurred?

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Hon. Zee Hamid

I’d like to thank the member for that speech. It’s something we’ve clarified a number of times: Cash bail becomes due upon release. People are not held in if they can’t pay. It’s important to note that judges who set the bail know the situation, they know the law, they know the condition, so they can set bail as low as a dollar for people who are arrested for shoplifting. Higher bail is only set for violent and repeat offenders. Take an example of somebody who repeatedly commits intimate partner violence. A judge would have a sliding scale of bail. It might start a bit lower, but eventually it will become higher because it becomes a matter of public safety. My question to the member is, do they really believe that repeat and violent offenders should not have consequences of their actions, and is it not fair to the victims to make sure that they are held behind bars in these cases?

Official source

MPP Robin Lennox

Thank you to the member opposite for providing that example because I think it really helps us understand what a wealth-based bail system would mean, because in your example you talked about how bail amounts are going to go up based on the risk of reoffence, the risk of public safety. But the determination for release on bail shouldn’t be whether or not you can pay the amount, because in your example, a millionaire could commit an extremely violent crime, but they have the wealth to be able to pay any amount of bail and they would be released. Whereas a poor person could commit the same crime and not be able to pay. So we would posit that the determination for bail should be about risk to the community, not a dollar amount that a wealthy person could pay and walk free and a poor person could not.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Thank you to my colleague for her debate on this bill. My colleague just said if you do a crime, you get locked up. I am concerned about people with addiction problems. We know there’s a growing number of young people who have gambling issues. This government has allowed Ontario to have open advertising, targeting young people to get them addicted to gambling. I have friends who have recovered from alcoholism, who are struggling with alcoholism, and because of this government they can’t go to grocery stores, they can’t go to parks. They have more and more difficulty avoiding places with alcohol. It seems like the government wants to appear tough on crime after crime happens but doesn’t seem interested in preventing crime. I wonder if the member from Hamilton Centre would like to comment on that.

Official source

MPP Robin Lennox

Thank you to my colleague. I would agree that when we contrast this with some of the other policies that this government is putting forward, we really have to question whether or not you are consistent in what you say is promoting community safety, because just recently, in this bill, you are saying that you’re going to try to make our roads safer by cracking down on people who are driving impaired, or dangerous driving, or careless driving. But at the same time you just announced that you want people to be able to bring their own alcohol to community events and public spaces. Let me tell you what small, rural towns are saying about that, because there are small, rural towns and municipalities who are rejecting that policy because they know it’s going to make the roads unsafe. I grew up in small town, and let me tell you, when you go to a community event in a community park downtown in your little town, everyone is driving up or they are boating up. Then you’re bringing your alcohol, there are no safe serves, there are no safeguards. Then what your policies are doing is telling everyone, “Bring as much alcohol as you want and then drive home.” That is not safety.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Ms. Stephanie Bowman

Thank you to the member from Hamilton Centre for her thoughtful debate. This government has a tendency to name its bills in contradiction to what they’re actually doing. Whether it’s getting more homes built and yet we have fewer homes built in 2025 than we did in 2021—here we’ve got a bill entitled Keeping Criminals Behind Bars Act, and yet this government has released prisoners accidently and won’t tell us what’s going on with them. Could you comment a little further about why you think the government names a bill one thing and then does the exact opposite?

Official source

MPP Robin Lennox

Thank you to the member for that question. I would agree. They say you can’t judge a book by its cover. You certainly can’t judge a bill by its title, because this government gets very creative in naming its bills. Certainly I don’t think that we could, in good conscience, say that we are keeping criminals behind bars when we are throwing out hundreds of sexual assault cases in this province before survivors get their day in court. How can you possibly say that you are serving justice when that is the case and when schedule 2, as in this bill, will further exacerbate that problem, slow down our courts and lead to more cases being thrown out before our victims get their justice?

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Mr. Matthew Rae

I appreciate the member from Hamilton Centre for her remarks this morning. It’s great to hear—I learned something new about that member: She comes from a rural town. It’s great to have more members either representing or coming from that type of community. I know she mentioned our government’s policy to allow more choice around alcohol in public spaces if the municipality chooses. It’s actually been rural communities, I’ve found—some are choosing not to, but some in my riding have chosen to already implement some of those bylaws: the city of Stratford, for example, during COVID. You can see it in some of the beautiful parks we have there. My question, though, is related to—the member mentioned some of the initiatives in this bill around drunk driving and if, God forbid, there is drunk driving and a guardian or parent is killed, our government is bringing forward this piece of legislation to ensure the person that committed that crime would then pay child support to the surviving beneficiaries of that individual. Does the member opposite support that initiative supporting those victims of that crime?

Official source

MPP Robin Lennox

Thank you for the question. We have always stood in support of victims of crime. But what I would like to be able to guarantee every family member when they come to me and they tell me that they have lost someone who has died on the roads because of impaired driving, I would like to say to them that we are doing every single thing we can to say that that will never happen again, that no family should ever have to lose a loved one on the roads to impaired driving. And that starts with making sure that we have smart and safe policies around alcohol. That is the exact opposite of what your government has been doing. Every safeguard in place to make sure that alcohol is safely regulated and managed, you have stripped away—putting alcohol in every corner store and every public space at every opportunity. We are going to see more people at risk of death and harms from impaired driving on our streets because we are not investing in prevention.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Unfortunately, there isn’t time for another round of questions. Further debate?

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

Here we go: Another bill—flashy title, but when you actually read the substance of it, it doesn’t accomplish what it’s setting out to do. Listen, we can all agree on the fact that there are issues in our judicial system—in our present system—and there certainly should be folks who are not getting out as easily and as fast as they can. We’ve even seen examples with this government mistakenly releasing prisoners and losing track of them. We still have five on the loose, have no idea where they are. The Solicitor General won’t give us an update on that. But let’s talk about Bill 75, Keeping Criminals Behind Bars Act—again, flashy title, but there are some really deeply concerning things in here. We all know that the prison system right now is way beyond capacity. We have three prisoners to one cell. We have overcrowded conditions. I know this government likes to say that the previous Liberal government closed jails. That’s not true. We consolidated them and created new beds—

Official source

Hon. Zee Hamid

No.

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

Yes, it is true—it is true, and I’ll get to the misinformation that you were talking about in your question later.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Through the Speaker.

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

Thank you, Speaker. So there are lots of issues, right? It costs money to keep people in prison, but to have three in one room is not acceptable. We know it costs $357 per day to keep one person in an Ontario jail. It costs $5 to $15 daily—the cost of the community bail supervision program—which is roughly one twenty-fourth to one seventieth of the cost. When we are at 150% capacity in some Ontario jails—that’s per the Ombudsman: 150%. So you’ve had eight years and now you want ram this bill forward with no actual real amendments to address it, and the problem is only going to get worse. An 80% share of people in Ontario jails are in there on remand—legally innocent, awaiting trial. This bill is Americanizing our system. I do see a lot of inspiration with this government trying to imitate what our neighbours are doing down south. What is going on with the bail reform in this bill is totally unacceptable, and I really appreciate what my colleague from Hamilton Centre was bringing up about, essentially, the wealth inequity issue that’s going to go on there. If you can afford it, then you can get out. This schedule—I think it’s schedule 2 I’m talking about here—in this bill really crosses a line. Criminal procedure, including the rules that govern how bail is set and what conditions can be attached, is exclusively a federal jurisdiction under section 91(27) of the Constitution Act of 1867. Section 515 of the Criminal Code already sets out the complete framework for what release conditions a court may impose, including a very narrow circumstance in which cash deposits are permitted. Provinces administer bail; they do not get to redefine it, but that’s what this government is trying to do. Schedule 2 does not administer. It legislates a new release condition not contemplated by the Criminal Code. That is textbook definition of ultra vires. What the Supreme Court has already said about this: In R. v. Antic 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada was unambiguous. The court held three things that gut this bill: Cash bail has no additional effect compared to a promise to pay. Requiring it on top of a recognizance does not make compliance more likely. Cash bail can become a de facto prison when an accused cannot raise the funds, which directly engages section 11(e) of the charter, the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. The ladder principle is mandatory. Release must be on the least onerous terms necessary, and each more onerous rung must be considered and rejected before the next is imposed. Schedule 2 inverts the ladder. It contemplates cash deposits as a default mechanism through regulation, exactly what Antic forbids. The government has been put on notice by the legal community that this is the case and is proceeding anyway. And really, this does open up the possibility of loan sharks and those who will loan people bail money. We see how that system works in the United States, and this government is going to create that here. This is not a way to actually keep criminals behind bars. We’re not actually addressing the core issues of what’s going on here. This is just a superficial title of a bill being slapped onto a piece of legislation to attempt to show Ontarians that this government is tough on crime and doing something about it, but this bill does not actually do that. This bill will not actually make Ontarians safer. The premise is false. This government’s cash for bail rests on a story about dangerous people walking out of bail hearings and reoffending. The data does not support that story. Testimony before the Standing Committee on Justice Policy from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples found over 80% of individuals released on bail never breached a condition of any kind. Of the breaches that did occur, 98% are administrative: missing a court date, breaking a curfew, failing to check in. Fewer than one in 300 people on bail commit a substantive new offence—a.k.a. a real crime—while released. So tackle those ones. Tackle the outliers. We don’t need to change the entire system in an attempt to convince Ontarians that this government is tough on crime. Cash bail is being prescribed as a treatment for a disease that affects less than one third of 1% of the patient population. And the treatment doesn’t even work: R. v. Antic already established that a cash deposit has no greater coercive effect than a non-cash promise to pay. Judges can already order cash bail when it’s warranted, by the way. Nothing in current law prevents a judge from requiring cash bail in an appropriate case. Section 515(2)(e) of the Criminal Code already authorizes it. It is used sparingly because the ladder principle requires it to be and because, in practice, less onerous conditions accomplish the same public safety goal. This government is not creating a new tool; it is replacing judicial discretion with an administrative rule and centralizing power to design that rule in the hands of the Attorney General through regulation—a common theme that we have been seeing this entire session with centralizing all power to all ministers in every single sector. Now this government is claiming that schedule 2 will keep dangerous criminals off the streets. But schedule 2 targets the wealth of the accused, not the risk that they pose. That’s the actual issue here. A dangerous person with money walks, as my colleague from Hamilton Centre pointed out. A non-dangerous person without money sits in jail, a jail that could be at 150% capacity. That costs us money, taxpayer dollars, to keep them there, by the way. The government claims the current bail system is broken and lets too many people out. Sure, there are circumstances where people have been let out. This government has mistakenly let out prisoners, lost track of them for—don’t know why; don’t know who to blame for that. Some are still on the loose. There are real situations where people are getting out—we can admit that—but let’s actually address that situation instead of this superficial piece of legislation. The reality is, the Supreme Court found in R. v. Antic, 2017, that cash bail has no additional coercive effect compared to a non-cash promise to pay. This contradicts the government’s own report. In March 2023, the Standing Committee on Justice Policy released A Report on the Modernization of the Bail System: Strengthening Public Safety. The committee concluded that bail reform should be targeted at repeat violent offenders in high-risk cases and should avoid broad tough-on-crime approaches that sweep in low-risk accused. That is the concern with this bill. Again, it’s not targeting the actual problem. It is just doing a sweeping target that will ultimately hurt people that simply can’t afford it, those that haven’t been proven guilty yet but have to remain in jail simply because they can’t afford the upfront bail. This broad, blanket regulation-making power that schedule 2 gives the Attorney General is the opposite of targeted; it is exactly the approach the government’s own committee warned against just three years ago. But again, this is a common thing that I see. On the rare occasion that a bill actually goes to committee—a lovely and rare treat with this government—we have public hearings, but they pick and choose who they’re going to listen to. So it doesn’t even matter if we have experts or stakeholders coming in who are warning the government against this bill; they’re just going to do what they want to do anyway. They’ll find that one person, probably with ties to the PCs, who is going to say what the government wants to hear, and then they’re going to use that to justify their bill. The conditions of provincial corrections today—the Ombudsman of Ontario, the Auditor General, correctional officer unions and the courts are saying the same thing: Ontario’s correctional system is in crisis. The numbers are the government’s own. In April 2026, Ontario’s correctional facilities were operating at an average of 130% of capacity province-wide, up from 113% just two years earlier. Some institutions—Maplehurst, South West Detention Centre—are running at 150% of intended capacity, with triple- and quadruple-bunking now routine. Complaints to the Ombudsman about correctional services jumped 55% in a single year, reaching nearly 7,000, the highest on record. I think I’ve gone above my time here, so to conclude, this bill is not what the government claims. It is unconstitutional. Every major legal body in this province has said so. It is ineffective. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Antic that cash bail does not improve compliance, and over 99% of people on bail never commit a new offence anyway. It is reckless. Ontario’s jails are over 130% capacity—the Ombudsman calls this system a moral failure—and packing more presumed innocent people into them will result in less time served by people who are actually convicted. It is unnecessary because cheaper, constitutional, evidence-based alternatives already exist, and this government refuses to use them. This is not a public safety bill; it is a press release with royal assent attached. Ontarians deserve better, and so do the police officers, crown attorneys and victims who depend on a justice system that actually works.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Questions?

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

I’ve been listening to the member across from Nepean, but he never spoke about victims. I want you to speak to my executive assistant that had a home invasion. They broke through her front door. They stole her purse. Then they came back after the police were there and they tried to steal the car. Not only that, now they had to spend $45,000 on metal gates, cameras, 3M film, bollards. Why are you supporting the criminals over the victims, and why should the victims be paying for the crime that is happening in our communities? And not only that, for two years, they couldn’t sleep at night; tell me what you want me to tell her.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

A reminder to direct remarks through the Chair in future. Response?

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

That’s a loaded question and a lot of words to put in my mouth. I obviously support victims, and I’ve said that there is a problem in this bill. That person should not have gotten out, so it’s up to you to deal with that. This bill doesn’t actually address that. It is a superficial title, Speaker, that is going to Americanize our system here. That victim, I feel for her. They should not be dealing with that. I’ve had stories in my own riding considering this stuff. I’m willing to work with you and I support you with this stuff to actually ensure that we are keeping those violent criminals behind bars. This bill doesn’t do that. So don’t stand there and say that I support the criminals. I support the victims. Let’s get this done right.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Thank you. Again, through the Chair. Question?

Official source

Mr. Peter Tabuns

Through the Chair to the member: You were just asked a question about victims. In 2019, the Ford government cut the funding for criminal injuries compensation and it also eliminated the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Victims’ services people at the time said this was an attack on victims. It was reducing the government’s burden but actually made life far more difficult for anyone who was the victim of criminal activity. Do you have any comment on the space between the question you were given and the government’s actual actions?

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

Thank you to my colleague for that excellent example. If we’re going to talk a big talk and accuse the other side of not caring about victims, actions speak louder than words. If that was a stunt that this government pulled back in 2019, then you’ve had eight years now to address it, instead of a bill that—you have experts trying to sound the alarm on how this isn’t actually going to address anything. I think victims want to be taken seriously. They want to feel supported. And I don’t know what this bill actually does to address that. If you say that you’re for the victims, then prove it. Prove it with a proper piece of legislation where you actually listen to experts, you listen to stakeholders, you listen to victims. You have a majority; you have the power to get it done. Open your ears and actually use your power to put through proper legislation that’s going to support victims.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Through the Chair; through the Chair, please. Question?

Official source

Ms. Stephanie Bowman

I want to thank my great colleague from Nepean for his passionate debate. As I said earlier, we’re faced with a government that names a bill one thing and does another. We’ve got a government that has let criminals out of jail and doesn’t know where they are and we have a government that is, again, talking about doing one thing but showing us that they do another with their budget. The budget shows that justice sector spending is not keeping up with inflation. Basically, they’re cutting justice sector spending. The justice sector is where they pay our crown prosecutors, our judges, the jail system—which we know, as you pointed out, is overcrowded, which is why people are getting let out of jail. So, again, could you talk about how this government does not put its money where its mouth is when it comes to actually protecting our communities and keeping criminals behind bars?

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

Thank you to my colleague for that really great question. That really goes to my point—through you, Speaker—that this isn’t actually addressing the root cause. We see this in everything, like with what they’re doing with health care. They’re just slapping Band-Aids on hospitals, hoping the problem will fix itself. They’re slapping Band-Aids on prisons, thinking that the problem is going to fix itself. We’re not actually getting to the root of the problem. They are cutting funding towards our judicial system; they’re not addressing the fact that we don’t have enough judges. We just don’t have enough actual people to be dealing with this, so we have, presumably, innocent people—they haven’t been proven guilty yet—who are just going to languish in a prison cell with three other criminals, who taxpayers are going to pay for because they can’t afford their bail, simply because the court system is so backed up. If we want to keep the actual criminals behind bars, why aren’t we addressing that in the first place? Why aren’t we making sure that those court systems are properly funded and that there are enough actual resources there to deal with the criminals?

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

MPP George Darouze

I do want to thank my colleague from Nepean for his presentation this morning. I do want to highlight the fact that I personally went and I talked to the stakeholders in our community. I went to the Solicitor General, I met with Ottawa police—we met with lots of people. We had a round table with stakeholders. The member himself, in his own riding—the criminals come in, do the crime and the next day they are out on bail and they’re back out on the street racing, stealing cars, doing all that. I don’t understand where the member is coming from, that he’s saying we’re not doing anything. Bill 75 will address those issues, those concerns, not only in Nepean but also in the city of Ottawa. We heard it time and time again. Ottawa police support this. We have so many stakeholders we heard at the committee that are supporting this. I’d like him to comment on that one.

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

Thank you to my colleague for that question. Yes, I am concerned about public safety in Nepean. I’m concerned about public safety in Carleton and in Ottawa. But the problem with this bail reform, Speaker, is the fact that if you can afford it, you can get back out on the street right away. Again, how is that actually keeping criminals behind bars? That’s what I’m not understanding. What in here is going to address the fact that our judicial system is completely under-resourced and underfunded? There are gaps and holes in this. My colleague sat in on the public consultations, and it wasn’t a blanket universal love of approval of this bill. There is room for opportunity to make amendments to this bill to actually address the title of it, the goal of it, to actually keep criminals behind bars. This bill doesn’t fully get to that.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Question?

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

Thank you to the member for his comments. Last time I toured the Sudbury jail, I would say I knew at least 90% of the people who were in jail, a great majority of it—again, close to 90% of the people who were there had a severe mental illness or used substances. Do you think that it is a good use of our jails to have people there with mental illness? Do you figure jail is a good place for people with mental illness or substance use to be cared for? If we want to keep criminals behind bars, do you really think that people who have a mental illness are criminals? Are there other services that we should be providing, so that our jail in Sudbury is not full, with 90% of the people in there who have a mental illness or use substances?

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

Thank you to my colleague for that really important question. That really goes to the point of this being more of a superficial bill than anything. It’s the flashy title, Keeping Criminals Behind Bars Act, but it’s more complicated than that. My colleague’s question really gets to the mental health crisis and the public health crisis that we are facing. People who are battling addictions do not belong in prison. They shouldn’t be going through withdrawal and dealing with their addiction in prison. They belong in rehab. They belong in proper treatment, things like the HART hubs that are opening right now. That is something that we can get behind. Certainly just throwing them in jail, where they certainly won’t be able to afford the new cash bail system that this government is creating, is not necessarily the appropriate place for them to be.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

There is no more time for questions. Further debate?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

I appreciate this opportunity to rise in defence of this important piece of legislation. I want to thank the Solicitor General, the Associate Solicitor General and all the parliamentary assistants who have done great work in developing this legislation. I had the benefit of listening to members opposite as they provided comment on this bill, and often, in these debates, you can tell the philosophical differences across the aisle. When the debate is focused on the first instinct of some legislators, on the root causes of crime, trying to understand how a criminal may have gotten here—and I say this, Madam Speaker, with the full recognition for mental health and addictions; compassion actually needs to be part of this discussion. But if the first instinct of legislators is to contemplate why or how a criminal got here instead of how we defend victims from revictimization, if the debate is centred on the criminal, not on the rights of the victim, we are doing something wrong in this place; our priorities are distorted. The instinct of this government and of every legislator should be a policy of deterrence to avert the most heinous forms of crime that take place in all of our communities—urban and rural, English and French. It doesn’t matter where you’re from, the rise of crime afflicts us all. It hurts us all. It just puzzles me that this is something that, for the Liberal Party, they want to make this debate about those criminals, instead of centring this debate on the victims of crime who have done nothing wrong. There is a gentleman in my community, Abdul Aleem Farooqi—you will know his name; you will remember his name. This is the father who bravely stood up to a thug who entered his home, in front of his three children and his wife, shot him. This debate should be focused on the rights of victims and their families. This debate should be centred around the rights of law-abiding Canadians. We feel strongly in our conviction that this discussion isn’t centred around those stories of incidence rates. When you think about the number of individuals in 2023, when there were 127 lives taken on the roads because of impairment, because someone was drinking or using illicit drugs and then going on the road—this debate, this legislation and our engagement on this file should focus on preventing the very incidents from happening again. Because no one should have to deal with that call—a brutal experience that I cannot imagine for a family. Therefore, we brought forth a tough-on-crime bill, not a talking point. It is in the statute. It is proposed and codified with a series of actions that actually create some sense of accountability on those that would bring about that sense of senseless pain for a family and their loved ones. And so, Madam Speaker, when I hear Liberals speak about the issues of the administration of justice or the capacity of our jails—all fair public policy discussions, but making this debate about those issues, not about the obvious issue before us, which is a weakened Criminal Code that allows a revolving door of justice, we are not seeing the forest from the trees. That is the ultimate case study of the problem—that we’re missing the mark in the moment. Canada’s bail system is a failure, and all of our communities and families have been afflicted by this pain because they’ve been led out of a revolving door of justice. And what did our government and Premier do? They led a campaign to call on the federal Parliament, as we do today, to pass the bill that is on the order paper. Implement meaningful bail reform. That’s what the federal government should do; that’s what this Parliament should say in one voice, unified. I’m calling on all parties—not just the federal Liberals; every party—to get off their hands, pass the bill, enable a meaningful sense of toughness within our criminal system. What can we do in Ontario, within our realm, within our area of responsibility, to toughen the law, to send a signal of deterrence, to say we are zero tolerant on crimes? It could be impairment on the roads. It could be violence on our streets. And so we brought forth a legislative package. I’m grateful the government had the courage to do this, because when you look at bail and at the actions we can take, when we have the imposition of a new cash security deposit requirement, it puts a greater onus on those that are charged. It puts a greater sense of accountability on the system. And I believe it strengthens the integrity of Canadians that their system is on their side, the side of law-abiding people, not the side of those that commit the crimes or alleged crimes in the province of Ontario. When we introduced a user-fee system for GPS monitoring for those offenders released on bail, that the offender will pay to use the tech, it puts the onus of responsibility on those committing the crime. The victims have paid; they will pay in their memories for the rest of their lives. It’s now time for a sense of justice to actually be realized and that’s why I believe enhancing bail measures is in the public interest of Ontario. My community of Vaughan is not unique. We have all faced this, but it is certainly not immune to crime. It’s been a hot spot of violent break-ins, shootings, just brazen acts, people shooting at places of worship and synagogues, graffiti on mosques—totally inappropriate, totally un-Canadian, so I support actions that say zero tolerance. I strongly support engagement that is on the side of law-abiding people. We also brought forth a series of measures and toughened the sanctions for those that drive under impairment—suspended licences—careless driving, as a case study. The new proposal expands, for the first offence, for the second offence, for the third offence, longer periods of suspension. There has got to be some sense of accountability when you foolishly drink and drive. I know Mothers Against Drunk Driving and so many organizations throughout my life—and hopefully, I know, for decades to come—will be leading the way for their sons and daughters who have perished on the roads because of the carelessness of some individuals on the road. I support measures that increase fines for suspended and careless drivers. I think we have to do everything within provincial areas of competence under the law to toughen those sentences. And so, for the first conviction, going up to $10,000 when it could have been upwards of $5,000 and to move it to $15,000 from $5,000 on the second fine at least signals to Canadians, to Ontarians, to law-abiding people, to everyday parents, families and seniors who just want to live their life with the sense of security, that we are on their side and we are decidedly and absolutely against those who commit crimes. That is the message we’re sending today. Madam Speaker, I also want to affirm to you today that this government has taken a policy position when it comes to standing up against the real criminals before us. I hail from suburban community, but I have a rural part in King township. The same is true for many of you. The real criminals are not our hunters and anglers. They’re not our farmers and they’re not my grandfather’s antique rifle that he’s had in his family for 100 years. He’s not the person government should be seized with. It’s the illegal handguns coming from America. It’s the focus on true crime before our eyes. I’m going to just do a very quick time check, Madam Speaker, because I have one more minute to go. We need to focus on the real criminals before us. We need to focus on the rights of law-abiding people. We need to stand up for the victims of crime, reorient and rebalance the justice system back in their favour, because the federal Liberals, with great respect to the former Prime Minister, diluted every legislative act we took. Mandatory minimum sentences for a gun crime: How is that controversial in this place? You commit a gun crime, you kill an innocent person, you will go to jail—no discretion, no flexibility. There’s got to be a message of deterrence, but that is an issue where the Liberals would disagree. It’s baffling for Canadians. This is how people lose public confidence in their government—when they have Liberal members who reduce the number of full-time police officers on our streets, Liberals who weakened our laws, Liberals who actually campaigned for the Justin Trudeau approach to justice, where we’ve never seen a higher rate of violence on our streets. There’s causation between the two. So the Liberal members today and their federal cousins should actually focus on the obvious problem before us—it’s not the root cause of crime; it’s the criminals themselves. And if they were honest, if they were committed to the cause of justice for all, they’d stand in their place and support a tough-on-crime policy like the one this government has brought before this House today.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Questions?

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Thank you to my colleague for his comments. I agree with most of what he said. But I have to say, he knows that part of our job, as opposition, is to talk about ways to improve the bill. Tough on crime—absolutely. But how do we prevent crime from happening in the first place? The other thing that I would challenge, and maybe part of my question is that we know there’s between—the latest report, I think, is close to $100 million of wage theft that was stolen from workers going to work, which is a crime. The Conservative government has not collected this money. They allow this to happen. They actually embolden those criminals to continue to steal money from the workers. I wonder if you’d agree with me that if you’re going to be tough on crime, let’s be tough on all criminals.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

If we can agree that we need to be tough on crime, that we actually need deterrence and policies that are zero tolerance, that’s a good thing, and I celebrate that, actually. I don’t take that for granted in this House. So let’s start with a message of unity on that purpose. When it comes to other forms of crime like fraud, white-collar crimes, these are not to be dismissed as lesser crimes. If you defraud someone of their home, their assets, their salary, it could be cataclysmic. It could lead to mental health issues. I think there’s a willingness of government to be open to measures that can send a signal to employers and, likewise, to employees that they both have to fulfill their rights under labour law. This bill speaks specifically to impairment; it speaks to bail. I think it deals with the main issues facing Canadians. But I don’t discount that there may be other ways, in the future, for debate in this House—about how we can strengthen the law and public confidence within our justice system.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Questions?

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

I would really, really like for the government—and the minister, in particular, to tell me if he really believes that asking people for money before they can be released is actually going to weed out the violent criminals from the innocent ones. How would that work in any world?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

The basis of our system is to put obligations on the accused. That is the nature of our Commonwealth, Westminster democracy. It’s not unique to Canada. It is the basis of our civil law system. There has to be an element of obligation placed on those accused. There has to be an element of accountability. No one is suggesting that this policy in isolation is going to solve world peace, but it is one additional layer we can impose to send a message: that if you are going to commit a crime, there will be accountability imposed, which can include financial. And I just think, why not throw everything at this problem? The member opposite knows I have profound respect for her knowledge and legal knowledge in this place. I’m open to alternatives. But why wouldn’t we set some sense of expectation, some sense of obligation on the criminal to demonstrate their capacities and to put some skin in the game? I have no concerns with that at all. In fact, I support it, and I’d support further action in this respect.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Questions?

Official source

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner

I want to thank the minister for standing up and being a great supporter of our public safety. The purpose of this bill is to remind Ontarians that we stand with them; we stand with their fundamental rights to go about their lives, just the same way that my parents and my grandparents had their rights fulfilled. What this bill does is it rebalances the responsibility—that if somebody breaks the law, there must be consequences. What we’re saying in this bill, especially with the security deposit and the sureties—that you must be held responsible as defined by the courts because they’re the ones that set the amount under our proposal. But I would ask my friend, in the absence of being a government that takes public safety seriously, what is it that we have left?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

I do appreciate the Solicitor General’s leadership in bringing this bill forward. You have been with police officers. You have been at their funerals. You have been at their graduations. You celebrate their milestones. The associate minister has done the same. And I am grateful that you are on the ground, in the trenches, supporting them, standing with them, unapologetically defending the women and men in blue. I will say, in this Legislature, we have not always had a unified sense of support for police. There have actually been political parties in front of us, candidates for leaders of their parties today, who have actually called for the defunding of police, which may have been in vogue in the moment. The effect is the undermining of public confidence in institutions. Our public safety, our police, play a vital role in our democracy. We should stand with them. And when we have a policy before legislators today to toughen the rules, toughen the sentences—zero tolerance—that should bring us together when we have never seen rates of recidivism like we do today.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Reminder: Through the Chair. Questions?

Official source

Ms. Catherine Fife

I was listening to the debate specifically around the court system. We do know that the court system and having timely access to justice is a key deterrent for future crimes. So 48 survivors in the Sloka case in Kitchener-Waterloo waited over four and a half years for justice—almost five years; and 1,639 sexual assault cases were dispensed or stayed in 2025, which means that those women who reported did not get justice. When women do not feel supported by the justice system and they don’t report, that means that there are more sexual offenders still out there on our streets. Does the member understand how the backlog in our court system is preventing justice from being played out in our province? Will you and your government support Lydia’s Law, which is meant to address the lack of justice in Ontario’s justice system?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Thank you for the question from the member opposite. I know she has been a strong advocate for the rights of women and those who have been trafficked, and I appreciate that. Bill 75 does explore parts of making the Ontario sex offender and trafficker registry publicly available. The first principle in recognizing the problem is in naming the problem. I hope the Liberal Party today will agree with this premise—because it sounds like there is a sense of alignment here with the official opposition—if you are a sex offender in Ontario, your name should be publicly available. It is in the public interest. The administration of justice is important, for which I know the Attorney General has added more resources, more staffing to help remediate those challenges. But at the end of the day, if you are a human trafficker, if you are a sex offender, we believe it is in the public interest for your name to be disclosed. I hope all members will support that provision today, which is so obviously in the interest of families, of parents, of all Canadians.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Questions?

Official source

MPP Mohamed Firin

I would like to thank the minister for his comments and for always being there for our police officers and working to protect our province. Recently in the minister’s riding, there was an act of violence that took place where a father was murdered in front of his kids. What I want to ask the minister is how that heinous crime impacted his community and why is it important that we keep violent offenders behind bars?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

It is true that we’ve all had to face acts of crime in our communities. The incident that the member from York South–Weston is referring to deals with Abdul Aleem Farooqi, who was a young father who perished in front of his three children and his wife because a brutal murderer entered his home—in his act to defend his children and his wife. This is the humanizing element of crime that it is important that we do not decouple from the debate. These are not numbers; this is a man, a father, a husband, a partner. He was a great man, loved in our community, and his memory should not be in vain. We should impose the toughest sentences—that’s what his wife asked—on the criminal to send a message that no wife, no husband, no child would have to grieve the loss of their loved one again.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

It is now time for members’ statements.

Official source

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Official source

Mr. Aris Babikian

Last month, I had the pleasure of attending the Scarborough Health Network’s volunteer appreciation dinner. Every year, I look forward to this event as it gives me an opportunity to thank and celebrate the extraordinary contributions of the hard-working volunteers, whose dedication and compassion play such an important role across our hospitals. Madam Speaker, under the leadership of our government and the Premier, Scarborough is no longer a forgotten part of Toronto. We are making significant investments into health care. Residents call me frequently to tell me about the improvement of service quality and wait times at SHN. Just in my riding, our government is investing over $1 billion to build a new 450-bed hospital. This funding includes $3 million to renovate the existing Birchmount Hospital. Our government is also investing $15 million to add 27 new hemodialysis stations across SHN. Furthermore, just last year, we celebrated the opening of the new Northpine diagnostic imaging department after a $36-million investment by our government. It gets better, Madam Speaker. Our government announced the new medical school in Scarborough, which will be opening their doors this year. I am happy to report that Scarborough is finally getting the attention it—

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

Thank you. Members’ statements?

Official source

M. Guy Bourgouin

Partout dans le Nord, les patients font face à des temps d’attente inacceptables pour un MRI. À la suite d’une référence envoyée par un médecin de famille, les patients attendent cinq à six mois pour un rendez-vous. Sans accès local à ces examens, ils doivent parcourir des centaines de kilomètres jusqu’au service le plus proche à Timmins, sans mentionner les conditions sur la route 11. L’imagerie précoce est essentielle aux soins préventifs. Les délais de diagnostic signifient vivre avec l’incertitude pendant des mois, et peuvent entraîner une aggravation des conditions, ainsi que des traitements plus complexes. Ces délais ont aussi des impacts concrets sur notre main-d’oeuvre locale. Les travailleurs et travailleuses blessés ne peuvent pas retourner au travail sans l’autorisation médicale, qui dépend souvent d’un MRI. Cela entraîne des pertes de revenus des familles, des pressions pour les employeurs et des effets en cascade à l’économie locale. Il est temps d’implanter une capacité de MRI à l’hôpital Sensenbrenner qui pourrait desservir les communautés régionales tout en réduisant la pression sur l’établissement de Timmins. Améliorer l’accès à l’imagerie diagnostique, c’est soutenir les patients, les travailleurs et travailleuses, ainsi que nos communautés partout dans le nord de l’Ontario.

Official source

MPP Andrea Hazell

It’s national nurses’ week. I stand today to honour Scarborough Health Network and all the incredible nurses, donors and volunteers. They are all my health care heroes. My connection to SHN and the SHN Foundation is deeply personal. I started volunteering with Scarborough Health Network in 2014, and since then I have seen first-hand the dedication and sacrifice of staff, doctors, nurses and volunteers from all three hospitals. They are truly our health care heroes. Speaker, two weeks ago, I attended SHN’s volunteer appreciation event. I helped present awards to incredible volunteers who were beaming with pride and joy. I want to recognize Michele James, executive vice-president at SHN, for her tremendous leadership and dedication over 18 years. Michele James, I wish you a beautiful next chapter in your retirement. I want to thank every nurse in Ontario for their care, compassion and service, and for never giving up on us, no matter how difficult it gets. To the SHN team, thank you for caring for my beautiful mom in her final days. I will forever be grateful. I will always stand with SHN and especially everyone at SHN Foundation. You have my heart. Thank you.

Official source

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French)

A reminder to all members that it’s far easier to hear the members’ statements if the rest of the room is listening. Thank you.

Official source

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu

Bonjour, Speaker. I rise today to recognize a historic milestone for Brampton West, the groundbreaking of Brampton’s first-ever French-language Catholic secondary school. Our government is investing $43.8 million, including $27.5 million in additional funding, to create 410 new student spaces for local families and support the growing French-speaking Catholic community in our city. Speaker, this investment builds on our government’s strong record of delivering education infrastructure in Brampton West. Construction is under way on the new Mount Pleasant secondary school, supported through an $84.2-million provincial investment that will create 1,660 student spaces and 73 child care spaces. Not only that, Madam Speaker: Last year, Red Cedar Public School and Malala Yousafzai Public School opened their doors, creating 1,700 new student spaces and 146 child care spaces combined for local families. Through our nearly $180-million investment in the Toronto Metropolitan University School of Medicine in Brampton, we’re also helping train the next generation of health care professionals right in our community. Speaker, our government is making the investments needed to ensure students and families in Brampton West have access to modern schools and opportunities for success for generations to come.

Official source

Ms. Catherine Fife

Parents, staff and community members have been sharing their concerns with me about the recent workforce reductions and lack of financial transparency at KidsAbility. KidsAbility is a treasured institution for child development and inclusion. In the past, they reinvented the way care is provided to better meet the needs of local kids and their families earlier in their journey. But according to public records, there’s been a consistent increase in funding since 2020, yet to date, 63 people have been laid off, 45 of which were front-line staff. Service levels are being impacted. It’s difficult to justify these staffing cuts when last year, KidsAbility’s CEO saw a 22.1% increase in her salary. The IT and marketing departments are steadily growing while front-line clinical services have been slashed. Resource allocation should prioritize children, especially given the wait-list. As one parent says, “Since there have been no cuts to funding, KidsAbility leadership owes the public a clear explanation as to why these layoffs were necessary. The loss of experienced staff and the disruption of services caused by these layoffs cannot be easily recovered. Institutional knowledge, trust and continuity are not easily recovered. Leadership must be accountable....” We agree. Families and children in Waterloo region demand better. We demand transparency as well, and we will not stop fighting for those kids.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

Earlier this week, I was proud to join the Minister of Health at the Mississauga Hospital to celebrate Nursing Week and to thank the nurses and other front-line health workers for their compassion, dedication and extraordinary commitment to parents and families. We were thrilled to hand out a few cookies from the Trillium Health Partners Foundation and even more thrilled to see the progress of the construction on our new hospital. Excavation is now over 70% completed. Cranes are up at the site, and the first concrete pour will happen next month for the largest, most advanced hospital in Canada. I also joined the minister last month at the Edwards Lifesciences heart healthy breakfast to help raise awareness for heart valve disease. Last week, we celebrated Thalassemia Awareness Day, another one of my private members’ bills. I also wanted to thank the minister for expanding access to colon cancer screening. Speaker, this will save lives. Over the past few weeks, I’ve had the opportunity to celebrate world autism day with the Minister of Social Services at the Hullabaloo in my riding. We attended events to support the Luso charities and individuals living with disabilities, the Embrave agency and survivors of gender-based violence, the Passion for Parkinson’s Foundation and many more. I want to thank them all again for everything they do to care for the most vulnerable and to strengthen our community across Mississauga and the province of Ontario.

Official source

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam

Speaker, since 2005, this Legislature has been recognizing the importance and history of Asian Heritage Month in Ontario. Each May, we celebrate the cultures, the traditions and the achievements of Asian communities, whose labour and leadership helped build this province and country. Asian Heritage Month is also a time to remember injustice: Chinese Canadians made enormous sacrifices in building the Canadian Pacific Railway in the 1800s, performing some of the most dangerous and underpaid work that built the national railroad which connected our country from coast to coast; the unjust internment and displacement of Japanese Canadians and the confiscation of their homes, their farms and their personal assets during World War II; the hostile welcome from the Canadian government to the South Asian immigrants who were British subjects aboard the Komagata Maru, fleeing poverty and unspeakable hardship in what was then known as British India. Across Ontario, Asian communities have long contributed as entrepreneurs, farmers, health care workers, educators, artists and public servants. They help grow our cities, strengthen our economy, enrich our social fabric, despite facing discrimination and exclusion. Asian Heritage Month reminds us that our province’s story cannot be told without Asian Ontarians. Their resilience built our past, strengthens our present and will shape our future. Thank you to all.

Official source

Mr. Anthony Leardi

Essex county has many successful enterprises and none of them are more successful than Essex county farms. Wheat, corn, soybeans, tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and apples all come from Essex county. Essex county contributes, every single year, approximately $3 billion in food production and contributes to Ontario’s gross domestic product. We have great farming families in Essex county. The Wismer family is famous for their world-class Clydesdales. The Drouillard and the Mailloux families have been farming since the 1870s in Essex county. Essex county has over 100 farms that are over 100 years old. This great legacy deserves protection and that is why I applaud the introduction of Bill 109, the Protecting Ontario’s Food Independence Act. I want to thank the Premier and I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness for introducing this act. We are protecting Ontario farmers, we are protecting Ontario farms and we are protecting Ontario.

Official source

Hon. Steve Clark

I rise to celebrate the life of my friend Ralph McMullen, who passed away on Friday in Brockville, surrounded by his loving family. Ralph’s smile, his sense of humour, his compassion for others and his willingness to roll up his sleeves to get things done made him literally a larger-than-life figure. Many knew Ralph as the hard-working, affable produce manager at the Dominion store, but Ralph’s career didn’t define him; his love for his family and his community did. He was an umpire. He called balls and strikes for over 40 years, an experience that took him to the Little League World Series and led to his induction in the Brockville and Area Sports Hall of Fame. Ralph’s legacy, his remarkable impact on the Brockville Royal Canadian Legion Branch 96—who marked his passing by saying, “Ralph was more than a long-time Legion member and leader—he was part of the heart of the Brockville Legion.” His service to the Legion resulted in Ralph receiving medals for his work with veterans—the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, the King Charles III Coronation Medal—and last year, I was honoured to present Ralph with the first Ontario Veterans Award for Community Service Excellence. To his daughter, Teresa, his family and all of Brockville and area, thank you for sharing him with us. All I can say is we’re going to miss you, Ralph.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

I recognize the member for Simcoe–Grey on a point of order.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

Madam Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for members to wear pins in the House in support of the Moose Hide Campaign.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

The member for Simcoe–Grey is seeking unanimous consent for members to wear pins in the House in support of the Moose Hide Campaign. Agreed? Agreed. I recognize the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Official source

Ms. Marit Stiles

I seek unanimous consent of the House that in the opinion of this House, the Premier should personally pay for the $191,000 in fees arising from the government’s purchase of a private jet.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

MPP Stiles is seeking unanimous consent of the House that in the opinion of this House, the Premier should personally pay for the $191,000 in fees arising from the government’s purchase of a private jet. Agreed?

Official source

Interjection

No.

Official source

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly)

Members, if I could have your attention, for the very, very, very first time, we are introducing and welcoming people—and young people—from the Speaker’s virtual gallery. Joining us all the way from Marten Falls First Nation, teacher Joann Soriano and the students from Henry Coaster Memorial School; From Kenora, Ontario, teacher Joy Parsons and students from Valleyview Public School; and From Moose Factory, teacher Vilma Ccopa and students from Delores D. Echum Composite School. Welcome to Queen’s Park. And a special shoutout to the representatives from Connected North who make all of this happen. In the Speaker’s gallery, Jennifer Corriero; and online, Waukomaun Pawis. Thanks so much for all your help.

Official source

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams

I rise to recognize Dominic Paul, the national ambassador of the Moose Hide Campaign, an Indigenous-led grassroots movement dedicated to ending violence against women. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official source

Mr. Guy Bourgouin

I have students from my riding online right now: Henry Coaster Memorial School in Marten Falls—welcome—and Delores D. Echum Composite School in Moose Factory. Welcome to your House.

Official source

Hon. Michael Parsa

I would like to welcome the YouthCAN provincial advisory council, as well as the many children and youth in and from care who are here today for the 12th annual Children and Youth in Care Day. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official source

Hon. Sylvia Jones

I’m pleased to welcome Kelly Grover, Lily Davidson and Shauna Rempel from Cystic Fibrosis Canada. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official source

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy

Good morning. I’d like to welcome to the House today a leading Ontario barrister and dedicated and excellent legal counsel, Mr. Sean Brown, along with two leading and excellent insurance professionals, Ms. Anne Baumgartner and Ms. Tina LeBlanc from Gallagher Bassett. Welcome to the House.

Official source

MPP Alexa Gilmour

I’d like to congratulate our page captain Kieran Campbell from my beautiful riding of Parkdale–High Park and welcome his family to the House. I’d also like to welcome the members of Ontario’s venerable Buddhist community who are here today for the tabling of the Buddhist Heritage Month Act. Welcome to your House.

Official source

Mr. Adil Shamji

This morning, I’d like to welcome the members of Cystic Fibrosis Canada. I’m looking forward to meeting with Kim Steele, Lily Davidson and Dylan Brenneman.

Official source

Hon. Zee Hamid

I’d like to introduce my constituents KJ Virdi and Reena Ubhi, who are also parents of my rockstar EA. Welcome.

Official source

Ms. Laura Smith

I would like to thank all of the seniors in Ontario, including the First Chinese Seniors’ Association of Vaughan who are going to be here today in the House.

Official source

Hon. Stan Cho

I want to welcome Michele Austin, president and managing director of the Motion Picture Association Canada. MPAC plays a huge role in film and television. If you’re bored at 10 p.m. tonight, watch my cameo on Law and Order Toronto: Criminal Intent.

Official source

Hon. Graydon Smith

I’d like to welcome Ryan Jedynak and Adam Truax, who are from one of our local churches in Huntsville, Bethel Huntsville. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

I would like to welcome Kelly Grover, who is the president and CEO of Cystic Fibrosis Canada; Kim Steele, director of government and community relations at Cystic Fibrosis Canada; Lily Davidson, who I got to meet this morning, a person living with Cystic Fibrosis; and Dylan Brenneman, their consultant. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official source

Mr. Tyler Allsopp

We have two incredible residents of Bay of Quinte here today: Chris and Susan Finkle, welcome to your House.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Crawford

Today, I have a few Oakville residents, Lisa and Drew Bradstock, and I’m happy to have the Oakville Youth Council here today at Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official source

Hon. Sam Oosterhoff

I have two amazing constituents here, Anna Bozza and Brett Sweeney from FACS Niagara. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Official source

MPP Lisa Gretzky

I have two introductions today. I’d like to welcome everyone from the Moose Hide Campaign and thank the entire team for the work that they’re doing, their advocacy and education to end violence against women and girls. I would also like to introduce Olivia Akena, our media relations officer. Her last day is tomorrow, Speaker, and I want to thank Olivia for all of her help over the past year. She will be deeply missed, especially by those of us in southwestern Ontario. Olivia, I wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

Official source

Mr. Brian Riddell

I’d like to welcome Alex Piccini, my riding president. I don’t know if he’s here yet, but he should be here shortly.

Official source