role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

February 24, 2021

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2021-Feb-24 vol. A (PDF)

L226A - Wed 24 Feb 2021 / Mer 24 fév 2021

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 24 February 2021 Mercredi 24 février 2021

Orders of the Day

Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 visant à accélérer l’accès à la justice

Members’ Statements

Public transit

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 immunization

Taxation

Engineers

Addiction services

Coldest Night of the Year

COVID-19 immunization

Boys and Girls Club of East Scarborough

Question Period

COVID-19 immunization

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

Life sciences sector

Employment standards

COVID-19 immunization

Anti-bullying initiatives

Employment standards

COVID-19 immunization

Student safety

Health care funding

Municipal finances

University funding

Land use planning

Land use planning

Introduction of Bills

Castleform Developments Inc. Act, 2021

1825821 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2021

Petitions

Multiple sclerosis

Education funding

Optometry services

Animal protection

Small business

Public sector compensation

Consumer protection

Animal protection

Documents gouvernementaux

Orders of the Day

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 visant à accélérer l’accès à la justice

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 23, 2021, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 245,

An Act to amend and repeal various statutes, to revoke various regulations and to enact the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 / Projet de loi 245, Loi modifiant et abrogeant diverses lois, abrogeant divers règlements et édictant la Loi de 2021 sur le Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is a pleasure to rise this morning to participate in the debate on Bill 245, the

short title of which is the Accelerating Access to Justice Act. I rise today not just on behalf of the people of London West, the people that I have the privilege to represent, but also as the democratic reform critic for the Ontario NDP caucus.

Speaker, when we talk about access to justice, it really has to be contextualized or framed in the context of recognition of access to justice as fundamental to a healthy and vibrant democracy. I did some reading last night about access to justice—this is a bill that purports to accelerate access to justice—and was really struck by remarks that were given by the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Chief Justice of Canada.

When he was first appointed to the Supreme Court in 2012, he gave an interview to the Globe and Mail, where he stated, “If you don’t make sure there is access to justice, it can create serious problems for democracy.” The reason is that democracy relies on every citizen, every person in this province having trust in public institutions, having trust that the laws apply equally to all of us, regardless of our income, regardless of our race, regardless of the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

This is fundamental to a strong and flourishing democracy: faith that if one needs to challenge the laws that exist in this province, then one will be able to do that and not be disadvantaged, as I said, by income or other factors.

It is absolutely critical that every person in Ontario feels that they are able to access the same kinds of processes in the legal system that every other citizen is able to access. That really is the nub of our concern about the bill that we are debating here this morning, Bill 245, the Accelerating Access to Justice Act.

As our critic, the member for Brampton East, had pointed out, this bill actually does nothing to accelerate access to justice. In fact, it may further entrench the marginalization of people who have the least access to justice in our society. Those are people with disabilities, people living with low income, people who have been marginalized already. This bill does nothing to ensure that the justice system will be expanded and that their access to judicial processes will be enhanced.

In fact, one could argue that it further advantages people in Ontario who already enjoy significant advantages. A focus on digitization: Certainly, Speaker, in the midst of this pandemic, the number of Zoom calls that we have all participated in has really, really highlighted the importance of access to technology, of being able to go online, being able to rely on WiFi to work at home, because that has been the public health advice. If you are able to work at home, every worker in Ontario is directed to do that. Employers are directed to allow their employees to work at home if the work can be done there.

I think all of us have recognized, if we didn’t before, how critical access to technology, access to the Internet is for us to be able to do our work.

This bill makes some changes that are going to enable further digitization of some legal processes. In schedules 8 and 9, it allows the remote witnessing of powers of attorney through the means of audio-visual communication technology for powers of attorney entered into on or after April 7, 2020. It also allows virtual witnessing and counterpart signing of wills retroactive to the date of the emergency order that allowed for this to happen.

These are positive changes, Speaker. We live in a wired world, and so enabling people to use the Internet to complete some of these legal processes makes sense for people who have access to Internet. Unfortunately, that is not the reality for a lot of people in Ontario, and in particular, it is not the reality for people who are living with low income.

I can tell you, just in the last couple of weeks, in London West, as I was returning phone calls from constituents who had questions about their rights as a tenant and the processes to go to the Landlord and Tenant Board—I was going to email them some information from CLEO, which is a fabulous resource, I have to say, Speaker. I was going to email them some information about their rights as tenants, and two constituents, just in a matter of days, told me they don’t actually have access to the Internet. They have a cellphone that they have to go to the library in order to use.

They have a special card at the library so they can take incoming calls from their cellphone, but they can’t make outgoing calls, and they certainly don’t have data on their phone because that is far too expensive. So I had to go to my office, print out the information that I wanted to share with them, fold it up, put it in an envelope and send it through the mail because these two constituents live in different parts of London West and neither of them have access to technology.

When you digitize these legal processes, you have to think about who’s going to benefit the most from being able to quickly complete these forms, complete these requirements. It’s the people who already have access to technology, who have the household income to be able to pay for reliable Internet in their homes. It really does nothing for people who don’t have that same kind of access.

We have to think about that when we look at the decisions that have been made by this government to this date. One of those major decisions was to drastically reduce funding to legal aid services. We know that the people I’ve just been talking about, who don’t have access to online tools, who don’t have the same kind of social capital, the same kind of ability to find information that’s going to be helpful—those folks rely on community legal aid clinics when they have a legal issue they need to deal with. And the community legal aid clinics’ funding has been drastically reduced by this government.

So you can’t, on the one hand, say, in a bill that’s entitled Accelerating Access to Justice Act, that we’re going to make it so much faster and better and easier for people who have means, who rely on Internet and know how to use online processes—we’re going to make it easier for them—but we’re not also going to enhance the systems and the services and the supports and the resources for people who don’t have that same kind of access.

Speaker, we didn’t hear a word from this government, from the Attorney General, about any kind of parallel investment in those legal aid services that are so fundamental for people who are living in poverty in our communities—actually, not even living in poverty. Access to Internet and broadband is an issue that affects many, many people in Ontario, regardless of their level of income. But we acknowledge that people who are living in poverty face multiple barriers, and that is compounded by that lack of access to reliable Internet to be able to participate in these kinds of legal processes.

I want to turn to another major provision of this act which also raises serious concerns on this side of the House, and that is

schedule 6, which enacts the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, which, in fact, is a merger of five tribunals that used to exist within the Ontario Land Tribunals cluster. It merges those five tribunals, the Board of Negotiation, the Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal. It takes those five tribunals and it makes a single tribunal called the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

I have to say, it is kind of ironic that this is

schedule 6 of this bill, because many of us were here in December in a very heated debate about a different

schedule 6 of a different bill, the government’s budget bill, that did a very similar thing in terms of undermining environmental protection in this province. That was the changes to the mandate of conservation authorities.

You know, Speaker, if this government wanted to cement its reputation as the most anti-environment government in Ontario’s history, I think it has helped that cause with this new

schedule 6 in Bill 245, the Accelerating Access to Justice Act.

There are very serious concerns that this government’s decision to merge the Conservation Review Board and the environmental review board into this single Ontario Land Tribunal could actually be yet another contravention of the Environmental Bill of Rights. This government has shown complete disregard, actually, for the Environmental Bill of Rights. They’ve been called out in the past for their neglect, for their failure to consult as is required by the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights act. And this is just another example of their disdain for environmental protection in Ontario.

The other thing it demonstrates is their interest in ensuring that developers and well-connected insiders have even a greater voice in decisions that affect people in this province, because I have to say that one of the most important characteristics of our system of administrative tribunals in Ontario is the fact that they enable a body of expertise to exist within those tribunals. There are subject matter experts within those tribunals who understand the policy implications of the issues that are brought to the tribunal. They understand emerging trends in law. They understand past precedent and how that should be applied.

By removing that kind of expertise that existed on the Conservation Review Board, the environmental review board, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, by merging all of those into a single tribunal that is going to have a mix of environmental experts, planning experts, development experts, it’s going to water down the ability of those previous tribunals to be able to really look specifically at the environmental impacts of the issues that are brought before the adjudicators.

That is a problem, Speaker. That is a problem because developers in Ontario don’t need a bigger voice in decisions that are being made in this province. We saw that with Highway 413. We saw that with the foundry building here in Toronto. We have seen that with all of the decisions that have been made in past bills that have been brought forward by this government that enable developers to pave over farmland, to disregard heritage and conservation goals. This is a pattern that this government has displayed in past legislation that they have brought forward.

Now, in this bill, we see that they want to give developers an even stronger voice in Ontario by participating in this single Ontario Land Tribunal. I suspect that the government will defend this decision by saying, “Well, the tribunals were a mess anyway. The tribunals were not capable of dealing with the matters that were brought before it, because there were backlogs in tribunal decisions.” On the one hand, this government might make that defence, but on the other hand they are the source of the problem. They are the source of the problem, Speaker.

If you look at an initiative that has emerged in Ontario over the last couple of years called Tribunal Watch Ontario, they have tracked very, very carefully what this government has done to undermine the tribunal process in this province. They have done that. They have done that by failing to appoint people to serve on these tribunals. They have done that by limiting the terms of the people who are appointed on those tribunals. They’ve done that by cross-appointing people to multiple tribunals. None of that serves the justice process well in this province.

Speaker, if the government was concerned about access to justice through the tribunal process, they should have taken a look at the social assistance review tribunal. They should have taken a look at the Human Rights Tribunal. We have heard very urgent calls from people in this province who are being denied social assistance. They are being forced to live on inhumane amounts of ODSP while they are waiting two years for a tribunal process to proceed so that they can file an appeal. This government has shown no interest in the people in Ontario who are the most vulnerable, the most disadvantaged and who most need support to be able to access—to truly access—justice processes.

I have to say that this bill, Bill 245, is just another example of how on the one hand this government says that they care about access to justice, but on the other hand they are failing to do the most important things that would actually enhance access to justice in Ontario. Just to recap, that is to properly fund legal aid clinics to make sure that those services that the most marginalized people have to use to access the justice system are there for them, and also to create a more robust system of tribunals so that people can actually use those processes to take their legal issues forward.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It’s now time for questions and responses.

Ms. Lindsey Park: Well, I have enjoyed listening to this presentation. There are lots of things made up in it, but I’ll clarify a few of them here. The reason why there’s no posting on the environmental—

Mr. Chris Glover: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the member from Spadina–Fort York on a point of order.

Mr. Chris Glover: The language of the member opposite is unparliamentary.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Sorry, I couldn’t hear that.

Mr. Chris Glover: The language from the member opposite is unparliamentary.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I do not recognize that as being unparliamentary.

I will refer back to the member from Durham to continue with your question.

Ms. Lindsey Park: Thank you, Speaker.

What we have in this bill is a proposal that will actually enable environmental concerns to be brought before the tribunal quicker. There’s no impact on the environment. Every right for a hearing and for an appeal remains that exists today. There’s no significant effect on the environment, so I think you’ve got to make your case a bit better. What specifically in this bill are you saying impacts the environment?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: As I indicated in my remarks, one of the most important benefits of the tribunal system in Ontario is the fact that it brings together adjudicators who have deep subject matter expertise, who have deep knowledge of the issues that would be brought to the tribunal. The Conservation Review Board, the environmental review board—those boards were created to allow subject matter experts to hear challenges or hear cases about environmental or conservation changes that are being proposed by the government.

By merging five boards into a single Ontario Land Tribunal that is going to involve not just environmental experts but also people with a development background is going to seriously—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. Further questions?

Mr. Gurratan Singh: I want to thank the member for her really amazing presentation, where she correctly articulates the fact that this bill will actually weaken protections to the environment through

schedule 10, which really clearly takes away everyday individuals’, everyday Ontarians’ ability to appeal decisions that impact the environment to the minister directly on a basis of fact. It’s very clearly written into

schedule 10.

I’m shocked, quite frankly, that it sounds like members from the government don’t themselves know the details of their own bill, since they continue to question this factor: the fact that it’s so clearly laid out that, yes, you’re taking a fundamental right of appeal away from Ontarians with respect to matters of the environment.

I’m going to ask the member from London West one more time if she can further expand on how this bill impacts London and her thoughts on this bill and the environment.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank my colleague for pointing out

schedule 10, which is a

schedule I didn’t get to during my 20-minute debate on this bill. Of course,

schedule 10, as my colleague has said, is also a serious concern for us on this side of the House, but also for people who care about the environment in Ontario. It removes the ability to appeal a decision to the minister from seven environmental or natural resource statutes, including the Environmental Protection Act, the Mining Act, the Nutrient Management Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Pesticides Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxics Reduction Act.

Certainly removing the right to appeal these statutes is going to have a potentially very, very harmful impact on environmental protection in this province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Mr. Will Bouma: It’s a pleasure to rise in the House today and have a conversation with the member from London West. As always, I appreciate her deep concern for the marginalized and how they can have access to justice.

I was curious: The most recent data that I found—this is from StatsCan from October 29, 2019, which is almost a year and a half old—stated that only 6% of Canadians did not have access to home Internet. If that’s the case, and we’ve only seen that exponentially rise, it seems to me that by increasing digitization, making it easier for 94%-plus of Canadians—there’s only 6% who aren’t—don’t you think that moving that into increased digitization would enable people who don’t have that access to have more access to justice because of the freeing up of resources?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: While this member may be concerned about the 94% of Ontarians who are already well set up with WiFi at home and have access to the Internet, we can’t forget the people who don’t have those same kinds of resources. They are often the people who are most likely to require assistance through the justice process because they are facing multiple barriers. They may be looking at eviction.

We have 8,000 families in the London area who are behind on their rent as a result of this pandemic. They’re going to have to go through the Landlord and Tenant Board to be able to prevent eviction. Many of those people, if they are behind on their rent, they’re also behind on their Internet, they’re behind on their groceries. How are they supposed to access the justice process?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Ms. Catherine Fife: I want to thank the member from London West for pointing out the inequity that exists in this piece of legislation. The government has essentially baked privilege right into this law, particularly around

schedule 6. This

schedule is potentially very harmful around accessing justice for Ontarians. The bedrock justification for having tribunals is that they are meant to be faster, cheaper and more expert than the courts. This

schedule is a major step backwards on all three of these grounds for the 100,000-plus Ontarians who appear before tribunals every year. This

schedule provides the tribunal expanded powers to dismiss a matter without a hearing.

To the member for London West: How does that actually increase access to justice for Ontarians in this province?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank my colleague for her question. I’d like to direct the attention of members of this House to a blog by Ron Ellis. He really is one of the champions and one of the architects of our system of administrative justice here in the province. He has written a series of blogs, entitled “Ford’s Impact on Tribunal Justice: A Tornado in a Trailer Park Comes to Mind,” because that is really what this government is doing in terms of tribunal justice. They have taken a wrecking ball to the tribunal system that exists and have completely undermined it.

As my colleague points out, tribunal justice is good for this province, because when people can use the tribunal system, it relieves pressure on the courts. It’s cheaper; it’s faster. It’s better for all Ontarians.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Mr. Mike Harris: It’s great to be part of debate here this morning. I just wanted to build a little bit off of something my colleague from Brantford–Brant just said. What I heard from the opposition, it didn’t really make sense. We’re talking about trying to allow that 94% to have faster access to justice, and then that 6% will have faster access to justice via those in-person appointments, meetings, whatever might happen at the courthouse, being able to meet with court officials in person just like they have for years.

I don’t know why the member from London West wouldn’t support something like that, and I’d like to hear from her why she wouldn’t.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Listen, enhancing access to justice through technology is not a problem. It is a good idea. It enables people to participate in justice processes easier and faster. But it can’t be done without also beefing up the services that people who don’t have Internet, who don’t have the same resources are going to be forced to rely on. We did not hear anything from this government when it brought this bill forward, that it’s going to digitize services but at the same time it’s going to restore funding to legal aid and it’s going to make sure that resources and supports are available for people who don’t have the same kind of ability to use digital processes to pursue legal justice.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m honoured to stand today on behalf of Attorney General Downey in support of this bill, Bill 245, the Accelerating Access to Justice Act. The recovery of Ontario’s communities from COVID-19 requires a strong justice system that works as well as it can to help people resolve their legal matters, with fewer obstacles and delays. This bill, introduced on February 16 of this year, is centred on two key pillars: accelerating access to justice and reducing regulatory burdens.

Mr. Speaker, unreasonable delays in courts have been a growing concern for years. The legislation we are debating today is another step in our government and Attorney General Downey’s commitment in addressing the justice system delays in the busiest court system in Canada. As members may recall, one of our government’s first steps in addressing delays was increasing maximum Small Claims Court claims from $25,000 to $35,000. Prior to that change, claims over $25,000 had to go to Superior Court, where litigation could take years and be very costly. Bill 245, if passed, is taking us along the same path towards a less expensive, easier, fairer, faster and more efficient justice system.

A major initiative contained in Bill 245 is the provision to fill judicial vacancies faster, recognizing that one of the most important resources in our justice system are the judges themselves. Failure to fill vacancies in a timely way can negatively impact the administration of courthouses and effective case flow management. The end result are delays in court proceedings, hitting victims particularly hard, having to relive their trauma, sometimes putting their lives on hold for years.

Many victims feel re-victimized by the unintended consequences of court delays, and when the victims are children, the impact of frequent adjournments and other delays can result in even more serious consequences.

The legislation also ensures that all judges are properly trained in best practices for achieving reasonably prompt justice. This initiative is critically important for the effective management of the many proceedings in courtrooms and that cases are dealt with without lengthy and unreasonable delays. Many of the positive changes embodied in Bill 245 are focused on building on the modernization of the justice system. Attorney General Downey is working with justice partners to move justice system services online and closer to communities through breakthrough modern technologies and processes.

As many if not all of us know, working through the COVID-19 pandemic, technology has made the work we are doing very different but still possible. Technologies, such as the growing use of video remand, can eliminate the need for many routine in-person court appearances and allow easier communication among courts, legal counsel, accused persons, victims and witnesses.

There are a large number of remand prisoners awaiting court dates and resulting in associated costs to the taxpayers and to the mental health of the inmates. Since 2004-05, the number of persons held in remand has been larger than the number of offenders serving time in a provincial facility. This is of significant concern to the Aboriginal community, who are disproportionately impacted.

Two of the proposed changes in the bill relate to the land tribunal reform and estates law. If passed, the bill would accelerate access to justice in estate law by allowing the virtual witnessing of wills and powers of attorney, to make it easier for people to get the end-of-life affairs in order, among other things. If passed, the bill would also accelerate access to justice in land tribunal reform by consolidating land tribunals to resolve land-related disputes more efficiently.

Both of these changes just make sense. For an individual to sign a will, or for that matter to commission any document in Ontario, the person had to be physically present in front of a lawyer or a commissioner. When the COVID-19 pandemic happened, our government, with the co-operation of the Law Society of Ontario, changed the rule that you could do the above process over video conferencing. So if Bill 245 should pass, the change becomes permanent.

I want to acknowledge the Attorney General for incorporating motion 121, moved by the member from Thornhill, to modernize and digitize our legal system by making temporary emergency measures, put in place for COVID-19, for the witnessing of wills and powers of attorney permanent in Ontario. The way to think about the proposed change is this: A person can now get their affairs in order by having their wills looked after by a lawyer while they’re in their hospital bed.

As we continue to support Ontario’s COVID-19 response and recovery, we are taking action to make it faster and easier to resolve land-related disputes to help increase the housing supply across Ontario, while balancing the needs of environmental protection and conservation.

If passed, Bill 245 is proposing to merge five land tribunals—the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Board of Negotiation, the Conservation Review Board and the Mining and Lands Tribunal—into a new single tribunal called the Ontario Land Tribunal. The new Ontario Land Tribunal would be able to help reduce delays by making the land dispute resolution much more efficient by creating a single forum to resolve disputes faster and by eliminating unnecessary overlap between cases.

The proposed consolidation would not reduce or eliminate hearing or appeal rights before the tribunal. The creation of the Ontario Land Tribunal builds on our government’s commitment to create a more accessible, responsive and resilient justice system that resolves disputes quickly and fairly. We are determined to make it faster to resolve land-related disputes that are contributing to Ontario’s housing crisis while balancing the needs of environmental protection and conservation.

In July 2020, the government created the Ontario Land Tribunals cluster to bring the five land tribunals under the leadership of a dedicated executive chair. However, these five land tribunals in the cluster remain separate entities with separate legislative mandates. Some parties currently need to appear before multiple land tribunals to resolve a single dispute.

In order to make the process more efficient and effective, our government is proposing to consolidate these five tribunals into a single tribunal called the Ontario Land Tribunal. The single tribunal would have a single intake process and a case management system, which would help to reduce bureaucratic red tape and simplify Ontario law. The new tribunal would help reduce delays and make the land dispute resolution process more efficient by creating a single forum to resolve disputes faster and eliminating unnecessary overlap between cases.

Realities for families have changed in the past year since the legislation was last updated and in the months since COVID-19 came to our province. Today’s families require a system that is clear, consistent, yet flexible enough to address their unique circumstances.

If passed, Bill 245 is proposing a number of changes to estate laws to reflect current realities of families and provide increased flexibility for people to address their legal needs. These changes include allowing virtual witnessing as long as at least one witness is an Ontario paralegal or a lawyer. This will help to relieve the stress for those who want to get their affairs in order as quickly as possible and addresses barriers to justice that may stem from challenges with delivering documents in person during COVID-19 and beyond.

Proposed changes include:

—permanently allowing virtual witnessing and counterpart signing of wills and powers of attorney, which were temporarily permitted in an emergency order in April 2020;

—repealing

section 16 of the Succession Law Reform Act, which automatically revokes existing wills on marriage;

—extending

section 17 of the SLRA to revoke a bequest made to married spouses who have separated or where a court order or an arrangement to finalize dissolution of the marriage is in place;

—granting courts authority to validate wills by adding a validation provision;

—clarifying that the Public Guardian and Trustee may access information from the municipal police to help inform its decision about taking on the administration of an estate;

—amending the regulation-making power in the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, to authorize rules around the PGT to require information from “entities,” in addition to “persons,” as currently set out.

Prior to the introduction of this temporary regulation at the outset of COVID-19, lawyers and witnesses were taking extraordinary measures to ensure that wills and powers of attorney could continue to be processed. We heard stories of lawyers and witnesses standing in the yards of testators, watching through windows as wills were signed. We even heard of lawyers and witnesses who were meeting grantors in driveways and parking lots, observing signatures on powers of attorney through car windows. That is not a sustainable or a realistic way to settle these important matters.

This proposed change and other stated amendments address feedback we received during consultation with the legal profession, including members of the estates bar. Members of the estates bar overwhelmingly told us that this temporary change has provided peace of mind to their clients who want to safely get their affairs in order during this time of uncertainty.

Our government wants to continue to provide increased flexibility and ease of access through COVID-19 and beyond.

We are making a number of proposed changes to estates laws to reflect current realities for families and provide increased flexibility for people to address their legal needs. These include allowing virtual witnessing so long as at least one witness is an Ontario paralegal. This will help relieve the stress to those who want to get their affairs in order. These changes will also help people with any barriers that might exist for Ontarians who have difficulties travelling to deliver documents in person.

Other proposed amendments to the estate laws included in Bill 245, if passed, are allowing existing laws to stand if someone gets married and revoking a bequest on separation of married spouses or the dissolution of a marriage. These changes address gaps brought forward by estate lawyers advocating on behalf of their clients, who are concerned about predatory marriages and about bequests going to a long-separated spouse.

Mr. Speaker, to quote Elaine Blades, chair of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners Toronto, and Paul Taylor, chair of STEP Ottawa, “The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners looks forward to being part of the important work that will be done to educate lawyers and other professionals on the opportunities these proposed changes present along with the obligations that are inherent in them to ensure the protection of vulnerable individuals in circumstances where they cannot be met in person.”

Bill 245, if passed, will make these changes to public accounting, which are supported by those in the profession. The proposed changes include amendments to the Public Accounting Act to transfer the authority of the Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario to the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, the CPA. These amendments, in effect, would lead to the dissolution of the Public Accountants Council and have the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario assume full responsibility for public accounting regulation.

The ministry would work closely with PAC and CPA Ontario to ensure a smooth transition by March 31, 2021. The dissolution of the Public Accountants Council would have no fiscal impact on the province since its operations are fully funded by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario.

The Public Accountants Council of Ontario fully supports the Attorney General’s decision to transfer the responsibilities of PAC to CPA. Discussions on the future of PAC have been under way since the process of unifying the accounting profession began in 2014, when the three predecessor accounting bodies functionally unified into one body, as CPA Ontario. PAC’s oversight and review of the CPA education, experience and examination programs has assisted in ensuring high post-unification standards for the Ontario CPAs through this transitional period.

The changes proposed by the Attorney General through Bill 245 will align Ontario’s regulatory framework for public accountants with all other jurisdictions across the country, generating efficiencies and savings that CPA Ontario can reinvest into the profession. CPA Ontario has an established reputation for protecting the public interest, and the changes proposed will ensure the ongoing delivery of superior quality public accounting services to the province of Ontario.

The Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario is pleased to see Attorney General Downey propose changes that would streamline the regulatory framework for the accounting profession while maintaining the high standards of public accounting. Transferring oversight responsibilities of the Public Accountants Council of Ontario will align Ontario’s regulatory framework for public accounting with all other jurisdictions across the country. This move will also generate significant savings for CPA Ontario and their members that will be reinvested into the profession.

Mr. Speaker, don’t just take my word for it. Carol Wilding, the president and chief executive officer of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, had this to say about the initiatives of this bill: “The Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario ... is pleased to see Attorney General Downey propose changes that would streamline the regulatory framework for the accounting profession while maintaining the high standards of public accounting.

“Transferring oversight responsibilities to the Public Accountants Council to CPA Ontario will align Ontario’s regulatory framework for public accounting with all other jurisdictions” in this country.

“This move will also generate significant savings for” the council “and our members that will be reinvested into the profession.

“CPA Ontario looks forward to continuing to work with the provincial government to maintain the high standards of public accounting and ensure strong governance and oversight of the profession.”

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague Attorney General Downey made it clear in his introduction of Bill 245 when he stated, “The recovery of Ontario’s communities from COVID-19 requires a strong justice system that works as well as it can to help people resolve their legal matters with fewer obstacles and delays.” That’s just fair.

The Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021, would, if passed, improve access to justice for Ontarians across the system, notably by modernizing processes and breaking down barriers in the province’s courts, tribunals, estate law, family and child protection sectors.

The legislation, which builds on Ontario’s recent justice modernization breakthroughs, proposes urgent reforms to address delays for Ontarians waiting to resolve legal issues in front of a judge or beyond the courtroom, including in rural, northern, francophone and Indigenous communities. The Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021, if passed, would reduce the time and money Ontarians spend waiting for their day in court.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress enough to this House that justice accelerated is justice delivered. No matter where you live in our province, the growth and well-being of our communities demands easier and faster access to a justice system that works for people. The legislation that our Attorney General has introduced builds on our government’s commitment towards ongoing efforts to accelerate justice modernization in Ontario with concrete actions to break down barriers across the justice system. It is a privilege for me, as the proud MPP for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, to stand before you in this House to support our Attorney General’s Bill 245.

I would like to just take a second to acknowledge and thank two people who contributed to the words I had to say: Thank you, Sam Goldstein and former member Bob Runciman, for the feedback on this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It’s now time for questions.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: Thanks to the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry for his comments this morning.

Speaker, we’ve heard this before from this government where we’re going to be improving access to justice. We heard that with the Landlord and Tenant Board, and I can tell you that in in my riding, I have countless complaints about the system that has been put in place: It’s not geographical. People do not have access. They do not have access to Internet. So I am a bit dubious about another act that is apparently going to improve access to justice.

We already, under the Consolidated Hearings Act, have the ability to consolidate tribunals. Under

schedule 6, we want to make another sort of amalgamation. Why are we restructuring a tribunal system when we can already do this in a way that is far less disruptive and allows for that expertise when required?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I think it’s clear that when this government took power, it really looked upon trying to reduce the excess regulation and the burdens that are facing the population of this province. This was a great opportunity to take five similar tribunals and combine them.

You can imagine the cost for the average citizen trying to work against the system, where you’ve got to now hire lawyers and all the expertise to take it to two or more tribunals. That creates lots of delays, lots of problems. Now these problems can be brought, can be heard through a one-window process. I mean, it just makes sense.

It’s something that we’re proud of doing and something we’ll work harder on to make sure that when people want access to justice in this province, it’s easier and faster. I think that’s what they’re expecting from this government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. Further questions?

Mr. Will Bouma: I just wanted to say to the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry how appreciative I was of the common-sense way that he spoke about the common-sense changes we’re making in this bill.

I wanted to ask him a question about the consolidated lands tribunal, because when I was on council, this was something that I ran into. We hear all the time that justice delayed is justice denied. I would see constituents, people who really cared about the environment, have to go from tribunal to tribunal and have no clarity and everything else. So I was wondering if I could ask my friend how consolidating the five land tribunals into one, hopefully by July 2021, if this bill is passed, will help my constituents to seek justice.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Thank you, Speaker. It’s a mouthful.

We’re determined to make it faster to resolve land-related disputes that are contributing to Ontario’s housing crisis, while balancing the needs of environmental protection and conservation.

Despite creating a new cluster in July, the five land tribunals remain separate entities in separate legislation. So imagine you’re a private citizen or somebody who is trying to come before a board, trying to prepare a case, and now having to do it multiple times. It just makes sense that we have one tribunal, for staffing—there’s a whole wealth of reasons why we would want to bring it down and make it simpler. When you make things simpler, they’re easier to access; easier and faster.

We came in and we saw this; before the LPAT board we had 100,000 cases, there were 100,000 residential units being held up at the board because of the lack of access. These are changes that are holding up and creating more and more homeless people, as we look through the system, and—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you.

Further questions?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, I’ve heard from a number of constituents that, for example, had no luck getting peace bonds; from landlords and tenants alike who have said that they can’t get a fair time in court. Instead, they’re locked in impossible situations in which they’re both losing time and money and patience. I’ve heard from families stuck at a standstill because of Family Court delays.

The benchmark for access to justice should be equity, and I’m struggling to see how this bill, which says it’s about accelerating access to justice, impacts the lives of those in my riding who are seniors, lower-income and often from racialized and marginalized communities. Those who have been really excluded from accessing justice are no better off in this bill.

So I’d like to ask the member: Financial barriers often affect access to justice. How does this bill address access to legal aid so that people can get justice?

Mr. Jim McDonell: Actually, it’s interesting that you ask that question because I had the opportunity to talk to a lawyer who was working with legal aid, and he talked about some of the changes that came in during COVID-19 and how it allowed him to see many more clients, because it sped up the process. He said it was a marked difference. He was seeing many more clients in the same amount of time, so you can imagine, from a government point of view, the extra access we’re providing. It was a bit of a surprise to him, but looking back, he just reflected on that and he wanted to actually add some comments into this debate today.

So yes, making things faster and simpler allows our legal aid system to see many more people. Isn’t that the goal of everybody here?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Next

Mr. Lorne Coe: Good morning, Speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I want to thank the member from Whitby for that question. It brings me, I guess, to the final days of my dad, when he was trying to get his will in order. He had a will that had been witnessed by three different people, but all three people had passed away, so he had to redo his will, and he made multiple trips to the lawyer to get it done. The lawyer had a bit of a reputation for liking to sit down and talk about the older days. But he never got it done, and he was unable to do it; he passed away before having his will finalized.

It created some issues for my mother, who was trying to bring the estate together—not that there were any disputes, but all the issues that go with having a will that can’t be witnessed. It just creates problems. I think of how this would have solved that problem. In his final days in the hospital he could have had that done, but in those days you couldn’t.

I want to thank the Attorney General for putting that in place and making that happen.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions?

Mr. Gurratan Singh: There are certain things that we know indisputably, various facts with regard to our legal system. We know that our legal aid system is the front line to providing access to justice to those who are most marginalized.

The Conservative government has put forward their bill, the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, that has no mention of legal aid, a system that was gutted by this Conservative government—up to one third of the budget for legal aid. How can this Conservative government justify calling this bill Accelerating Access to Justice without a single word about legal aid, without a single dime for legal aid institutions and facilities that are struggling right now? How can the government in good conscience call this accelerating access to justice without funding the fundamental means for access to justice in our province?

Mr. Jim McDonell: There are many components to access to justice. You would have to be living under a rock not to see an

article about how justice has been delayed. We’ve had challenges in the Supreme Court because justice has been delayed so long that cases are thrown out. It’s time that we update our legal system. Faster access to justice has been ruled a Canadian right, and this bill certainly accomplishes that.

To go back, we talked about legal aid, and the 95% of the people who have access to the Internet. This allows people to do many more things themselves. It allows our legal aid system to do many more cases, which is, I think, in the end, what you’re looking for. You’re looking for more access to all of our services, which includes legal aid. This bill here actually accomplishes that. Again, I thank Minister Downey for this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Mr. Chris Glover: When I was in high school, we read a book called 1984. There was a term in that book called “doublespeak.” It’s about the way the government in that fictional world used propaganda to convince people of something that wasn’t actually true.

I didn’t really understand this concept of doublespeak until I got into this Legislature. The title of this bill, the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, is an example of doublespeak. It has nothing to do with accelerating access to justice. It actually has to do with further eroding people’s property rights through enhancing the expropriation powers of this government.

It also has to do with further reducing community voice in local planning decisions by combining LPAT with a bunch of other tribunals so that the balance of power at the LPAT will be even greater for the developers.

It also has to do with the removal of appeal rights in

schedule 10. I will just give a couple of current examples in my riding that are relevant to this. On January 22, the city of Toronto got a notice from the government of Ontario through Metrolinx that they wanted to expropriate the first Parliament site. This is down at Front and Parliament. It’s a full city block. It is the site of Upper Canada’s first Parliament in 1792. It was burned down by the Americans in the War of 1812. Nearby is the site of Upper Canada’s second Parliament. So it’s an historically important site.

For the last decade, the city of Toronto has been developing plans for that site. They’re going to build a library. There’s a bunch of community amenities. There are going to be some developments and high-rises. By issuing this expropriation notification, the province has said, “Well, all that local planning that’s been done is going out the window.” That is an abuse of power by this government. They should be respecting the local planning process that’s been initiated.

I recognize that the Ontario Line needs to have a site there. The station should be called the first Parliament station, and I would put in a plug for that. But when this site is developed, it should respect the rights of the municipality of Toronto. It should also respect the planning that’s been done by the community on that site. There is no need to expropriate that site.

I’ll just read from a newspaper

article that came out a few weeks ago, when this was announced. Kristyn Wong-Tam, who is the local city councillor, says, “Years of city planning and public consultation have already gone into developing a comprehensive master plan for the site, which includes proposals for a library and park. And she has a message for the province.

“‘The community doesn’t want to sell these lands to you. We want to work with you to build transit, to build out the master plan. And we believe that we can do that without conveying the lands to you.’”

That’s the message from the local councillor to this government about the first Parliament site. So, yes, build the station for the Ontario Line, but respect the local planning that’s already been done.

The other action that this government has taken around expropriations is that they have removed the right of people to a hearing of necessity. This was done last year with Bill 197, under something called the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act. Why stripping individuals and communities in Ontario of their rights of property has anything to do with the COVID recovery act, I don’t know. That’s another example of this doublespeak that I was speaking of.

Bill 197 had significant reforms on the expropriations process for a large subset of future takings of property rights in Ontario of infrastructure projects. So what the government did was that it gave itself greater powers to expropriate property, without having to rationalize or justify that expropriation through a hearing of necessity.

On Bill 197, the report said, “If passed, the bill may greatly reduce landowners’ ability to challenge expropriations proposed for provincial public roads and certain transit projects. This follows shortly after the Building Transit Faster Act, 2020, which eliminated hearings of necessity for expropriations related to the construction of specified priority transit projects. This bill demonstrates a continued erosion of property owners’ rights to challenge proposed expropriations.” That’s just one example. That’s

schedule 5 of the bill.

The other

schedule that’s very relevant to my riding right now is

schedule 6, which combines five tribunals into one. The five tribunals are the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Mining and Lands Tribunal, the Conservation Review Board and the Board of Negotiation. The bedrock of justification for having these tribunals is that they are meant to be faster, cheaper and more expert than the courts. The

schedule is a major step backwards on all three of these grounds.

Most people don’t know about these tribunals until they have to go to one, but there are 100,000 Ontarians who appear before these tribunals every year. What this government is doing is combining those five tribunals into one, so an adjudicator at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal could be adjudicating over a mining decision, and a mining adjudicator could be an adjudicator over something that they have no expertise in. It’s actually going to reduce the very purpose of having these tribunals, which is to have an expert adjudicator adjudicating on these issues.

The reason that this is so important right now is that on January 18, not in my riding but in MPP Suze Morrison’s riding, Toronto Centre, demolition equipment rolled onto the heritage foundry site. The heritage foundry site is a series of factories that were built in the 1920s. They’re some beautiful old factory buildings. The government rolled this demolition equipment onto this site without any notification. It was done completely in secret.

The only reason that the community found out about it was that a local person was walking by, saw this equipment roll in and asked one of the construction workers, “What are you doing?” He was told that they were going to demolish the buildings by the end of March, and what was revealed this week was that, in September, the government started negotiating a deal with the developer for that site. The demolition of these heritage buildings was apparently part of that plan and part of that deal for that developer.

This is a further erosion of the rights of the community over protecting things like that heritage property.

And I’ll say one other thing about my riding, Mr. Speaker. I live in the most densely populated riding in the province. If you drive along the Gardiner, you’re driving by all those high-rise condos that are in the area, that’s my riding. The people in my riding are not NIMBYs. They actually like development, but they like development that is smart development. We don’t want to just live in a forest of high-rise condos; we want to live in communities that have parks, libraries, schools and other community recreation centres.

For the most part, the city of Toronto has done a pretty good job of doing that, building that kind of community along the waterfront. But when the government strips away the powers of the community, the municipality and the local residents from these planning decisions, when they roll demolition equipment onto a site, like the foundry, without any notification, then they strip away our power to build the kind of communities that we want to live in.

I would ask that this government reconsider this bill, particularly

schedule 5 and

schedule 6.

Schedule 6—I’ll just go on a little bit longer about it—is the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. In 2018, there were some changes made to the Ontario Municipal Board, which was the appeal board for local planning decisions. If a community or municipality disagreed or a developer disagreed with what the municipality was asking to be built on a particular piece of property, they could appeal to the LPAT, and the LPAT gave the community a real voice at that point. They were given some funding to hire planners and lawyers to represent themselves, and they were given access to documents that they needed to make their case.

But this government stripped LPAT of the local planning powers and basically reverted it back to the OMB. That’s where this government has stripped communities and municipalities of the power to represent themselves and to put their case forward before tribunals. Combining LPAT with the Mining and Lands Tribunal and these other tribunals will further erode the powers of communities to represent themselves and to fight for the kinds of communities that we want to live in, the kinds of communities that include high-rises. I live in one of the high-rises along the waterfront.

I’m happy to be living there, but I’m also happy because right across the street, there’s a park. Just up the street, there’s a library. There’s a brand new school that just opened a couple of years ago in CityPlace. That’s the kind of planning that we want and that this government is stripping communities and municipalities of the power to build. So I’d ask the government to reconsider these schedules.

The final

schedule that I want to talk about is

schedule 10, and this is the removal of appeal rights. Again, this is where it removes the ability to appeal a decision to the minister from seven environmental—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. I know that we’re waiting with bated breath to hear more about

schedule 10, but unfortunately your time for debate at this point has expired. But you will have an opportunity when debate resumes to continue with your debate. So I thank you for that, and I apologize for the interruption.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Public transit

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I’m proud to rise as the new official opposition critic for transit. Whether they use it to get to work or come home to their loved ones, Ontarians deserve a safe, accessible, reliable and affordable public transit system. I recognize the hard work of the countless transit operators who make these millions of daily trips possible.

As critic, I will hold the government accountable to protect and expand public transit across our great province, but it must be said here that current and future transit projects must be envisioned based on needs and under the advice of transit experts, not based on the desire of developer insiders looking to maximize the profits on the value of their land holdings. And when such projects become a reality, communities and municipalities must be thoroughly consulted and respected.

Transit systems throughout our province rely heavily upon fares to keep their services running. As such, this pandemic has hit them hard. But despite an overall decline in ridership, there are still many packed routes during this pandemic, putting passengers and operators at risk. This must be resolved.

Government assistance is set to end by the end of next month, but needs will continue in the time ahead. That’s why the government must work closely with transit operators across the province to ensure that help continues beyond the end of March.

Finally, I will continue to stand up for my community in calling on this government to immediately transfer Metrolinx lands so a community hub can be built, as promised, at Jane and Finch. Don’t make the same mistake as the Liberal government before you in stringing along our community. We demand better than that.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Norman Miller: I rise today to give voice to the frustrations I’m hearing from business owners, residents and municipal officials across the district of Parry Sound over the lack of local communication over remaining in the stay-at-home order.

I’ve been proud to see the Premier, ministers and Ontario’s top health professionals prioritize communication throughout the pandemic with almost daily press conferences. I’m asking that our local health unit follow this lead and communicate transparently with the residents.

While it is disappointing news that the region remains under the stay-at-home order for now, it’s important to remember that these decisions are made in consultation with the expert advice of Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health and local medical officers of health.

We’ve made some headway in our fight against COVID-19, but we must not take that progress for granted. I encourage the residents of North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit region to continue following public health advice so we can stop the spread and safely transition to a lower level in the framework.

I do want to thank the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit for opening up outdoor activities like snowmobiling, skating and tobogganing. I’m pleased to see the health unit listen to the community and reconsider the order to shut down those activities. I ask that they once again listen to the community and respond to their calls for more information.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I haven’t had an opportunity to do a member’s statement in this House for quite some time. I gave thought to what topic I would talk about and dedicate the minute and half that we have here to, and I can’t imagine standing up in this House as a member without recognizing, acknowledging and thanking our essential workers back in our home communities, each and every one of them—every one of them.

To go through a list of the folks and the people and the organizations who have brought us all together as communities to keep each other safe—I am certain we would all miss folks in that list, but undoubtedly our front-line workers in our health care system, our nurses, our doctors, our hospital administration staff and our public health officials, who, under an enormous amount of pressure, have gone above and beyond to protect our communities.

Our Windsor and Essex public health unit just recently supported our member for London West’s motion and bill on paid sick leave. They understand that paid sick leave saves lives and makes our communities safer.

The teachers, the small business owners, the fitness club owners who have struggled to provide so much—I mean, the list goes on and on. Rest assured, Speaker, we think about every one of them each and every day in this House. All members are giving all of our effort to those back home who are putting their best effort forward to keep us safe, and we thank them very much.

COVID-19 immunization

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a privilege to rise today and announce another critical milestone in the fight against the spread of COVID-19 in Sarnia–Lambton. Yesterday, Bluewater Health opened its first COVID-19 vaccination clinic for high-risk, front-line hospital health care workers.

The first front-line hero at Bluewater Health to receive the vaccine was Mr. Fred Osmon, an emergency department nurse who works at both the Sarnia and Petrolia campuses.

With over 2,000 team members, including staff, physicians, midwives, specialists and more, Bluewater Health’s vaccination clinics are expected to run for the next four to five days. Non-patient-facing employees are not scheduled to receive the vaccine at this time.

To date, over 600,000 people in Ontario have received their very first dose of the vaccine, including every resident of long-term-care homes. Ontario is leading the nation with its vaccination program. That is something we should be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the last 11 months have been challenging. Vaccines getting to our front-line workers is great news for the Sarnia–Lambton community and a step forward.

To quote Mr. Osmon upon hearing the news that he would be the very first health care worker to receive the vaccine at Bluewater Health, “There is light at the end of the tunnel.”

Taxation

Mr. Gurratan Singh: There’s a question that each and every one of us needs to ask ourselves right now: Who is going to pay for this pandemic? Who is going to pay for the COVID-19 recovery that we’re all hoping for right now?

Over the past year, we’ve seen an unprecedented amount of challenges that people are facing with the COVID-19 pandemic. Front-line workers have to risk their lives every day going to work to move our economy. Small business owners are struggling to keep their doors open. People have to balance between child care and working from home. And there are countless others who have lost their jobs altogether.

At the same time, the super-rich in Canada have increased their wealth by $63 billion on the backs of working people, who have to bear the brunt of this pandemic. That’s why we need a wealth tax on the super-rich, on multi-millionaires and multi-billionaires—so they can pay their fair share on the public services that we all rely on, so we can expand health care, so we can strengthen our public schools, so we can make sure that housing is a right that everyone can access. We can do this, but we need to have the courage to ask those who can to give a little bit more.

Working people should not have to pay for this pandemic, and a wealth tax is how we make sure that they don’t.

Engineers

Mr. Stan Cho: Next Monday, March 1, marks Professional Engineers Day here in Ontario. There are some 85,000 professional engineers in Ontario, and March 1 has been designated by this Legislature as the day each year that we mark the invaluable contributions engineers make to our communities and our economy.

Engineers help build our cities. They design bridges and highways. They develop computer programs and life-saving medical equipment. They can turn garbage into fuel. And last week, they helped land a rover on Mars.

You’ll know an engineer when you see one by the distinct iron ring they wear. It’s worn by professional engineers across Canada as a reminder of the obligations and ethics of their profession. The iron ring is both a symbol of pride and a reminder to act with the highest standards of professional conduct.

My riding is the home of engineering in Ontario, as both the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and Professional Engineers Ontario are headquartered in Willowdale. Over the last three years, I have had the opportunity to learn first-hand about the incredible work engineers do in my community and across the province. It’s always amazing to see an engineer in action, solving the most complex problems or developing exciting, innovative products.

This Professional Engineers Day, I want to give special recognition to the many engineering students, future innovators and change-makers who are continuing to work hard this year, with the added challenges of learning during a pandemic. The world needs you now, more than ever.

Please join me today and on March 1 to celebrate Professional Engineers Day and all the engineers in our communities.

Addiction services

Miss Monique Taylor: Earlier this month, I was proud to be named our party’s critic for mental health and addiction. Over the past few weeks I’ve been meeting with advocates and service providers to hear more about the situation on the ground. Everyone I’ve spoken with agrees: Ontario is in an overdose crisis and it is only getting worse.

Public Health Ontario says opioid overdose deaths have grown by 50% during the pandemic. Overdose deaths are at the highest they have ever been, yet the people I’ve been speaking with say that there’s been little action from this government.

There are actions that this government must take when it comes to harm reduction, like providing safe supply programs, supervised consumption, and outreach programs, as well as actions that will provide aid in recovery from addiction, like rehab programs and investing in supportive housing.

The quickest and easiest first step they could do would be to simply resume the Opioid Emergency Task Force, which this government shuttered in 2018, and they need to commit to following its advice.

This government’s indifference will only lead to a larger crisis and a greater number of overdose deaths. People in Ontario deserve better. Families are begging for help and support. You have an obligation to meet these families’ needs and to provide the services to save people’s lives.

Coldest Night of the Year

Mr. Will Bouma: What if we could help prevent homelessness before people are actually on the streets? Well, good news. That was our goal as we participated in Brantford’s annual Coldest Night of the Year fundraiser last Saturday in my home riding of Brantford–Brant. The walkers raised over $53,000 for the Why Not Youth Centre in Brantford. That is 151% of the goal that was set, a true testament to the generous, caring community that I am proudly a part of.

Why Not Youth Centre is a grassroots not-for-profit that sees 750 to 1,000 visits every month from local teens in need. At Why Not Youth Centre, they believe that every young person is important and deserves all the help they can get to overcome their challenges and achieve their goals. Every teen who comes through their door is struggling in some way, be it with homelessness, mobility, bullying or unsafe living conditions. When they are doing their job right, they are safe, get the help that they need and move forward with their lives.

This was a fun, COVID-19-safe and engaging event. I am particularly happy to be on the same virtual team as a former legislator that sat in this House many years ago, my good friend Phil Gillies. I want to thank him personally for always being there for our community in so many ways.

Some people see things and say, “Why?” At Why Not Youth Centre in Brantford, they dream things that never were, and say, “Why not?”

COVID-19 immunization

Mr. Daryl Kramp: There has been a lot of misinformation spread about vaccines. We all know that. But some has been intentional, and some has come from people who feel it’s ethical to mislead others about their health prospects. I find that to be incredibly disappointing.

On December 4, our provincial vaccine task force, led by General Rick Hillier, laid out Ontario’s vaccine distribution plan. Its phases are clear and have been available on government websites for many weeks now. It can be found at ontario.ca/covidvaccine. We encourage everyone to go there to learn more.

But we know that the plan requires vaccine supply controlled by the federal government. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, the federal government dropped the ball early on. But now, as we receive more vaccine supply from the federal government, we are planning for the expansion to other priority groups, including over-80s, who can expect to begin to receive their shots in the coming weeks—in mid-March—as we finish vaccinating our front-line health care workers. Ontarians will have more information on how over-80s can book their appointments in the coming days, well in advance of the shot being available to them.

We know everyone is anxious to get their shots and we’re anxious to get them to you. As vaccines start to arrive again, our public health professionals are organized and ready to COVID-vaccinate our communities. They vaccinated six million in six weeks against the flu just a few months back.

This is a team effort and we will continue to work collaboratively with vaccination sites and other health care partners to ensure we have the most successful vaccine rollout in the country. That’s the Ontario spirit.

Boys and Girls Club of East Scarborough

The significance of the programs and services that this group provides to the children, youth and families of Scarborough are many. Indeed, during the COVID-19 pandemic the East Scarborough Boys and Girls Club has shown courage, compassion and perseverance in their community-oriented response, all while continuing to provide their core supports for families.

People throughout Scarborough know the Boys and Girls Club to be a group of core community members who go above and beyond in the work that they do to help others. This has never been more evident than over the last 11 months, during COVID-19, where they have worked tirelessly to ensure that in the face of unprecedented adversity families receive the support they need through programs like the back-to-school backpack program and the Holiday Help program. Additionally, they have worked to combat food insecurity by providing emergency food services, including delivering meal hampers with essential items to families each and every week.

To the executive director, Utcha Sawyer, the team members and volunteers at the East Scarborough Boys and Girls Club, I say thank you and a job well done.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. That concludes our members’ statements this morning.

I understand the member for Davenport may have a point of order.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I seek unanimous consent to immediately pass private member’s motion 137, calling on the Ford government to implement a back-to-school plan with improved funding for classroom caps, better ventilation and a safety committee made up of experts, parents, students, education worker unions and boards.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Davenport is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to immediately pass private member’s motion 137, calling on the government to implement a back-to-school plan with improved funding for classroom caps, better ventilation and a safety committee made up of experts, parents, students, education worker unions and boards. Agreed? I heard a no.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

COVID-19 immunization

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question is to the Premier. We know that Alberta is actually taking appointments right now, as of today, online and through a 1-800 number, to get people vaccinated. We know that Quebec has announced their 1-800 number and launched their portal, and appointments begin tomorrow. Last week, General Hillier told Ontarians that within the next week and a half or so, we would have both of these things in Ontario as well. Here we are today, and General Hillier has said that in fact we are not going to have anything until perhaps March 15.

What is going on with the government of Ontario that they can’t get their act together and provide seniors with the vaccines they need to protect themselves from COVID-19 in a timely manner?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Premier to reply.

Hon. Doug Ford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll tell you what Ontario is doing. Yes, we’re coming out with a 1-800 number. We’re going to be reaching out to seniors through their family physicians, through mail and through the media. We’ll have a strong campaign.

But I’ll tell you what we are doing: We’re leading the country with rapid tests. We’re leading the country with PCR tests. We have the lowest active cases anywhere in North America for a jurisdiction of our size, with the exception of the Atlantic provinces. We called on the feds to expand sick day pay from two weeks to four weeks. We advocated to the federal government to increase transfers up to $4 billion on the restart agreement. We’re leading the country, and in a lot of cases North America, in every single category. Vaccinations, too: We’re leading the country with vaccinations.

Mr. Speaker, when 444 municipalities work together, when the federal government works together with the province, that’s what happens. We lead the country on every single aspect of this pandemic.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government is on a campaign all right, and maybe that’s the problem: They’re campaigning instead of protecting people from COVID-19.

Doctors were not even brought into the loop when it comes to the government’s COVID-19 vaccination plan, yet here we are. Our province seems to be going backward while other provinces are moving ahead. People deserve to know. Seniors with anxiety and worry, who are wondering about when they’re going to be protected, deserve to have basic information. They need to know when and where, and they need to know that now.

It is shameful that we’re in this situation. Why is this government, notwithstanding the fact that they’ve had months and months and months on end to plan, not in a position to give seniors the peace of mind that they deserve and the urgency, the swiftness, to get the vaccines that they need?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, Mr. Speaker, we’ve been in full communication with all the hospitals, with all the PH units. We take advice from the science table. There must be 200 doctors altogether who we are listening to, who helped put this plan together—and it’s a great plan.

As you know, Ontario is a massive, massive jurisdiction. We have one standard plan, but we’re going to make sure that it suits every single area, because we know for people up in Kenora, it’s not the same as vaccinating close to three million people here in Toronto or in the GTA—another three million people. But we have a solid plan; we’re rolling it out.

Mr. Speaker, I’m standing here to tell you: We will lead the country once again as we get the vaccines. Go to the root cause: We need more vaccines. That’s the bottom line. If we had the vaccines, we would get them into people’s arms.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, as of yesterday, there were 100,000 vaccines waiting to go into people’s arms. The problem is, the government doesn’t have a vaccination plan at this late date, and people are going to suffer as a result.

Yet the government is reopening the province when their vaccine plan has been delayed. We were expecting it for March 1; now it’s March 15. We were expecting something swift; in fact, this is very, very slow. That’s troubling, because without the investments needed for public health measures to be boosted, without the money being spent to ensure these things occur, without having a vaccine rolling out, this government is guaranteeing that we’re heading into a third wave that could be devastating.

Why do the people of Ontario have to accept this government’s slow response, lack of urgency and inability to protect us from this virus?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, to the contrary—I’ll repeat what I said—in every category, no matter if it’s a rapid test that we’re doing, we’re leading the country, not by a little bit but by huge, huge margins. No one even comes close to us on rapid tests, on PCR tests and the lowest active cases anywhere in North America. We move like lightning and we’re going to continue to move like lightning.

We have an incredible plan put together by doctors, by health professionals, by experts within their fields, and we’re going to listen to them. As we listen to them, we’re going to continue moving forward with the support of the hospitals and the PHUs.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the front-line health care workers, the hospitals and PHUs for working together. That’s how we’re going to get through this—not being the party of, “No, it can’t be done. The world is coming to an end.” We’re the party of, “Yes, it can be done.” We’re the party of the people. We’re there for the working-class people, and that’s what people see in Ontario.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, this next question is also for the Premier. Thunder Bay is literally in a COVID-19 crisis, and yet here’s how the Minister of Health said this government was dealing with it yesterday: “Information will come in this evening with respect to the actual data.... That will be something that Dr. David Williams and his team will then be reviewing and will” then “be making” preliminary “recommendations to us in cabinet ... that will” then “be reviewed following the next block of data that comes in on Thursday, and then a determination is made as to whether there should be a change.”

Speaker, two cabinet meetings, three studies, three days of delay: Is this what an emergency brake looks like to this government? Is this what the people of Thunder Bay deserve when they’re in crisis?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader to reply.

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member will know that, obviously, as the Premier has said and the Minister of Health has said, and as we’ve done throughout the entire pandemic, we do listen to the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health. That advice is informed by the local medical officers of health and the public health units across the province.

I’m surprised and frankly shocked to learn that the Leader of the Opposition now is suggesting that we not listen to these people. It’s the same advice that the critic for education has been giving the people of Ontario, suggesting that we not listen to our educators. By not listening to the NDP, we’ve been able to come out with a safe restart program for our schools.

We will continue to work very closely with the Chief Medical Officer of Health and with public health officials across the province, including Thunder Bay, to ensure that all the people of this province remain safe. As the Premier said, we are a leading jurisdiction in North America, and we intend to keep it that way.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government has to keep telling themselves that because nobody believes it.

But look, this is serious stuff. In Thunder Bay, there are 273 active cases of COVID-19, 216 of which have occurred in the last seven days alone, more than through the first wave of this virus—the most they’ve ever had, in fact.

So the question that I have is, why is this government ignoring the pleas of Thunder Bay? They’re asking for help with more isolation units, they’re asking for help with contact tracing and testing, and yet the government is doing nothing. They’re telling them that they have to wait for more endless studies. They’re having to wait for long, drawn-out processes before the people of Thunder Bay get a sense of whether or not their government is going to step up and protect them from COVID-19 and stop the spread in their community.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, the Leader of the Opposition, it should surprise nobody, is wrong. We have, of course, been working very closely with the Chief Medical Officer of Health of the province and the medical officers of health across the province, including those in Thunder Bay. That is why we have a safe restart and a move back into the framework. Local medical officers of health help inform the decisions that we make as a cabinet with respect to where a region falls in that framework. We have an emergency brake. Local medical officers of health have additional powers and tools at their disposal to act even quicker.

On every measure, this government has given the tools to the Chief Medical Officer of Health. We have the tools and we have been doing what needs to be done and the results speak for themselves. We lead the nation in terms of active cases. We’ve done an extraordinary job, as the Premier has said, on testing. We’ve done a great job on rapid testing. We have isolation; we’ve expanded the availability of isolation units across the province. When there’s more to do, we act very quickly, and that includes in all areas of the province. But it will always be informed by working with the local medical officers of health and the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government should be moving heaven and earth to help the people of Thunder Bay, but they are getting crickets from this government.

We are headed for disaster. Everybody has said, all of the experts have said, that if you open too fast and you don’t provide the extra measures and you don’t have a vaccine plan that’s actually going to roll out in the appropriate time frames and you have an emergency brake that takes two cabinet ministers, three sets of studies and then who knows what else, then the bottom line is, you’re driving us into a disaster.

My question for the government is, when are they going to admit that their lack of action, their lack of urgency, their lack of ability to get ahead of this virus and the decisions they’re making this very day are heading us into a devastating third wave?

Hon. Paul Calandra: The Leader of the Opposition has been incorrect on every single aspect of this pandemic. This is the same Leader of the Opposition who wanted to fire the Chief Medical Officer of Health of the province of Ontario. We have decided to take a different approach: working with the Chief Medical Officer of Health, looking at the data, being informed and leveraging the public health units across this province to ensure that we can react and have reacted quickly. That is why, as the Premier said, we are leading in terms of testing. That is why we are leading in terms of rapid testing.

That is why our schools have returned safely. That is why we have more vaccines in the arms of the people of Ontario than across anywhere else in this country. We are doing the job, and we’re getting it done.

I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that she continue to try at least to work with us, Mr. Speaker. She has been wrong on every single thing. It’s the same type of hysteria that we heard when it came to the flu shots. They said it couldn’t be done. Six million Ontarians got a flu shot—a record. And we will continue to lead this nation by working hard but not by working—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The next question.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier. Families and students are very anxious right now, watching the daily case counts in schools tick up once again. They’re wondering if this government is applying any of the lessons learned over the past year. We know students need to be able to safely distance, but we’re still seeing class sizes balloon. We know improved ventilation systems are key, yet the only tool many schools have right now is an open window. We know that comprehensive in-school testing is vital to identifying asymptomatic spread, but we’re being given a patchwork approach of weekend testing that tells parents and staff to travel far from school and home.

Speaker, can the Premier tell us why he’s risking more school closures, instead of implementing the common-sense proposals that experts and we in the opposition have put forward?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Education to reply.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The commitment of the government and the Premier is to keep kids safe. We have demonstrated to the population that by following public expert advice, we have done so in the full. When we conducted asymptomatic testing in the hotspot regions, where thousands of tests were conducted, we saw low rates of COVID transmission, which demonstrates quite obviously the collaboration of parents to reduce congregation of their children after school and on weekends, and then, quite obviously, the effectiveness of the infection prevention measures put in place to ensure schools are safe.

There are 3,400 more temporary teachers working in our schools. There are 1,400 more custodians working in our schools. There is an improvement to air ventilation for 95% of schools, as reported by the school boards themselves. The Premier and the government are totally committed to ensuring kids remain safe and, most especially, that their schools remain open, which I know is the position contrarily held by the members opposite.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Back to the Premier—but can I just say that we are hurtling toward a third lockdown, and this minister chooses to blame families and students? It’s outrageous.

In Thunder Bay, nearly 600 students are in isolation today following outbreaks—112 new cases. Last night, Lakehead Public Schools passed a motion calling on the district health unit to move all students back to remote learning. Province-wide, we have over 8% of schools with at least one case and 16 schools closed entirely. If this seems like déjà vu to the minister, it’s because it feels like nothing has changed since last fall, except we now have variants.

Speaker, we all want to see kids where they learn best, in school, but right now that return to school is at risk again because this government is still relying on a wing and a prayer. Will the Premier pass our motion today and take action to keeps our schools safely open?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Well, the government has followed the best advice by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, because we are the party that is standing up to ensure schools can remain open.

It’s not lost on us that the members opposite do not want us to re-open schools, but we listen to public health advice. We ensured community rates came down by strengthening our infection prevention measures. We can confidently do so, recognizing the challenges globally within our education and congregate settings. In every jurisdiction on earth, there are challenges with the variants of concern, but that’s precisely why we have stepped up our testing capacity in the Ministry of Education alone. In fact, in York region there are 18 schools being identified this week for targeted asymptomatic testing, 75 in the member’s city of Toronto, seven in Hamilton and more well across the province.

We recognize the challenge, the unprecedented difficulty we face in 2021, and we are absolutely determined to continue to increase investment and strengthen our protocol to keep schools open and safe in Ontario.

Life sciences sector

Ms. Jane McKenna: My question is to the Premier. Premier, Ontario has always been a leader when it comes to the life sciences sector, but to see what has been accomplished is truly remarkable. Ontario is one of the largest life sciences sectors anywhere in the world, which includes MaRS, North America’s largest urban innovation hub.

MaRS Centre, housed with the University Health Network, is doing incredible work. For example, the second COVID-19 vaccination site for staff working in Toronto’s long-term care facilities and staff of acute care hospitals. The locations include 18 vaccine stations in the MaRS Centre’s auditorium. The location is intended to vaccinate staff working in Toronto’s long-term-care facilities, as well as staff working in acute care hospitals that are run by UHN and within walking distance of the site.

Speaker, can the Premier please share with the Legislature more about the great work being done at MaRS and UHN and in the life sciences sector?

Hon. Doug Ford: That’s great. I want to thank the incredible member from Burlington for the question. Yes, it was great to go down to MaRS yesterday with the members from Flamborough–Glanbrook and Mississauga–Streetsville, two leaders in economic development within our team. I also want to thank Yung Wu for inviting us. Talk about a true entrepreneur. What an incredible leader.

To see the incredible work being done in our fight against COVID-19—Ontario is a world leader in the life sciences sector, and MaRS is one of North America’s largest urban innovation hubs. We have some of the sharpest scientific minds right here in Ontario, and there’s nothing that we can’t do right here in Ontario. But our battle against COVID-19 requires all hands on deck, and they have stepped in to join the fight. I want to thank them for joining the fight. These world-class scientists are now using their incredible talents to help us beat this deadly pandemic.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Ms. Jane McKenna: Premier, the life sciences sector is a major driver in Ontario, as you know. About 51% of Canadian life sciences research and development spending occurs in Ontario. Some 51% of Canada’s total research and development personnel in life sciences are located in Ontario. The world’s top 10 pharmaceutical companies by revenue, and others, conduct clinical trials in Ontario.

Part of the success story of MaRS includes the great work being accomplished at the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and the work they are doing in the fight against COVID-19. Everyone from our top scientists to our heroic front-line workers are all working together to help protect us during this dark period.

Can the Premier please share with the Legislature more about the great work being done at MaRS with the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank the member from Burlington. The member is right about the incredible innovation that I saw and our other members saw when we went by there the other day.

We have some of the sharpest scientific minds right here in Ontario. Ontario’s 24 academic research hospitals have invested as much as $1.4 billion into research and development, and they employ 18,000 researchers and research staff across the province. Those are incredible numbers.

And we see that in the work of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research—we’re so fortunate; it’s literally a stone’s throw from here—not to mention the partnership with UHN, the largest research hospital in all of Canada. Under the leadership of Dr. Radvanyi, the institute is a world leader, on the absolute cutting edge of research and development. The Ontario Institute for Cancer Research has stepped in to join the fight against COVID-19.

Employment standards

Mr. Gurratan Singh: There are two indisputable facts we know: When people are sick and can stay at home, we are able to reduce the amount of COVID-19 spread across the province; and that workplaces are one of the leading areas of spread for COVID-19.

Despite these indisputable facts, backed by health care experts, the Premier not only refuses to bring in paid sick days, but he has also called them a waste of taxpayer money. A waste of taxpayer money? Let’s be clear: Working people not having to choose between going to work sick or paying the bills is not a waste of taxpayer money; it is the bare minimum that workers in Ontario deserve.

My question is to the Premier. Will he apologize for these reckless comments, and will he commit to bringing in paid sick days for workers across Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: Mr. Speaker, the difference between ourselves and the NDP: After companies are struggling, holding on by their fingernails, their solution was to start charging employers to pay for the two weeks’ sick days. We advocated—I advocated—hard for an additional $4 billion. I advocated hard to make sure we changed it from two weeks to four weeks—and I want to thank the federal government for stepping up and making it four weeks.

The people out there understand, number one, that you can’t talk out of both sides of your mouth when we —

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Hon. Doug Ford: Sorry about that. I withdraw.

You can’t say one thing and then mean something different. One second they’re complaining about small business, then they want to tax small business and put more of a burden on them—we went down that avenue before we got elected, and we lost 90,000 jobs—that they can’t afford.

We’re going to be there to support small business. We’re going to support the front-line, hard-working people. Because of us being strong advocates now, the people of Ontario are getting—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Supplementary question.

Mr. Gurratan Singh: Back to the Premier: Brampton is a city full of essential workers, front-line workers who literally cannot work from home. Because they go to work, others can work from home, because they move our economy. And yet there will be hundreds of workers in Brampton and across Ontario who woke up this morning having to make that terrible, impossible decision between going to work sick and having to worry about paying their bills.

Why is this Conservative government okay with putting essential workers at risk? Does the Premier still think that it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to protect essential workers in Brampton and across Ontario and their families? And will he commit to implementing paid sick days for all workers?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the member for Burlington and parliamentary assistant.

Ms. Jane McKenna: I would first like to say, Speaker, that the NDP’s words don’t match their actions. When I introduced my bill in November, Bill 152, the Occupational Safety and Health Day Act, the NDP voted against a bill that recognized the importance of supporting a health and safety culture in every workplace. That’s number one.

Number two, Premier Ford has demonstrated that he is leading a collaborative approach to supporting workers in Ontario by partnering on initiatives with the federal Liberal government. I’d invite the NDP to drop their partisan language and begin working with us for the betterment of working Ontarians.

COVID-19 immunization

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, Quebec announced that they have launched an online booking portal for those 85 years and older to start making their vaccine appointments tomorrow morning. Alberta is already booking appointments for 75-year-olds. In Ontario, our portal is not going to be ready until March 15—the ides of March. Doctors who are supposed to be calling the over-80-year-olds are still waiting for the government’s call.

The Premier said last December that when vaccines got here, we’d be ready. It’s almost March and clearly we are not ready. Speaker, through you, can the Premier tell us why Ontario is always behind the other provinces when it comes to a COVID-19 response?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader to reply.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Look, Mr. Speaker, I’ll say this: The member knows full well that there is a plan. We’ve leveraged the 34 public health units across this province to feed into that plan. We are leading the nation in terms of vaccinations. We are leading the nation in terms of testing. We are leading the nation in terms of rapid testing. We are leading the nation, with the exception of the Atlantic bubble, as the Premier has already mentioned, in terms of infections per 100,000. We are doing an incredible job, all of the people of the province of Ontario, and we’ll continue to do that.

The one thing that we’re missing right now—the one thing that we’re missing—is the vaccines. As soon as we get those vaccines from the federal government, we will be able to implement the second phase of our plan with respect to vaccinating the people of the province of Ontario and continuing to lead all provinces in getting that done.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Mr. John Fraser: Well, I would like to remind the member—I thank him for his answer, but it took almost half a million vaccines and 60 days to get to the 70,000 residents of long-term care who we all said we had to get to first. So supply wasn’t the problem. It was the plan. That’s what the problem was.

Today, in response to the question about why March 15, and why that was okay, the head of the task force said, “Well, we don’t need it”—that is absolutely shocking, “we don’t need it”—and then in another breath said, “I wish we’d had it earlier.” You can’t have it both ways.

Quebec is booking online appointments tomorrow morning for 85 years old and older. Alberta is already doing 75-year-olds. The city of Ottawa is ready to do 80-year-olds, except they don’t have your online booking tool. It’s like, how long have we had to prepare for this?

Speaker, back to the Premier again: Can he explain why Ontario is weeks behind other provinces in being ready for phase 2 of the vaccine rollout?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely, completely wrong, and what we’re hearing today from both opposition parties is absolutely shameful. The member will absolutely know that shipments of both vaccines were severely reduced to the province of Ontario. That is why we made the prudent decision to make sure that everybody who got a first dose could get the second dose, because it is important that everybody who gets the first dose actually gets the second dose so that they are protected.

What the opposition and what this member are suggesting is that we forget about those protocols and roll the dice with seniors, with hundreds of thousands of people. We chose not to do that, Mr. Speaker, and the results are clear: We lead the nation in terms of vaccinations.

We have a plan that has leveraged 34 public health units across this province, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to lead the nation in terms of protecting our people. If the member opposite can do anything, he can help us to make sure that his federal Liberal cousins live up to the obligations and to the things that they told the people of the province of Ontario, and get those vaccinations here for the people of Ontario.

Anti-bullying initiatives

Ms. Jane McKenna: Today is Pink Shirt Day, a day we stand together against bullying in all of its forms.

Ontario is unfortunately not immune to the plight of bullying. It is more important than ever to make sure our kids can receive the skills, confidence and mental health support that they need to succeed and that they can feel safe at school.

Could the Minister of Education please share how we are combating bullying, and supporting our most vulnerable students in the classroom and beyond?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member from Burlington for the question. As CAMH has reported, over one in five children in this province has faced one form of bullying. We believe it is unacceptable. There is no tolerance in this province and country for any form of bullying that targets students with disabilities, racialized students, LGBTQ students, students from faith communities and so many others who have been afflicted by this type of impact.

That’s why the government decided, in the health and physical education curriculum, to ensure that there’s mandatory learning—mandatory, compulsory education—that deals with bullying from grades 1 to 8, specifically both cyberbullying, given the prevalence of young people online, as well as traditional forms of bullying. We’ve doubled the investment in mental health—more than doubled it, Speaker—to support victims, to ensure they have access to care and, of course, provided training to educators in de-escalation and in other tactics and tools to help reduce these pervasive forms of impact on young people.

We’ll continue to stand with them, a whole-of-government approach, to support young people, to improve respect in our schools and the culture that we seek for all young people to be included in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Ms. Jane McKenna: Speaker, we know that bullying happens in many forms. It can be physical, it can be verbal, it can be in person, it can be online. But no matter what form, bullying is very intentional. There is a deliberate effort to hurt someone when bullying occurs.

But just because someone deliberately bullies another, doesn’t mean we have to let them. We can be just as intentional in our actions to stand up to bullying, to stand against those who are purposely hurting others, Speaker. We can and we must stand against bullying and continue to fight bullying, discrimination and hatred in all forms. Because, Speaker, if we don’t stop bullying at a young age, it turns into abuse at an older age.

Can the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues please inform the House why it is so important to stop bullying early and why we also need to call it out when we see it in adults as well?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues to reply.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member from Burlington for that question. She is absolutely correct: Bullying happens in many forms and can happen to anyone. If left unchecked, bullying can turn into more serious abuses as we get older. Things like intimate partner violence, abuse online and assaults are intentional efforts to harm others, and cannot be tolerated.

Speaker, this past Monday was Human Trafficking Awareness Day, which is another form of bullying and abuse that happens. If we do not speak out against these things, if we do not call them out, if we do not stop them, they cause incredible harm and trauma, and in extreme cases, death.

Putting a stop to bullying, whether in our schools, over the Internet or in our communities, takes all Ontarians being deliberate and doing something. We need to speak with one voice and act with one purpose. On Pink Shirt Day, I encourage everyone in this Legislature to be extra vigilant with our words and our actions, and to call out bullying when we see it. Thank you to everyone who is wearing pink today to support this.

Employment standards

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question is to the Premier—and good morning, everyone.

The Premier has said numerous times that he respects and listens to the medical experts, including those who run our public health units. Well, my health unit in Windsor and Essex county has joined 16 others already on record in support of paid sick leave during this COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, a letter to the Premier this week calls on the Premier to support Bill 239, the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act. That bill, Speaker, as you know, was introduced by my colleague from London West.

Will the Premier listen to the medical experts and accept their modelling projections that Ontario will not be able to control the virus without the safety of paid sick days?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant and member for Burlington.

I also want to say this again: Premier Ford has demonstrated that he’s leading a collaborative approach to supporting workers in Ontario by partnering on initiatives with the federal Liberal government. I’d invite the NDP, again, to drop the partisan language and begin working with us for the betterment of the workers of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Supplementary question?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, we all know the federal program is flawed. It’s cumbersome.

Earlier in an answer, the government said that they listened to the experts in Thunder Bay, the public health experts. The Premier said that we can’t say one thing and mean something different. In a letter to the Premier, the health unit says more than half of Canadian workers do not have access to paid sick leave through their employers, and 70% of those earning less than $25,000 don’t have paid time off when they’re ill. Those earning less than $30,000 are twice as likely to contract COVID and nearly three times more likely to end up in the hospital with it.

We all want an end to this pandemic. Bill 239 helps us to do that. Speaker, why can’t the Premier see the need to augment any federal contribution with a made-in-Ontario solution for paid sick leave during this global pandemic?

Ms. Jane McKenna: I first want to say that the NDP continues to provide inaccurate information to Ontarians by purposely failing to mention the federal paid sick days. The reason I say that is, we’ve said it over and over again—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw. Withdraw.

Ms. Jane McKenna: Withdraw.

I want to reiterate again what I’ve already said: that my minister, the Minister of Labour, Training and Skills Development, has done a phenomenal job working with his federal counterpart. People were complaining that it was taking far too long for them to be able to get the monies that they needed to receive for paid sick days. They’re now getting it within three days into their account. People are very excited, and I’m very thoughtful that that was able to happen.

I also want to say, again, that it’s our responsibility in this House to make sure that the people out there know of the monies that they’re able to get. I will reiterate what I said last time: There have been 110,000 Ontarians that have applied. To date, only $271 million has been accessed nationwide, meaning that there is still $800 million waiting to be spent. Why would we duplicate something when the program has 73% that’s unspent?

COVID-19 immunization

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Premier. The federal government asked the provinces to have a vaccine rollout plan ready in December. It’s now the end of February, and the government announced a plan this morning. But essential workers in vulnerable workplaces, where most of the outbreaks are currently happening, still don’t know when and how they will get vaccinated. This morning, General Hillier said that that would be figured out in May.

Earlier today in question period, the Premier said, “I’m standing up for workers.” If that is the case, can he please tell essential workers in vulnerable workplaces when and how they will be vaccinated?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader to respond.

Hon. Paul Calandra: As the member knows, in fact the initial thrust, phase 1 of the plan, which was introduced weeks ago, was to ensure that congregate care settings, long-term-care homes, retirement homes, hospital workers and those working in high-risk areas were vaccinated. As you know as well, Speaker, that program was a success.

There were some setbacks when the federal government was unable to provide the vaccines that it had guaranteed not only to the province of Ontario but other provinces as well. As you know, for weeks, shipments were either delayed or stopped entirely.

Having said that, the member is incorrect in one sense: We have focused on those settings and the results have been encouraging. That has been phase 1. Phase 2, as we mentioned, will start to move to those who are 80 years and older. There is a plan in place, leveraged by 34 public health units, and we are just missing the vaccines right now. But I’m optimistic that the federal government will live up to those obligations in the future—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The supplementary question.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s not just essential workers, it’s all Ontarians who are still a bit confused about the plan.

It is true that the federal government has been delayed in making vaccines available to all provinces. But with all due respect, the bottom line is that right now, Ontario is behind other provinces in launching the online booking portal. We are behind other provinces in vaccinating elderly residents in the community. We are also behind other provinces in the percentage of overall population that is currently vaccinated.

I’m just asking, with all due respect, can the government explain to us why Ontario is behind other provinces in vaccinations and what our plan is for catching up?

Hon. Paul Calandra: First and foremost, the first part of the plan is to receive vaccines. Once a significant and consistent delivery of vaccines is made available to the province of Ontario and to other jurisdictions, those parts of the plan will be implemented.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, many months ago, the plan was brought forward. It leveraged the 34 public health units across the province of Ontario; I’m confident that the member opposite would expect that. I know that the member opposite can appreciate how different every part of the province is. We focused the initial thrust on congregate care settings in high-risk areas, be it retirement homes, long-term-care homes, our medical professionals, those working in those environments. We made sure that everybody who received a first dose could get a second dose, which was very important given the fact that we did see a massive delay in deliveries through the federal government’s inability to give—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The next question.

Student safety

Ms. Jane McKenna: First, before I start my question, I want to thank the Minister of Education for his kindness and compassion to my constituents in Burlington.

We know that the vast majority of educators do incredible work each and every day. This has proven to be true time and time again, with the pandemic amplifying their importance. What is also true is that this government’s number one priority is the safety and well-being of our students. That includes protecting students from sexual abuse and mistreatment from our schools to their homes.

Can the minister outline the reforms he drove this fall to protect Ontario’s students, as well as how we will provide support for students who have, heartbreakingly, been victims of sexual abuse?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member for the question and the commitment, as I think we all have, as we know all educators have in this province, to keep students safe. Their safety is the paramount priority of this government.

We did take action to ensure that no educator with a history of sexual misconduct or racist behaviour can work within our schools by keeping those individuals out of our schools. Those individuals will not be able to work in schools in this province under this government through the changes, the sweeping reforms we made to the Ontario College of Teachers Act and the Early Childhood Educators Act.

Importantly, the move we made is retroactive. It will ensure individuals who were found with past misconduct are removed from our school system permanently. All disciplinary decisions will now, under this government, be publicly posted, because we believe parents have a right to know.

We’re mandating a sexual abuse prevention program for both the Ontario College of Teachers and the College of Early Childhood Educators to reinforce the importance of child protection and are, of course, extending supports, therapy and counselling to the victims themselves. This government is fully committed to protecting our kids every step of the way.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): And the supplementary question.

Ms. Jane McKenna: Thank you for that response, Minister. It’s hard to understand why information like this would not have been made public before, but as a parent I’m glad that it is now being made public. If this was occurring when my children were in school, I would definitely want to know.

We know that children and youth are impressionable, and the close relationships teachers have with their students can encourage a child to succeed or can cause trauma. This conversation is all the more important as we talk about issues like human trafficking, gender-based violence and even bullying. These conversations are hard but are necessary to have. Children and youth need to know that this behaviour is not okay and that there are supports if this is happening to them.

Can the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues please share with the House why it is so important for us to take these steps, especially for children and youth?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member from Burlington for that question. I couldn’t agree more with the member. I would be mortified if any of these teachers taught any of my daughters in school. I am proud to be part of a government and have a Premier that takes strong, meaningful action against sexual misconduct and racism.

We all know it but it needs to be said: Abuse of any kind, especially sexual abuse of children, is completely abhorrent and will not be tolerated.

The reality is that exploitation, especially among children and youth, occurs most often by someone they know, like a teacher. Again, I want to state that our teachers do absolutely incredible work, and the vast majority are upstanding in their care of our students. But we all need to take these actions against those who are harming children and ensure that they are not able to teach ever again in the province of Ontario. We must do everything we can to protect our children and youth. These changes are a step in the right direction.

Health care funding

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier. The Middlesex-London Health Unit estimates their budget will grow by $7 million more this year than in 2020 as a result of the pandemic. The budget increase is due to the payroll nearly doubling since last year to more than $1 million biweekly and added expenses for vaccine rollout and more.

The Middlesex-London Health Unit is not alone. Cities and public health units have stepped up to bear the brunt of controlling this pandemic. The Association of Local Public Health Agencies is calling for the province to step up its funding to all public health units.

Will this government commit to financially supporting our hard-working public health units in protecting our communities?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: It’s an important question and I appreciate the member for raising that. It’s important for a number of reasons. We have, since the start of the pandemic, been very clear that we will ensure that our health care and those supporting COVID-19 have all the funds that they need in order to battle that. That is a commitment that the Premier made. There have been significant funds made available throughout health care, in partnership with our municipal governments, whether it was for transit or transportation.

Really, it goes to the heart of what we’ve been talking about, and what the opposition does not seem to get. One of the reasons we are working so closely with the federal government is that a commitment was made early on that the provincial government would be able to put massive amounts of resources, like we have, into health care, so that the federal government could handle those payments to people, whether it was CERB or other payments like sick pay. That’s what working together does, Mr. Speaker.

It is because of that co-operation that we have been able, whether it was expanding resources to our health care system, pay for PSWs or a safe restart in schools, to get that done. So the member is absolutely correct: Work has to be done, and we will make sure it—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

The supplementary question.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Details released a couple of weeks ago showed that the Middlesex-London Health Unit used credit to cover the costs. The unit took out a short-term loan of just over $1 million to cover overtime costs and more. They were able to repay it only after receiving the province’s one-time funding for COVID-19-related expenses. But fighting COVID-19 is not a one-time expense. It’s not a one-time thing.

Our public health units deserve to know that they will have all the resources they’ll need to keep our communities safe. Will this government commit to timely, consistent and full financial support for our local public health units, so they are not forced to take out loans to do the public work that they’re meant to do to keep our communities safe?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, Mr. Speaker, I think we’ve been