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

September 30, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Sept-30 (PDF)

L189 - Wed 30 Sep 2020 / Mer 30 sep 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 30 September 2020 Mercredi 30 septembre 2020

Wearing of shirts

Orders of the Day

Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 faisant avancer le droit de la famille en Ontario

Members’ Statements

COVID-19 response

Indigenous relations and reconciliation

Special-needs students

Public transit

Social assistance

Veterans

Julia Notebomer

Indigenous relations and reconciliation

COVID-19 response

World Vision

Residential schools

Question Period

COVID-19 response

Long-term care

COVID-19 response

Concussions

COVID-19 response in Indigenous and remote communities

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

Affordable housing

Infectious disease control

COVID-19 response

Broadband infrastructure

Community safety

Mental health and addiction services

Long-term care

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Supporting Economic Recovery and Renewal in the Niagara Region Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 visant à soutenir les emplois dans l’industrie du vin et la croissance dans la région de Niagara

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Concussions

Motions

Private members’ public business

Petitions

Water extraction

Education

Long-term care

Veterans memorial

Long-term care

Education

Long-term care

Public sector compensation

Winter highway maintenance

Public sector compensation

Climate change

Documents gouvernementaux

Orders of the Day

Helping Tenants and Small Businesses Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 visant à soutenir les locataires et les petites entreprises

Adjournment Debate

Infectious disease control

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Good morning. We’ll begin this morning with a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

Wearing of shirts

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Point of order, the member for Kiiwetinoong.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I seek unanimous consent to wear this shirt in honour of Orange Shirt Day, which is today, and for the House to observe a moment of silence prior to question period to honour and remember those impacted by Indian residential schools in Ontario and across Canada. Meegwetch.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Kiiwetinoong is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow the members to wear an orange shirt and also to have a moment of silence before question period to honour the victims of residential schools. Agreed? Agreed.

Orders of the Day

Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 faisant avancer le droit de la famille en Ontario

Mr. Downey moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 207,

An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act, the Courts of Justice Act, the Family Law Act and other Acts respecting various family law matters / Projet de loi 207, Loi modifiant la Loi portant réforme du droit de l’enfance, la

Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires, la

Loi sur le droit de la famille et d’autres lois en ce qui concerne diverses questions de droit de la famille.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll look to the Attorney General to lead off the debate.

Hon. Doug Downey: Good morning. I’m pleased to stand in the House today to open debate on a bill that would, if passed, move family law forward for Ontario’s children and families.

I’ll be sharing my time with my colleague, the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, Lindsey Park. She has been such a strong advocate, Mr. Speaker, for changes to family law that would improve the lives of many parents and children across Ontario. She spent a great deal of time travelling the province, spurring conversations and gathering recommendations from many within the family law field. But more on that later, Mr. Speaker.

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge and thank the many justice partners who have worked tirelessly during the COVID-19 outbreak to support and expand access to justice for thousands of Ontario families. I would like to acknowledge the Ontario Bar Association, the Federation of Ontario Law Associations, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, Legal Aid Ontario, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association and all the practising lawyers on the front lines of family law.

The staff at the Ministry of the Attorney General, who work in the justice system all over the province, have worked around the clock to maintain the integrity of our justice system and drive it forward. They’ve been resilient, they’ve adapted quickly and they’ve worked with the utmost professionalism under the most stressful of times. I want to thank all of those members of the Attorney General’s office and justice partners who came together to make our system continue to function.

Mr. Speaker, people rely on our justice system to address urgent matters in moments of tremendous stress and crisis, such as child protection proceedings and restraining orders. It’s thanks to our partners at the Superior Court, the Ontario Courts of Justice and the Court of Appeal, and the front-line workers across our justice system, that these critical services were able to continue during an outbreak and continue to be available as they continue to deal with the impacts of COVID-19. We aren’t through this yet, Mr. Speaker.

We have provided alternatives to going to court, including facilitating virtual hearings and updating our online services to now file dozens of various Family Court documents, set up or change child support payments, and file for joint or simple divorce online. Throughout the COVID-19 emergency, we’ve worked with our partners to move Ontario’s justice system forward decades in a matter of months. We’ve gone through groundbreaking modernization initiatives that have already changed the way Ontarians access justice services, and these aren’t temporary measures.

Since March, the Superior Court of Justice has had over 50,000 virtual hearings. Hearing these matters remotely using video and teleconference, we took action to expand e-filing to include more than 400 more forms of civil and family law matters, increasing the scope of e-filing by almost 10 times. We’ve rolled out a new online court case search system to open up public access to information that you previously had to line up at a courthouse to see; of course, if you can’t get in the courthouse, you can’t get to the kiosk and you can’t see it, so we put it online where the world can see it.

And we’re gradually rolling out access to Thomson Reuters CaseLines, which is a document-sharing and e-hearing platform that supports remote and in-person hearings. It’s a game-changer for Ontario’s courts.

Ensuring justice services were available when needed has been critical for thousands of families, particularly at a time when it’s so emotionally difficult, and financially taxing as well, Mr. Speaker. The past seven months have challenged Ontarians and their governments, the justice system and our province’s justice partners. We needed to act swiftly and make changes many thought impossible or that it would take years to accomplish. We pressed forward together to keep Ontarians safe and to ensure that even in the most difficult moments, they would know that justice would be done.

As a result of the historic collaboration and ingenuity of so many dedicated professionals, I’m confident that Ontario’s justice system, including the family law sector, will emerge from this crisis more resilient and better prepared to respond to future challenges better than ever before. But the work is far from over, Mr. Speaker, and there is broad consensus among all of our partners that we cannot go back to the way things were. Let me be clear: We are not going back. The proposed Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act builds on this forward momentum.

This legislation proposes much-needed changes that would make it easier, faster and more affordable for people to resolve their family law issues.

Family disputes pose unique challenges in our justice system. Ontarians encounter the family law system in some of life’s most difficult moments, both emotionally and financially. I think everybody knows somebody who has gone through the system. It is difficult, it’s overly complex, it’s outdated and historically it has not helped to reduce the stress and anxiety Ontarians experience as they address their matters. The system can be better. We’re making the system better.

Our government is working to apply common-sense solutions to strengthen the family justice system so it’s more accessible and responsive. If passed, these changes would continue our work to move family law forward in the province by doing a number of things: supporting families and vulnerable children; simplifying a complex and outdated justice system; and making it easier for people to resolve their legal matters. Families and the legal community have told us many times that this system needs to be more accessible, responsive and resilient.

They have told us many times, they’ve told us over many years and they’ve told us over many governments that the system isn’t working for the people who need it the most.

The consultations led by my parliamentary assistant Ms. Park were one of the first steps in our review of family law and civil procedures. As part of a summer-long review in 2019, PA Park met with hundreds of lawyers and legal professionals across Ontario. In offices and community gatherings, and sometimes even in coffee shops, she sat down with those who had experience in family law in order to get their front-line perspective on how we could improve.

Across the province, we asked how can we simplify unnecessarily complicated processes so that it works better for those who interact with the justice system when they are interacting with it. This included exploring ways to simplify family and civil court processes for Ontarians, reduce the costs and delays associated with family law processes and help resolve family disputes faster. It wasn’t just doing things a little bit differently; it was changing processes, changing rules, changing how we needed to move forward.

The people who are on the front lines, the people who are working in the system, we received their suggestions to improve both family and civil legislation, regulations and processes. They all helped to inform the actions we’ve proposed in the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act. We’re debating it here today in the House as the result of a lot of consultation and a lot of work all across Ontario, and it’s the people of Ontario who have their voice in this legislation.

Now, a comment we heard during these consultations, often from family lawyers, is that the family law appeals processes needed to be clearer and easier to navigate, and I could not agree more. Let me just say this, Mr. Speaker: Three different courts hear family law cases in Ontario—the Ontario Court of Justice, the Superior Court of Justice and, of course, with the Family Court branch of the Superior Court of Justice, and then the Court of Appeal has a role to play as well. The appeal process is different at each court. It makes it difficult for families, and sometimes even family lawyers, to decide where they should appeal a matter.

If I was to try and describe in words how the appeal process works and for different matters, I know that I would lose you. It is very complicated. As one senior practitioner told me—he sent me an email—“Excellent changes all around, especially with the appeal process which confused even senior counsel.” I think that says it all, coming from a senior counsel, saying even with 25 years of experience in the family field, he got confused on a regular basis about which appeal and it was a real labyrinth of decision-making. So we’re fixing that.

Mr. Speaker, if some family lawyers find this process confusing, I can only imagine how intimidating it must be for a self-represented litigant. Self-represented litigants make up a significant proportion of those who interact with our Family Court. I’m not saying this as an official stat, but it’s known within the profession that self-reps are somewhere around 70% of family law files. It’s very high. It’s certainly over 50%. That may be a dated number, but the sense of magnitude is significant. It’s not a small or an isolated problem.

After consulting with the Chief Justices of Ontario and other justice sector partners, we found a better way, and we found a better way with consensus. To make the system easier for everyone to navigate, we’re proposing to clarify where to appeal family law cases and increase consistency and fairness regardless of where a case is heard. This is something I think the public expects of their system.

Should this legislation pass, Mr. Speaker, the appeals process will be more consistent for families regardless of what court hears their matter. These changes would also help children in difficult circumstances by ensuring final decisions are reached faster. We know that for families who rely on the family law system resolving matters in a timely fashion is critical to create stability for the children and to create consistency. If passed, the legislation will ensure the path from start to finish will be more clear and straightforward.

Of course, I’ve had discussions with federal Attorney General Lametti, calling on the federal government to follow through on its commitment to roll out and accelerate our work on the unified Family Court by providing necessary appointments that would support the UFC expansion. Eventually, once the UFC is expanded across Ontario, family law appeal routes will be even clearer for litigants. It will be different kinds of courts hearing family matters.

I just want to talk for a moment about unified Family Court. Actually, the first one was in Hamilton, and I affectionately called it a pilot project in the late 1970s. That pilot project existed on its own for many, many years, well over a decade, before it really grabbed hold.

And here’s the thing: We have Family Court at two different levels, depending on what matters they’re dealing with, whether there’s child custody or whether there are child issues, or whether there aren’t child issues or it’s just property issues. Again, it’s fairly cumbersome from a user standpoint.

I remember many years ago when I was in school, one of the things that we studied was the UFC, the unified Family Court. Fast forward to now: We only have about half the courts across Ontario that are UFC, so that has become a priority for me as we move forward. That’s why I’ve spoken to federal Attorney General Lametti about it. He assures me that they are committed to it, and so I look forward to moving forward with him in that direction. We’re hopeful the federal government will deliver on that sooner rather than later, and we’ll continue to have those discussions as we talk through COVID and beyond.

As I just mentioned a few moments ago, the family law system is dealing with a large number of self-represented litigants, and the number keeps growing. The pressure on our judges is extraordinary. Not everybody thinks about that. Not everybody thinks about what happens in a courtroom and how a judge needs to deal with it. A judge can’t act as counsel to either of the parties, a judge has to be balanced, but also needs to make sure that the parties are heard.

So there is a little bit of a pressure when somebody comes in as a self-represented litigant and may not know all of the rules, may not know all of the parts. The judge has to ensure that justice is done and that the law is applied appropriately. These cases wind their way through the system, and when we have self-represented litigants in a complicated system, it just increases pressure on the system across the board, not just on the filing clerks who take the materials, but the people who process them, who were interacting with the self-reps.

It then makes its way to the judge, and the judge has to be balanced and fair and assist but not take a side. So we need to simplify the system to reduce the pressure on all of our justice partners.

Today I also want to talk about an important non-legislative initiative that helps families identify the core issue in their disputes and resolve those disputes faster. This is another way that we can supplement the system to help people who are entering the system. It also helps alleviate the growing pressure on the judges in Ontario.

Our government has been working with the Superior Court of Justice and Chief Justice Morawetz to expand the dispute resolution officer program. I’m proud to share that we’re extending the dispute resolution officer program to two new locations: Kitchener and Welland. The program already exists in nine other locations around Ontario, and our government’s investment will complement those existing locations. This is a positive step forward and something that we heard from people during the consultations.

We heard it both from family law litigants and the practitioners who saw the value, the lawyers who saw the value, in having clients be able to access what we call a DRO, a dispute resolution officer.

So what is a dispute resolution officer? It’s a title, but the person behind the title is a senior family lawyer, somebody appointed by the Superior Court of Justice to hear the case first at what are called case conferences; that’s where a parent or guardian wants to change an existing order. They can help people in their family law disputes narrow the issues so that by the time it hits the judge, the issues have been narrowed a little bit, they’ve come closer to an agreement, and provide early, neutral evaluation of their case.

So it’s a resource to help people navigate the system, and it helps them at the front end so that they can scope what they need to do and potentially even come to resolve between themselves.

I believe strongly in the DROs. The expansion complements the changes proposed to allow families to benefit from the expertise of the dispute resolution officers. This is part of our government’s commitment to bring more accessible and efficient services to the people who need it the most. It’s as simple as that. I want to thank our partners at the Superior Court of Justice for their support on this important initiative. Their perspective is invaluable, and I look forward to our continued work together.

Our government doesn’t run from problems when Ontarians call our attention to them. In fact, we lean in to them. We acknowledge the issues, we ask the questions, we investigate solutions and we do our best to make a difference for people. That’s why we made it our mission to cut red tape, not only for businesses and jobs, but for all Ontarians. The Premier appointed an Associate Minister of Red Tape Reduction, Minister Sarkaria. He’s one that I’m proud to stand with in this House. The work he’s doing on red tape reduction is unparalleled.

Our government has rallied around the leadership of Minister Sarkaria, and our persistent and creative approach to fixing issues for people has changed the way the provincial government approaches obstacles that cost Ontarians unnecessary time and money.

I could spend my entire time talking about the amazing work that Minister Sarkaria is doing, but part of his work is encouraging us to do similar work in our ministries. Part of our work to move family law forward involves removing outdated processes that can delay family law professionals and, in turn, delay their clients. It costs money. It costs time.

Through this act, Mr. Speaker, or in conjunction with this act, we’re eliminating an old reporting requirement that required arbitrators to submit detailed reports on every family arbitration award they decided. The ministry doesn’t regulate arbitrators, and no other jurisdiction in Canada has this reporting requirement, at least not as far as I can find. Eliminating the unnecessary reporting requirement not only helps make government more efficient, but also saves time and increases efficiency for our family arbitrators and our front-line workers.

This change will free up more capacity in the system so arbitrators are able to focus on families and their needs. This is another step in our efforts to make it easier and faster for people in Ontario to resolve their family legal matters.

Mr. Speaker, the filing of these arbitration reports started many, many years ago, I expect, with the thought that we would use it as an analysis tool. But we have over a decade of that data, and quite frankly, it’s an unnecessary red tape piece, and it just has to go.

Now, I also mentioned that we’re making great strides to improve the family law system for its many participants, including parents and caregivers. One particular example I’d like to highlight today for the members of the House is our online child support service. Families are able to use our online service to quickly and easily set up or change child support payments, and they can do it without having to go to court. It operates on consensus, and the service helps parents and caregivers spend less time on frustrating administrative paperwork and travel to a courthouse.

They can spend their time making plans and spending time with the kids, focusing their time where they should be, not on cumbersome systems.

However, parents who use the online service can’t easily use it to enforce an order outside of Ontario. It just wasn’t built into the design of that system. Parents outside of the province need a certified paper copy of the support notice in order for it to be registered, or for it to be enforced. Mr. Speaker, users of the online service can’t get a certified copy without a visit in person to a courthouse. That’s why we’re proposing to allow the certification of child support notices that are issued through the online child support service. These proposed changes would allow families to manage and enforce their child support amounts anywhere in Canada.

Having parents and caregivers use the online child support service allows court resources to be focused where the need is greatest in more complex family law cases, particularly those involving child protection. Mr. Speaker, again, it’s one of those things that, if you were to design a system, you would have done it in the first place, but for reasons unknown to me, it wasn’t. We want to make sure the system is working for the end-users.

The system hasn’t been used as much as I expect it will be in the future. This is one of the features that people were looking for. If they couldn’t get it, why would they use the service? So I’m very encouraged that we have the support of our partners, but mostly because we heard from people who are using the system that these little things, sometimes, just cause them not to access the system in a certain way. We’re fixing that. We’re not afraid to say the system wasn’t working quite properly; now it will.

Last year, the federal government made wide-ranging changes to the language in the federal Divorce Act. The changes are the first substantive changes made to the legislation in 20 years—20 years, Mr. Speaker. This isn’t the first piece of legislation that we’ve come to the House with that hadn’t been touched in over 20 years. I’m not going to get into class actions and legal aid and all the other stuff, but I can tell you, we’re hard at work updating things by decades. This is another one.

Twenty years ago is the last time the act was comprehensively updated, so it’s a bit of an understatement saying changes are overdue. The dynamic in divorces has changed; the dynamic in child welfare has changed. As we all know, a lot of things have changed in 20 years. I forget the exact date, but I think the iPhone was invented 12 years ago or something, just for a sense of perspective. Google was registered 25 years ago.

The federal Divorce Act amendments take into account the evolution of legal terminology—words matter, Mr. Speaker, and people in this House know words matter; they are our craft sometimes—as well as the common use of family dispute resolution processes such as mediation. They are certainly much more prevalent and much more sophisticated than they were 20 years ago.

Federal Bill C-78 passed on June 21, 2019, last year, and is scheduled to come into force March 1, 2021. It was going to come into force this year, but it was put off, I expect, because of the pandemic, and so we know March 1, 2021, is the coming into force of the federal Divorce Act, as amended.

With the support of our family justice partners, our government closely reviewed the federal amendments to determine the changes that would impact Ontario’s family justice system and what changes would be needed to prepare for the amendments coming into force next March. We received dozens of responses, the vast majority in support of the solutions we prioritized. Our proposed amendments came through those, and the discussions and the consultations that parliamentary assistant Park will undoubtedly talk about a little bit.

I want to thank a number of the justice sector partners who provided feedback on the proposed amendments and came out publicly to support this part of the bill. The Ontario Bar Association, the Middlesex Law Association, Legal Aid Ontario, the Family Dispute Resolution Institute of Ontario and the Ontario Association for Family Mediation have all come out publicly and said, “This is the right thing to do. This is what you should be doing.” I’ve said before that our goal in Ontario was to avoid any unnecessary confusion for Ontario families with respect to those changes introduced by federal Bill C-78.

Family law is an area where people often represent themselves. I’ve talked about that. Our government wants to make changes that follow from the implementation of the federal law to make things as consistent and easy to understand as possible. If you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, if we didn’t make this a priority and bring it forward, you would have two different family law systems operating, with two different kinds of language and two different sets of tools. I mean, it’s confusing enough. The whole system is confusing enough.

In response to the federal government’s modernization of the federal Divorce Act, where they heard from hundreds and hundreds of people, in addition to the hundreds of people that we heard from, Ontario is proposing to update our laws to reflect the federal changes. It includes updating the parenting terminology in Ontario’s legislation to match the terminology in the federal government legislation. It means removing terms like “custody” and “access” in order to move away from a perception that one parent wins. You hear: “I won custody.

I won access.” The “parent wins, parent loses” thing is really not in the best interests of the child. It sets a stage for a combative discussion. Those words will be replaced with terms like “decision-making responsibility,” “parenting time,” and “contact.” We don’t have to have a series of winners and losers in this. We want all the children to win as we move forward and have the parents play the role that they’re best able to play in the situation.

The changes don’t just affect our courts and the family law sector. The divorce terminology is present in education, medical fields and many other places. We’re not inventing language; we’re adopting language that’s consistent across different fields. We’ll continue to engage with schools, government offices and medical professionals to ensure they’re aware of the revised terminology before it comes into force next spring. We’re also proposing to align Ontario’s family laws with the federal law to promote and create clarity around the best interests of the child.

The Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act would adopt a more comprehensive list of factors for the court to consider. It’s an enumerated list of factors for them to consider. It’s not exhaustive, but it gives some guidance in determining what the best interests of the child may be as set out in the federal Divorce Act. So again, we’re aligning with that. For example, it asks the court to consider the stage of development of the child; the nature of the relationship with the child’s parents, siblings, grandparents; history of care; and the plans for child care as factors to consider when determining the best interests of a child.

We’re also proposing changes to ensure Ontario’s family laws are equipped to better address family violence. The proposed Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act provides greater clarity regarding what constitutes violence. It adopts the definition of “family violence” and “family member” as set out in the federal Divorce Act.

Our review and consultation on federal Bill C-78 also pointed to another area where we could possibly make positive changes. We’ve identified opportunities to provide clarity and guidance around circumstances that require the relocation of a child. The proposed amendments would adopt a statutory framework for when a person with decision-making authority relocates with or without a child. If passed, they would also reduce the burden on our court system by adopting the obligations in the federal Divorce Act that encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution processes whenever appropriate, as well as the duties of courts to consider the existence of other proceedings.

The proposed amendments to align Ontario’s legislation with federal changes to the Divorce Act echo our goal to make it faster and easier for families to navigate the courts.

I’m nearing the end of my speaking time, Mr. Speaker, and I know parliamentary assistant Park has much valuable insight to provide on the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act. I’m grateful for the opportunity to talk about this very important piece of legislation. These common-sense changes will help simplify a complex and outdated justice system and, if passed, make the family justice system easier to navigate while reducing the need for court intervention.

We know we must continue to move towards a more accessible, responsive and resilient system. Our focus must be on families and children, especially children in difficult circumstances. This was a large part of our focus as we considered the proposed changes in the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act. This was also our focus when we found ways to reduce the cost to families who need to be involved in the family law system, and other taxpayers as well. We know through our consultations that all Ontarians benefit from streamlining the Family Court processes and shortening the time to resolutions.

I look forward to continuing to engage with the members of this House and Ontarians on this very important legislation, and I ask all members of this House to consider supporting the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act. Let’s keep working together to support children and families in our communities. Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much, Attorney General. Now we’ll turn further debate over to your parliamentary assistant, the member from Durham.

Ms. Lindsey Park: I’m pleased to rise in the House today for second reading of the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act. This truly marks the beginning of significant family justice reform in the province of Ontario.

When I was in law school at uOttawa and in the early years of my practice as a lawyer, I could never have imagined I would be part of working to modernize the justice system in Ontario, nor could I have imagined that I would join Ontario’s chief justices, deans of law schools and law professors, and lawyers across the province in ongoing discussions about how to simplify the family law process for Ontario families to truly serve the people of Ontario.

What was repeated to me throughout the process of reviewing our justice system, and in particular the family law system, is that people shouldn’t be required to navigate a complex and outdated justice system during some of the most difficult times of their lives.

Now, I have a lot to say today in this speech, but before we get into discussion about the bill, I want to acknowledge and thank our many partners in our justice system, who have worked tirelessly during the COVID-19 outbreak to provide urgent access to justice for thousands of Ontario families.

The COVID-19 outbreak highlighted an immediate and urgent need to evolve and modernize our justice system. I’m certain that when our justice system was designed, it never could have contemplated Zoom hearings and the need to provide for social distancing and the other effects of COVID-19. The many stakeholders in the justice system and the Family Court have worked to adapt quickly to these changes, and for that, we are grateful.

Our government had committed to modernizing our outdated justice system well before the COVID-19 outbreak. I remember this Attorney General’s first few speeches. He highlighted that as a goal last summer. But these unprecedented challenges drove us to look at what we could get done quickly, to collaborate and innovate and, so far, to accomplish far more than we could have imagined.

Since March, we have invested in technology in order to move more services online and make it easier for the people of Ontario to access justice. For example, we’ve updated and expanded our Justice Services Online platform so that users can submit close to 400 more civil and Family Court documents online, without having to walk into a courthouse, day or night, from anywhere across the province. Currently, in Toronto, we’re piloting a cloud-based document-sharing and e-hearing platform.

These are the kinds of things I heard when visiting some of our most rural communities, where it’s not that easy to drive around the corner to a courthouse. It can be great distances that you have to travel. This modern platform enables parties to an action and their lawyers to share court documents of any size. These documents are available to those involved 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Our government also recently introduced legislative amendments passed by this Legislature so that Ontarians facing a speeding ticket, for example, or a ticket related to another provincial offence, can dispute those tickets by audio or video, where the local municipality offers it. The proposed Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act that we are debating here today, Speaker, would build on this progress and reinforce our government’s commitment to continue moving boldly towards a more accessible, responsive and resilient justice system.

So why are we here, Speaker? Individuals, families and businesses interact with court processes every day and, more often than not, they face unnecessary delays and exorbitant legal costs to resolve their disputes. Particularly in the family law context, we need processes that help couples make the best decisions for them and their children with a court system that causes minimal additional stress and emotional strain. It’s estimated that more than 40% of marriages in Canada will end by their 30th year of marriage, and for most Ontarians, going through a separation or a divorce will be their first interaction with our court system.

We all know that often couples already face significant financial and social changes at that time in their life. Their family and their children are going through a lot before they even start the court process. We should have the goal in this Legislature of working towards a justice system that adds minimal additional stress and emotional strain to what is already one of the most difficult circumstances of someone’s life, and that’s the circumstance, Speaker, that’s leading them to the courtroom. One of the ways we can reduce that additional stress and emotional strain is by making the justice system easier to navigate.

It’s with that in mind, Speaker, that in July 2019, I went on tour. Tasked by the Attorney General, I led a review of family and civil legislation and processes in Ontario. Throughout this review, I met with members of the legal community and the public across the province. This included Ontario’s chief justices, deans of law schools, law professors, the Ontario Bar Association, the Federation of Ontario Law Associations and the many rural Ontario law associations, amongst other stakeholders.

I also spoke to those who have used the system. I listened to the stories of hundreds of Ontarians, including lawyers and legal professionals talking about their clients’ experiences. Our aim was to explore ways we could simplify family and civil court processes, reduce costs and delays for families, particularly those going through a separation, and find pathways to earlier dispute resolution. My question was simple: How can we simplify this process for families?

I heard first-hand from our many justice partners, front-line staff, business owners, families and lawyers about the need for common-sense changes in our justice system. We heard about the incredibly challenging circumstances that many families face, which were being amplified through unnecessary court delays and excessive legal costs. We’re grateful for the ideas and feedback we received, and we’ve been hard at work developing a more accessible, responsive and resilient family justice system that will continue to evolve for families across this province.

Much of what we heard and learned from these discussions is reflected in the actions that we’ve taken over the last eight months and in the proposed legislation.

Over the last year, the government has responded to a number of the recommendations that came from those discussions, some of them accelerated by COVID-19. One broad recommendation, Speaker, that I heard in the Deputy Speaker’s own riding—and, of course, there are lots of smaller recommendations within this broad one—is the need to increase the use of technology in our court system to make it more efficient.

It’s quite unbelievable, actually, when families first interact with the court system. They face modernization in every other area of their life—they’re ordering, perhaps, their coffee on their smart phone—and then you’re dealing with all this paper. You can’t get rid of the paper when you’re dealing with the court system. It makes no sense. We have some of the brightest minds in our country working in the justice system. We should be able to make it better, and, truly, that’s what we’re setting out to do, Speaker.

I heard that people wanted us to increase the use of online filing of documents and also increase the use of teleconferences or video conferences where the matter being dealt with is straightforward in nature. In many parts of the province, these advancements in technology could reduce the costs of court cases by reducing the time a lawyer and parties to a case might spend travelling to and from a courthouse or, even more than that, waiting for their matter to be heard at the courthouse once they’ve arrived.

I actually remember someone saying to me in the meetings I kicked off the consultation with in Ottawa something along the lines of, “Lindsey, you’ll be my hero if you can just get us online filing.”

Since those discussions last summer, we’ve already taken steps to allow more online filing and introduced many modern online services to help people resolve their family law issues outside the courtroom. We expanded the province’s online filing service in August. That expansion included enabling Ontarians to now file up to 150 Family Court documents online in any new or existing proceedings in all three of our Family Courts, whether it’s the Superior Court of Justice, the Ontario Court of Justice or the unified Family Court.

We’ve also made it easier for Ontarians to find court case information without leaving home. I know many reporters who sit up in the press gallery here every day are grateful for this change as well. They don’t have to leave home; they can access this online service that provides public access to case information online about criminal and civil court cases at the Superior Court of Justice.

We’ve also expanded teleconference lines and video conference technology in courtrooms across the province. Speaker, this may seem simple. You may have assumed, as I did when I was elected, that there are teleconference lines in every courtroom in the province. Well, actually, in March, that still wasn’t true. So I’m really proud that under the leadership of this Attorney General, since March, over 600 teleconference lines have been added across the province and we now have at least one courtroom in every single courthouse in the province that is capable of video conferencing. These are all steps to make the family justice system more accessible and easier to use.

To echo the sentiments of the Attorney General and our many partners throughout the justice system in Ontario, we cannot go back to the way things were. This is just the beginning. We must continue to innovate across the entire justice system.

Other things we heard, Speaker, and continue to hear, in fact, as the Attorney General mentioned, is this government should continue to work on expanding the unified Family Court model. Unified Family Court streamline Family Court processes to ensure Ontario families only have to go to one court—they don’t have to figure out which court—to resolve their legal issues.

We worked with the judiciary and our partners in the federal government, and in 2019, we expanded the court model to eight more locations. Residents in Belleville, Picton, Pembroke, Kitchener, Welland, Simcoe, Cayuga and St. Thomas now have access to these courts. More than half of Ontario residents are living in regions with a unified Family Court now. This means more Ontario families can spend less time navigating confusing courts and legal processes. But more work needs to be done. We’d like to see this model in 100% of our court locations, and we will continue to work with the federal government to advance this priority.

Another topic I heard in my meetings was the need to expand the dispute resolution officer program that’s currently in nine locations in Ontario. I’m pleased that the Attorney General, as referenced in his remarks, is investing in the growth of the dispute resolution officer program to more court locations.

Through this program, people involved in family proceedings are provided with an early evaluation of their case by a neutral third party. Dispute resolution officers are senior family lawyers who are appointed to conduct family case conferences. And I can tell you, Speaker, these are people truly committed to serving our justice system and serving the people of Ontario, and helping families resolve their disputes. A dispute resolution officer can help families identify and narrow the issues in their case and facilitate an early settlement.

In locations where the dispute resolution officer program is offered, the first appearance on a request to change an existing Family Court order will come before a dispute resolution officer instead of a judge. Dispute resolution officers mainly deal with requests for changing existing child or spousal support orders. The dispute resolution officer will then meet with the parties to determine their issues and explore settlement options. We need to see more of this in the system.

This program is currently operating in the region of Durham at the courthouse in Oshawa—the Lieutenant-Colonel Sam Sharpe courthouse—as well as at courthouses in Toronto, Barrie, Brampton, Milton, Newmarket, Hamilton, London and St. Catharines. If you’re unfamiliar with the program, I encourage you to speak to the family lawyers in your area. This program receives lots of positive reviews. As the Attorney General mentioned, the ministry is now working with the Superior Court of Justice to expand this program to Kitchener and Welland.

This program builds on our government’s commitment to help families resolve their matters more quickly and easily, and the positive feedback I’ve heard about the dispute resolution officer program during my consultations.

Now I’m going to get into the substance of the bill, Speaker, but I thank you for letting me take the time to talk about some of these things that happened outside of this Legislature and through changes within our judiciary and court administration, because they’re all part of the consultations that started last summer and the process that has led us here to this bill.

As the Attorney General noted, these proposed changes in the legislation we’re debating today respond to the amendments in federal Bill C-78, known as the Divorce Act. Bill C-78 passed on June 21, 2019, and is scheduled to come into force on March 1, 2021. With the support of our family justice partners, our government closely reviewed the federal amendments to determine how changes would impact Ontario’s family justice system and what changes would be needed to prepare our province for amendments coming into force next March.

After having consulted with our provincial justice partners, I’m pleased to say the amendments introduced in Bill C-78 largely reflect our government’s vision of a faster and easier court process for families.

We have seized opportunities that the federal bill presented to reduce the burden on the court system by encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution processes outside the courts, and those can include Indigenous alternative dispute resolution processes that are specifically designed for Indigenous communities. There are also changes to better address family violence and to provide more clarity around the obligation of the courts to put a focus on the best interests of the child in their decision-making.

As part of our ongoing plan to make government smarter and in response to the federal government’s modernization of the Divorce Act, the Ontario government is proposing, with the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward legislation, to align many of the

definitions in our laws at the provincial level with the federal Divorce Act changes. This will avoid confusion, and this alignment that I speak of includes updating parenting terminology in Ontario’s legislation to remove outdated terms like “custody” and “access.” They would be replaced with modern terms like “decision-making responsibility,” “parenting time” or “contact.” Evolving this language helps our family justice system to move away from the idea that there are winners and losers in a custody dispute.

This legislation, if passed, would help us move toward a less combative justice system. The proposed changes in the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act would ensure that Ontario statutes, including Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act, are consistent with federal laws. These changes will help avoid confusion created by one set of terms used by the courts in the case of parenting decisions where a couple is going through a divorce, and another set of terms used for parenting decisions where couples are not going through a divorce or were never married.

I also want to highlight specific provisions that have been added to encourage families to resolve their issues through out-of-court family dispute resolution processes. The culture, too often, when someone has a family dispute, is to resort to the court system to resolve it. When appropriate, it’s important that our justice system find ways to encourage earlier and alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation, collaborative law or arbitration. I am pleased references are made to these processes in this bill.

Section 33.1(3) specifically says, “To the extent that it is appropriate to do so, the parties to a proceeding shall try to resolve the matters that may be the subject of an order under this part through an alternative dispute resolution process, such as negotiation, mediation or collaborative law.”

These kinds of processes, as I referenced earlier, are very important for Indigenous communities that have a different way, a different culture, around how they resolve disputes. Writing this into the legislation is part of increasing awareness of these services and their valuable role in our justice system. But, Speaker, this is only a small piece of what we need to do to increase public understanding about the availability of these services. There is certainly more work to do before individuals see these alternative types of dispute resolution as a first step before the court process, instead of as a last resort when the court process becomes too frustrating or too expensive.

I also want to highlight

section 24 of

schedule 1, which outlines what the court must take into account in determining the best interests of the child in a proceeding for a parenting order or contact order. I’m pleased there’s a clear list of factors, Speaker, which the court must consider when considering the impacts of family violence on a child. You’ll also see in the first few pages of the bill a clear definition of what family violence is. We know, for example—we’ve talked about it a lot in this Legislature—animal violence is often a predictor of other types of family violence. Those are important things a court needs to look at.

There are a lot of good changes in this

section of the bill to provide checks and balances that will help protect children when difficult changes to family relationships are taking place. I will add that making these provincial changes to align family law at the provincial level with the federal Divorce Act changes was one of my most frequently heard recommendations on my tour across the province last summer.

Another frequent topic was the need to clean up the way family law appeal cases work in Ontario. Where does your family law case go next if you want to appeal a decision? That was confusing to many. As the Attorney General said, even family law lawyers were confused. That’s the next major problem we propose to fix with this bill.

Speaker, the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act aims to simplify the unnecessarily confusing process of filing family law appeals. As the Attorney General has touched on, the current path to filing appeals from family law cases is complicated and unclear. Three different courts hear family cases in Ontario: the Ontario Court of Justice, the Superior Court of Justice, and the Family Court branch of the Superior Court of Justice, also known as the unified Family Court. Each of these three courts has a different route of appeal for their cases.

Having different routes to appeal a case depending on the court can make it difficult for even lawyers to determine where to appeal a matter. We know that a significant number of the people navigating the family justice system are representing themselves, without help from a lawyer, so you can imagine how those individuals must feel trying to figure out this process. I will highlight, as the Attorney General referenced, that some estimates suggest that it’s as much as 70% of individuals appearing before courts in family law that are self-represented and don’t have a lawyer.

We have to respond to that reality as legislators. We have to make the system easier for people to navigate without a lawyer.

This is one of the reasons why we’ve proposed these changes to the family law appeal process: to fix this for Ontarians. To make the family law appeal process easier to navigate, the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act proposes amendments to the Courts of Justice Act to simplify the appeal routes for family law cases. We are proposing clarifying amendments to the Courts of Justice Act and various other statutes to help simplify appeal routes in family law cases.

These proposed changes will help Ontarians—lawyers included—to better understand the family law appeal process and ultimately help reach final decisions faster. This common-sense proposal, if passed, would make it easier for parents to understand where to appeal their case, regardless of where their matter is heard.

I want to highlight one specific part of this proposal that intentionally streamlines the process for appeals when cases involve The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and involves children who have been removed from the jurisdiction they normally reside in. These cases often require court direction and need to be dealt with expeditiously. Our changes enable that to occur. Canada, as context, is a signatory to The Hague convention which seeks to protect children and their families against the risks of illegal, irregular, premature or ill-prepared adoptions abroad.

It puts safeguards in place to make sure inter-country adoptions are in the best interests of the child and respect the child’s human rights. It also creates a system of co-operation among countries to help ensure these safeguards are respected and to prevent the abduction of, sale of or trafficking of children.

I think we can probably all agree in this chamber that cases involving topics of this nature should be expedited. I’ve risen many times in this place, as you know, Speaker, to speak about the crime of sex trafficking. We must do everything we can to fight it, and this will help the courts do their part.

I also want to highlight that the calls for changes to the appeal routes in Ontario are long-standing. The need for a solution has been directly commented on in a number of Ontario Court of Appeal decisions over the last decade. Speaker, as I have seen across our justice system over the last eight months, decade-old problems can be solved quickly when all justice sector partners come together, motivated to improve the system. I want to thank all our justice partners who I was able to meet with to come to this solution, and I want to say: This is not the end; this is just the beginning.

The goal of the proposed Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act is to support Ontario families and protect vulnerable children. If passed, these common-sense changes would build on our government’s commitment to simplify and modernize a complex and outdated justice system by making the family justice system easier to navigate. Families do not need to, and should not, spend days, weeks and months tied up in the court system. What they need is guidance and support to resolve their issues simply and quickly, and to move forward with their lives.

That means access to family law services regardless of where they are; access to out-of-court dispute resolution tools and resources, such as dispute resolution officers, family arbitrators and mediators; and access to a family appeals process they can understand and actually use, no matter where they are or what court is dealing with their matter. This work is only the start of what needs to be done to move family law forward. Ontario families need to know that their government is working to make the family law system more responsive in their time of need.

This bill is an important step to move Ontario family law forward.

I just want to conclude by saying that it’s incredible the power and responsibility we have as legislators to deal with complicated issues that matter to so many people in Ontario. I must say, I was humbled by the number of people across this province who wanted to participate in a productive way to move the family law system forward. As I said, this is just the start, and I look forward to ongoing collaboration with all our partners, all the users of the system across the province. We want to continue to hear from you: How can we do better? How can we keep moving our system forward?

We understand that we did not get here overnight. If we were designing a system ideal for families, it probably would not look like the system we have and are faced with today. We wouldn’t want to change it overnight—it would be irresponsible to change it overnight—but we will continue to take steps day by day, month by month, as long as we’re given the privilege to govern and given that responsibility by Ontarians.

We’re committed to continuing to moving Ontario family law forward to a place that’s easier to navigate, reduces costs and is faster, so people can move on with their lives and spend time with their family. I hope everyone will support this bill.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to thank the Attorney General and his parliamentary assistant, the member from Durham, for bringing this bill forward, the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act.

This is probably a once-in-a-generation time that we’re going to see this act opened, and so a lot of work, I’m sure, has gone into it. I know I’ve also heard from folks who have been part of the consultation, but they think that this act could have gone further. They think that to truly help families, we could have done more. Instead of tweaking some language around the edges, I think that there could have been stronger measures that were put into place to truly ensure that families had the ability to navigate the very cumbersome court system.

As the critic for children’s services, not a lawyer, but as someone who has dealt—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Question?

Miss Monique Taylor: Oh, jeez, that quick already?

My question is: Why didn’t you put stronger measures in place, to actually ensure that families had the ability to move through the court system much freer?

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you for the question. Certainly it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to open the act. Our focus was entirely on the children and the families who were going through the process, and how complicated the process is. Of course, there are things we could have tweaked differently, that we could have done differently, but aligning with the federal Divorce Act was important for the consumer, to have consistency.

So are there things that we might have done a little bit differently if we were operating entirely in our own silo? Probably, but it was more important to get the consistency that you’re seeing before you in the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act.

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

Mrs. Nina Tangri: Something that I remind my constituents about who have talked to me about their child custody and access issues during the pandemic is that the justice system has never closed. Ontario’s justice system is here and available to serve families and children during some of the most difficult times. Can the Attorney General please share an update on the justice sector’s recovery as the province begins to gradually and safely reopen?

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you to the member for Mississauga–Streetsville, the home of the Bread and Honey Festival, for that question. There are so many things that have changed, and, Speaker, she is absolutely right: The system did not close, and it was because of all the justice partners that came together. The way that we have transformed the system is absolutely remarkable. I’m getting positive responses from Attorneys General from across Canada who are seeing what our government is doing to transform our system, keep it moving and improve it while we’re going.

I heard early on in the pandemic somebody talking about building the plane while you’re flying it. Mr. Speaker, that’s exactly what we did. We have an absolutely top-rate system that we transformed through a very difficult time, and I’m very, very proud of that.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: Again, I’ve been listening closely and I’m looking for those aspects that are going to be helping families through this process. Now, one of the things that is mandated by the court process is supervised access for the same children who you are having the best interests in. Some of those children have not had access to their families through COVID due to a lack of funding from your government. Specifically, the YWCA in Hamilton has not had an increase in their base funding since 2008, so no extra money for the pandemic, no money for PPE, no money for extra cleaning.

Families are still not being able to see their children because your government has not added funding. Is this in the best interests of the child?

Hon. Doug Downey: I thank the member for the question. I think what she’s doing is taking one example that I have not talked to her about—I’m happy to talk to her about it—and extrapolating it across the system. The amount of health and safety measures we have taken in the courts, from deep cleaning right from the beginning, to where we have provided PPE, we have provided wayfinding, you can go on your phone and you can pre-clear—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I am finding it very difficult to hear the Attorney General. I realize that it’s a little difficult to talk through our masks, but that increases the volume levels, so please, I would ask that we keep the volume down as low as possible, and maybe we can eliminate the sidebars for the time being.

Back to the Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you, Speaker. I was just speaking about the tremendous lengths we went to in terms of providing, under the supervision of medical professionals, PPE and hand sanitizer and wayfinding and electronic pre-clearance to go into courthouses, prioritizing what happens, working with victim services, putting cash into the system to allow people to work remotely and to allow them to work differently, with laptops and VPNs and digital recording devices. Mr. Speaker, I could spend 10 minutes and just rhyme off the list of things that we did for the health and safety of the participants in the justice sector.

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

Hon. Doug Downey: This is classic red tape. This is just the very definition of red tape. It started off as a good idea and it had an original purpose, but it just existed in the system and nobody really looked at it anymore, and it became something that was no longer effective. When a mediator was doing a family mediation, they had to do a detailed report and submit it to the government. Somebody within the government took that; whether they reviewed it, I’m not sure. We’ve been doing this for over a decade.

The original intention was to get data to make some decisions, so it started off with a good reason. We now have over a decade of data. There is no longer a useful reason to cause a mediator to have to fill out those forms, to have to submit them, to have government manage them. It is the very definition of red tape, and I am so pleased that my colleagues parliamentary assistant to finance Cho and Minister Sarkaria both encouraged me to look at every particular angle and see if we could find more red tape to cut. This is a prime example, Mr. Speaker.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: Access to justice should be something that should always be a focus here in this House. The Attorney General himself talked about self-representation within family law; 50% to 70% of people are self-representing, quite frankly because they can’t afford a lawyer. Now, if the government had made mediation mandatory instead of a suggestion, I think that would have been helpful.

But also, the cuts to legal aid have affected the most vulnerable people in our communities. A basic family law case costs about $12,000, and the income cut-off for legal aid is $20,000. That doesn’t really leave a lot of room for our most vulnerable families to be able to get through the legal system with representation—and they become outgunned and, in most cases, lose their children in the case.

Why do they not think that legal aid is an important aspect of access to justice within this bill, making sure that people truly have access to justice?

Hon. Doug Downey: There are a couple of pieces in there that I’d like to address. I know it may not be intentional, but people often say they can’t afford a lawyer and that’s the problem. The lawyer is not the problem, Mr. Speaker; the problem is the system is complex. It’s complex, it’s difficult to navigate and it’s difficult to get an answer.

That’s exactly what we’re doing here: making the child support system easier to navigate, cheaper and reliable, to serve the people who need it when they need it the most.

The question about legal aid, about income cut-off: We’ve increased it year over year. We increase that income cut-off yearly. We’re providing a first-rate service. We provide more service than any other jurisdiction in Canada. We provide just excellent, top-notch service in three different branches.

Again, I’ll answer more in the supplementaries, if possible.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: I listened intently about some of the efficiencies, I think we talked about, which improve access to justice. Maybe we could have the minister elaborate on some of the more key things they’ve done, with the last 30 seconds.

Hon. Doug Downey: Access to justice is what this is all about—justice for the children in particular and then the participants otherwise. Access means that they can get what they need, they can understand what they need. They can get answers. They can get them faster, they can get them cheaper, they can get them more consistently. Access to justice is all of those things, and each part of this bill addresses that in some way—again, very proud to have it in second reading. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): A good debate this morning, but unfortunately, the time for debate has expired.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

COVID-19 response

Mr. Wayne Gates: I rise today to tell the Premier that he must deal with COVID wait times in Niagara. We have outbreaks in nine schools. We have worried parents, teachers, grandparents and kids.

In Niagara, families can’t get COVID tests for days, and when they can, they are forced to wait hours before getting tested. One family with a six-year-old called for a test on Tuesday and didn’t hear back until Friday. On the day that the child did the test, they waited four hours and needed to leave repeatedly to take a washroom break. Imagine that experience for a six-year-old. These are kids who don’t understand COVID or testing, and are scared. They miss school and they wait in their car the entire day for a test that may or may not happen.

Stories like this occurred before the closure of our drive-through testing facility, which often had lineups at 6 a.m., despite opening at 9 a.m.

When COVID cases start rising, we have very little time to get the virus under control. We know that in a week, cases can spiral out of control and begin to overwhelm our hospitals. Front-line workers are trying their hardest, but they just can’t keep up.

We can address these issues head-on. We must have easier and quicker access to testing in Niagara.

To the Premier, I say this: Look at what’s happening with testing in Niagara and get the needed resources there immediately. With the proper resources in place, this process can be quick and easier for children and their families. Parents will need less time off work and above all, it will give the people the information they need to keep our community safe.

Mr. Speaker, people without sick days to cover missed days from work and kids missing school can’t wait a week for testing. It’s not reasonable and it’s not safe. The Conservative government must support our front-line workers, release funding and supports—

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

Indigenous relations and reconciliation

Mr. Deepak Anand: I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the treaty lands and territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit, traditionally inhabited by Indigenous people. As a settler, I am grateful for the opportunity to meet here and would like to say thank you. Thank you for all the generations of people who have taken care of this land for thousands of years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge Orange Shirt Day, recognized on September 30, the day inspired by Phyllis “Jack” Webstad who, in 1973 at the age of six, attended her first day of school in Williams Lake, BC, wearing a brand new orange shirt gifted by her grandmother. When she arrived at the school, Phyllis’s new orange shirt was stripped and taken away from her, something she never wore again. Phyllis has courageously spoken about the devastating impact this action had on her dignity and self-worth, and how it made her feel as if her existence did not matter.

Today, I am wearing an orange shirt to become a part of the reconciliation journey, acknowledging the painful truth of the long-lasting, multi-generational impact of the residential school system on the Indigenous communities. As we move forward together on the path of reconciliation, I urge all Ontarians to honour survivors like Phyllis and their families who have bravely shared their experiences, and to commit to learning more about the legacy of the residential school system in Canada. We need to acknowledge that every child matters.

Special-needs students

M me France Gélinas: My constituent Mrs. Skevington is the mother of two young children, Paige and Eithan. Both of her children have special needs and have individual education plans with their schools in Hanmer in my riding. Since August, Mrs. Skevington has been trying to get answers from administrators, from principals, from health professionals about how to keep her children’s individual education plan with online learning. Unfortunately, all she’s getting is frustrated and confused.

Mrs. Skevington is a good mother who wants her children to succeed, and she is deaf. The challenges that she faces on a daily basis are unbelievable. Her son is not motivated to learn online. Many online tools do not have closed captioning, leaving her and her son to try to sign to each other words that he has not even learned yet. Keeping her son with ADHD engaged in online learning is causing a lot of family friction. It is demoralizing.

Her daughter, Paige, is slowly losing her hearing. A teacher wearing a mask gave her online classes. That did not work; she could not read lips and the words were all muffled. Therefore, she moved to in-class learning, yet the amplification system she needs is not available. So most days, she leaves school with a stress headache.

Speaker, our public education system is the great equalizer. Our schools need the resources during the pandemic and always to meet the educational needs of those two children and all children with special needs.

Public transit

Ms. Lindsey Park: On September 18, I had the pleasure of joining the Minister of Infrastructure, who is also the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, along with the member for Whitby and the member for Pickering–Uxbridge in Oshawa to announce more than $126 million in joint federal, provincial and regional funding for 11 public transit projects that will modernize and improve public transit and active transportation in Durham region. Here is where some of the funding is going.

The implementation of a 10-kilometre north-south bus rapid transit corridor through Oshawa that will run along Simcoe Street from Royal Street north to Highway 407. The project will include eight new conventional buses, new bus shelters and traffic signal upgrades that will improve service reliability along the transit corridor.

The construction of bus rapid transit lanes with active transportation corridors are also happening on Kingston Road in Ajax, Dundas Street in Whitby and downtown Oshawa, including new cycling lanes and multi-use paths to connect to transit stations.

The replacement of older vehicles with 11 conventional buses with new hybrid electric vehicles, 13 conventional buses and 16 mini buses, as well as the purchase of two additional articulated buses for the bus rapid transit fleet.

Together, these investments will provide residents with more frequent, accessible and reliable bus service.

Social assistance

Mr. Joel Harden: Last weekend, our office held a virtual town hall on social assistance, and it was a disturbing event. I’m going to ask all my fellow colleagues here listening to this just to be aware that I’m about to talk about some challenging things, and if anybody is watching this at home with small children, I invite you to ask them to tune out.

With that warning, Speaker, what we heard from far too many people participating in our town hall was that people with disabilities are living in such abject conditions that many have applied for medical assistance in dying. Christina Ranieri, the executive director of Ability First Ottawa, a many-decorated person who works with over 300 clients, informed us that over 100 people she works with have made this application.

I’m raising this today to ring an alarm bell with my colleagues in this House, because folks have been living alone, socially isolated, many without access to the appropriate medications, many living in constant pain. I invite us to think about what it’s like to live without powered equipment that’s necessary to live our lives, whether it be a chair or oxygen tanks. I invite all of us to ask what it’s like to have a $100-a-month benefit now out of their monthly income, when they were living already deeply below poverty.

Speaker, the member for Windsor West and I have a meeting later today with an advocacy organization on this issue. I invite the government to immediately reinstate that $100 a month and help folks who are absolutely struggling. We have to do it as a province.

Veterans

Mr. Randy Hillier: This past Saturday, I joined with MP Scott Reid and Mayor Fenik, the mayor of the town of Perth, along with hundreds of our other residents and visitors, to pay tribute to many of the veterans from Perth with the inaugural unveiling of the Pathway of Heroes. Some 101 banners commemorating our veterans are now being displayed, hung on the street lamps of downtown Perth. The following is the address that I delivered to that large assembly of people:

“I’ll be brief, because the actions of those we celebrate today speak much louder than any words that I could possibly deliver. Today, we honour those who volunteered to take a stand against tyranny and defended our principles of freedom, justice and democracy. Those we remember today held the strong belief that even with our differences, we have much more in common, and that the society we built together is better than any alternative and worth defending.

“Courage is not the absence of fear, it is doing what you know is right—despite your fears. We honour their courage today, lest we forget.”

Julia Notebomer

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Perth–Wellington is home to so many accomplished young people. Julia Notebomer is one of them. She is an open-water swimmer. Julia recently became the youngest person ever to swim across Lake Erie. This is a remarkable achievement. She spent months preparing for this 20-kilometre swim. Her training included swimming five times a week in open water and practising in her parents’ unheated pool in the colder months. Julia successfully completed her swim on August 30, her 14th birthday.

Julia’s athletic accomplishments are just part of the story, Speaker. She used this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for something more: Julia wanted this event to double as a fundraiser for the Make-A-Wish Foundation, which works to fulfill the wishes of critically ill children. Julia raised over $27,000.

Julia, congratulations on your achievements and thank you for inspiring all of us, young and old, to use our talents to benefit others.

Indigenous relations and reconciliation

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I rise today to recognize Orange Shirt Day. We observe this day to raise awareness of the impacts of Indian residential schools in our communities. We acknowledge the survivors, and the ones who did not survive.

Phyllis Webstad, an elder now in Williams Lake, BC, inspired Orange Shirt Day. She was six years old on her first day of residential school in 1973. Before she left home, her grandmother dressed her in an orange shirt. She said, “When I got to the school, they took away my clothes, including the orange shirt. I never saw it again.” She continued, “The colour orange has always reminded me of that day, how no one cared and how I felt I was worth nothing. All of us little children were crying and no one cared.”

Indian residential schools were a creation of government colonial policies, using the churches. They took away our way of life and our language from generations of our children. They neglected us. They sexually abused us. They murdered us.

Through these schools, Canada attempted to commit genocide against Indigenous peoples. This genocide exists in the complacency of governments today. Our people pay in full for this inaction with their health and with their lives.

Governments can and must do better, but today, I’m grateful for those who survived and who thrive, and I’m thankful for the ongoing strength and resilience of our people. Kitchi-meegwetch.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Kaleed Rasheed: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I represent the great riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville, where I have lived for almost 20 years. My riding is a place where my kids were born and are growing up and where my parents are living out their golden years.

The community where I live has been performing exceptionally in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. Throughout the last six months, I have witnessed tremendous kindness and generosity from individuals, families, businesses and community groups. People came together to collect donations of money, food and PPE for those who needed it most. They took the time to stay home, isolate and socially distance to combat the rise in cases earlier this year and did their best to get us all through the first wave and into phase 3 of our recovery.

I want to thank the residents of the Mississauga East–Cooksville community and all the communities across Ontario for doing their part to stop the spread of COVID-19. Please, don’t forget to download, install and activate the COVID Alert app on your phone, wear your mask, keep your distance, wash your hands and get your flu shot.

Ontarians have shown remarkable resilience and commitment to supporting each other this year. I know we can continue to show one another just how much we can accomplish when we work together.

World Vision

Mr. Billy Pang: World Vision is a global relief, development and advocacy organization that aims to support and empower kids, families and communities to rise out of poverty and tackle injustice.

Today, World Vision, with the support of volunteers, is helping more than four million children in nearly 100 countries. I’m proud to say that I have been a volunteer for World Vision for over three decades and am currently sponsoring six kids. This organization has a special place in my heart.

Six kilometres is the average distance a woman or a child in the developing world walks for water. Too often, the water obtained is not clean enough to drink and may cause illness, even death. This year, 2020, Global 6K aims to fund clean water projects in the Menkao region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone who attends and participates in World Vision’s Markham–Unionville: Walk for Clean Water fundraising event. Following the health protocols, and in combination with four teams—Billy Pang and Friends, Grace Chinese Gospel Church of North York, MC Muay Thai Academy and Conditioning and Wesley Marie and Wini Zumba Dance—we fundraised over $10,000 to support clean water projects for kids last Saturday. Let’s continue to change lives one day at a time.

Residential schools

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Earlier this morning, the member for Kiiwetinoong sought and received the unanimous consent of the House to have a moment’s silence in tribute to the Indigenous victims and survivors of the residential school experience. That moment of silence will take place now. I will ask all members to rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

Question Period

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question this morning is for the Premier. For weeks the Premier has been saying that all the decisions that he is making have been made on the advice of experts that sit around his COVID-19 command table. My question is, will the Premier actually tell us today exactly who those experts are?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: We have been very clear about who is involved in the table from the very beginning. Of course it’s Dr. Williams, our Chief Medical Officer of Health; we also have Dr. Huyer, who is helping with outbreak management; Dr. Yaffe, who has also appeared and spoken in many contexts; as well as many other physicians.

It’s also important to note that as we developed our fall preparedness plan, Keeping Ontarians Safe, we conducted consultations with over 45 groups, including over 300 experts in all aspects of our health care system. So our fall preparedness plan was not something that came from one or two people; this was something that was done in conjunction with all aspects of our health care system, including the people that are on the public health measures table.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: For months the Premier has said, “You’ll know what I know” when I know. That’s exactly what he said: You’ll know what I know when it comes to COVID-19. Yet the government refuses to say which long-term-care homes are at high risk, which workplaces have had outbreaks and which experts the Premier is consulting behind the scenes at his COVID-19 command table.

What possible reason could this Premier have for not telling us the information that people deserve? Why is he keeping these things secret?

Hon. Christine Elliott: There is nothing secret here. We have been straightforward and transparent with the people of Ontario with every step that we have taken throughout this COVID-19 outbreak. We have brought forward the experts. Today there was a release of modelling information. As the Premier has always indicated, when he knows it, the people of Ontario will know it. That’s exactly what’s happening now. That modelling information has been brought forward.

The Chief Medical Officer of Health comes to almost every briefing that we have, at 1 o’clock. There is a presentation. I understand that you have asked for an update, and that will be provided to you and to the leaders of the other parties this afternoon. That information is going to be provided. It’s important that everyone know the decisions that are being made and why they are being made. That’s why it’s so important to have this information come forward, and we’re prepared to answer any questions that you want to ask about it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You can’t pick and choose transparency. This is not the case. We have asked questions about who is at the command table. They refuse to answer. We have asked questions about which long-term-care homes are considered high risk. They refuse to answer. We have asked questions about outbreaks in employment areas, in workplaces. They refuse to answer. That’s what we’re asking for. We’re asking for transparency across the board, not just when this government picks and chooses to put out a tidbit of information.

He says he listens to experts, the Premier says that, but now we’re unprepared for a second wave because the Ford government ignored experts for months. For months, in schools and long-term care, they were literally writing the Premier and saying, “We are not prepared for a second wave.” And now here we sit. Experts in public health and hospitals were warning the Premier that the hospital testing system was heading for a crash. Yet the Premier still insists that he has his own experts.

Why is he refusing to be transparent and tell people, tell all of us, who those experts are?

Hon. Christine Elliott: First of all, we have been open and transparent with this information. We have brought the doctors forward. We know that it is very important to the people of Ontario to hear not just from us as politicians but from the doctors about what the situation is on the ground. And those doctors have come forward.: Dr. Yaffe has come forward; Dr. Williams has come forward; Dr. Allen, Dr. Brown, Dr. Huyer; and the list goes on. Those are the people who are at the public health measures table.

But we’ve also consulted more widely than that. We’ve consulted with the Ontario Hospital Association. We’ve consulted with the Ontario Medical Association, who has just come forward with a report advising us of their recommendations with respect to COVID-19 and dealing with a second wave. We are acting on those recommendations.

I would also like to point out that the OMA stated in their report that the government should stay alert and adapt to evolving science and take an iterative approach to developing guidelines and recommendations as new research, evidence and data emerges. And that is exactly what we are doing.

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Yesterday, three more families learned that their loved ones died in Ontario long-term-care homes from COVID-19 in Ottawa’s West End Villa and in Toronto’s Fairview Nursing Home. At least 46 homes now have COVID-19 outbreaks, a number that has doubled in the last week.

Will the Premier accept any responsibility for his failure to put measures in place that could have actually saved these lives?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Long-Term Care to reply.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I am deeply troubled when I see members of the opposition laughing and smiling about this. This is a serious issue.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That’s not even happening.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: When I see people smiling and laughing about this, I am—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Stop the clock. Order.

I’m going to caution all members on their language and the statements that they’re making so as to ensure that we have a civil question period for the next 53 minutes.

Start the clock. Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you, Speaker. Our government puts the safety and well-being of residents and staff as a priority. All the measures that we’ve taken with Public Health, with Ontario Health, with the public health units in the various locations, these are measures that are ongoing with the command table.

We look at the number of outbreaks—and I want to emphasize this point again, that the vast majority of outbreaks we have right now have no resident cases. Our surveillance system is working. I take this issue very, very seriously, and I hope that we all do.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Seniors in long-term care needed protection months ago. Back in February, the Premier and the Treasury Board refused to put the extra money into long-term care that the department was asking for. Again, in June, the sector was begging the government for more resources, begging for more support, and the Premier said no. Instead, the Premier waited for the second wave to hit, and scribbled some numbers on a page. He’s still refusing to implement the recommendations of his own expert panel for higher wages and a minimum standard of care for every resident in long-term care.

A new study confirms that the Premier’s inaction in the spring actually led to needless deaths. Why is the Premier constantly literally waiting until people are dying before taking action?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: I do take exception to the characterization of the efforts of the Premier. I look at his efforts with the PPE, I look at his ongoing efforts. This is his top priority. There’s no question in my mind. All resources are being used. We continue to work to add more layers, to do more, working with the evolving information that is coming from the science in understanding the spread and being vigilant and adaptable; our surveillance in the homes, looking at the type of spread as the evidence changes, working with our ethics table, working with our public health table, working with the science table.

I want to impart the appreciation that I have for our Premier, the Premier of Ontario, who has done nothing but support me, has done everything to support residents and staff, and you will be hearing more this week about future efforts.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, if the Premier’s top priority has been long-term care and this is how he has behaved, how he has treated the long-term-care system and the people who live in it, we are in big, big trouble.

The Premier said yesterday that the numbers speak for themselves. He’s absolutely right: 46 homes are currently in outbreak; two more homes in Ottawa had to be taken over by hospitals because the for-profit operators couldn’t handle what was happening in the homes; 1,867 seniors have died—my note said 1,866, although another person died just since this note was given to me this morning.

When the Premier says the numbers speak for themselves, what numbers is he actually talking about? Because these numbers are horrifying and shameful and could have been prevented.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you once again for the question. Of the 78,000 residents in long-term care, one tenth of 1% are affected right now. We have 90 resident cases. That perspective needs to be understood. The majority of our homes that are considered in outbreak are considered in outbreak because they have either a case of a resident or a staff. In the majority of our homes, the vast majority, there is not a single resident case.

We will continue to add layers—with this virus, the fight of all our lives. I would appreciate if the opposition would understand and be part of the solutions. We’re going to need all the energy we have to muster to fight COVID-19, not only in our long-term-care homes but across Ontario. A collaborative effort when our energy needs to be at the best would be appreciated.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Londoners are doing their part to limit the spread of COVID-19. They’re following public health guidelines. They’re lining up for hours to get tests for themselves or their children. But now the government is capping how many tests can be done in London. A leaked government memo states bluntly, “Do not proceed with any new growth or expansion of assessment centres at this time.”

Speaker, just two days ago, our local medical officer of health warned, “We’ve had so many people that have been turned away, or not even seeking testing because of the long lineups, and that means that there are certainly many times more cases in the community than we’re able to diagnose right now.”

Why is this government capping testing in London, instead of allowing assessment centres to expand?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member opposite for the question. First of all, there is no one who needs a test who is going to be turned away. There is no capping; there are no quotas. Anyone who needs a test is going to be given a test.

But there has been a lot of misinformation, I would say, about this, and I welcome the opportunity to provide some clarity.

Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to quote from the actual memo that went out from Ontario Health yesterday. In my supplementary, I’d like to provide further information about it. This is what it says:

“Anyone who needs to be tested per the guidance should get tested. There are no caps or quotas on testing consistent with the new guidance.” It goes on to say, “To that end, we are working with assessment centres on testing targets that are based on a historical utilization of tests in each region. A testing target refers to how many tests a region should need, based on what we historically observed in each region. They also help us determine the number of tests coming to us and from where. Additionally, these tests go beyond anticipated need, based on the ministry’s new testing—

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

The supplementary question?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The memo also states, “Do not proceed with any new growth or expansion of assessment centres at this time.” This minister gave exactly the same answer to the people of Ottawa when my colleague raised this issue in this chamber yesterday.

The government can pretend that its COVID response is fine, but its failure to plan for a second wave means that tests are being capped in both southwestern Ontario and eastern Ontario. The Premier knew that his government had struggled to complete even 20,000 tests a day in the spring. He knew that demands for testing would increase in the fall as students returned to school and post-secondary education. He knew that a testing backlog has been growing, leaving people who do get a test waiting days for their results.

Speaker, why does this government think it’s acceptable to cut off the line and cap the number of COVID tests available to the people who need them?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Neither the member for Ottawa South, nor the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, nor the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry have the floor. All of you have to come to order.

Start the clock. The response? Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Just to complete, what the guidance note from Ontario Health said is, “Ontario Health will continue to monitor testing volumes daily and adjust, as needed, in order to align with and support the ministry’s guidance.”

So the answer is the same because the strategy is the same. We have anticipated the need to increase testing, which we’ve done. We’re up over 40,000 tests per day. We’re increasing our lab capacity, and we’re increasing our contact management. We’re putting $1 billion into managing this. What I need to say to the member and to the people of Ontario is, the reason why this memo was sent out is so that we can continue to support increased guidance and testing as necessary.

This is a very complicated system when you have volumes coming in from specimens all across the province from very different regions with different labs doing the testing, in some cases, with the revised guidance. Somewhere the test volumes are going down; somewhere they’re going up. We’re trying to match the guidance with the specimens going into the labs, bearing in mind there’s a three-day limit on a specimen.

What we’re trying to do is to make sure we can continue to increase the testing—

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

The next question.

Concussions

Ms. Lindsey Park: My question is for the Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries. Today is Rowan’s Law Day. Rowan’s Law has helped keep athletes safe and protected against the severe impact of concussions, which are much more dangerous when they’re neglected.

I can say, as an athlete myself, understanding the pressures, it’s not always easy as an athlete to take yourself out of the game due to an injury, particularly injuries others can’t see, like a concussion. Would the minister please tell us what action our government is taking to change that culture in sport because this is a very real issue?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I’d really like to say thank you to the member from Durham for raising this important issue today on the third annual Rowan’s Law Day. I think it speaks volumes, as an athlete herself, as she’s committed to making sure that we have a safer entry and re-entry into sport for all Ontario young athletes.

Earlier today, I had the opportunity to be at SickKids hospital here in Toronto to mark a new announcement that the government is embarking upon. Obviously it was quite emotional, given that Rowan Stringer, my former constituent, died tragically at the age of 17 from second-impact syndrome at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. We were able to announce last week, with the committed member from Ottawa West–Nepean, that we will be creating a national dialogue at the next federal-provincial-territorial meeting of sports ministers.

In addition to that, we had an exceptional panel last night with former broadcaster and NHLer Nick Kypreos, former NHLer and Olympian Eric Lindros and former CFL player Tim Fleiszer to talk about the impacts of concussions on young athletes. I’ll have more to say in the supplemental, but—

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

Supplementary question.

Ms. Lindsey Park: I want to thank the minister for her work around Rowan’s Law Day, and I want to thank Rowan’s parents for sharing her story. It’s a story that has inspired so many Ontarians. The message is this: If you’re injured, stop and sit out.

As many members are aware, our minister has coached her daughter’s hockey team and no doubt faced situations where young athletes wanted to play through injuries. Minister, as not only a coach but as a mother, what advice can you share with young boys and girls who are playing sports in Ontario?

Hon. Lisa MacLeod: I think the first message will be from Gordon and Kathleen Stringer, who lost their daughter: Her death was preventable. Therefore, it’s important that we do take every precaution we can, particularly with young minds.

I will say that our government is also committed to making sure that we support rural communities, which is why my colleague the Associate Minister of Energy yesterday made an announcement on my behalf for $25,000 to rural communities for enhanced support.

Over the years, our ministry has invested over $780,000 for concussion awareness and protocols, but today was very memorable because we were able to announce a $200,000 investment into a documentary in the name of Rowan Stringer, to showcase her life and death, and how it was preventable.

What I ask all parents to do is, just because you paid the entry fee—and I know it’s expensive and you want your kid to play in that last tournament—if they have a concussion, it could be potentially fatal, and it’s just not worth it. If Gordon and Kathleen Stringer had been able to prevent their daughter’s death, I guarantee they would have.

COVID-19 response in Indigenous and remote communities

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, communities across Kiiwetinoong were in crisis before COVID-19. The pandemic has only deepened these crises. In Neskantaga, there has been 26 years of boil-water advisories; to be exact, 9,373 days without access to clean drinking water. In another community, 85% of the homes do not have running water. In the community of Wapekeka, there have been approximately 25 suicides over the last 30 years.

What resources have been provided by the government to these communities to help them with the COVID-19 pandemic?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I thank the honourable member for his question and for his statement this morning.

Mr. Speaker, just two years ago, this government made it a priority to reset the relationships with Indigenous communities to focus on things on the ground and in the community that could and would make a difference. Some of that is borne from the experiences that I had living and working in many of those communities over the course of my career, and I appreciate the leadership of the Premier and the support of our caucus and this government in bringing some of those to fruition. Others, Mr. Speaker, were business that was unfinished from a previous government that had simply not put priorities where they mattered most, and that was in the communities.

That’s why we’ve put a particular emphasis on major projects across northern Ontario. The east-west tie comes to mind, the Watay Power project, fundamentally improving the fortunes and quality of life in those communities.

We remain committed to improving the quality of life and investing in Indigenous youth across northern Ontario.

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

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Thank you for the response. Again, I think simple, basic human rights such as clean drinking water are very basic. We need Ontario to invest in them.

Since I’ve been here, and since I’ve been up north, growing up, I know governments come and go. Programs come and go. Funding comes and goes. That happens. As Ontario enters a second, more serious wave of COVID-19, what is this government going to do to support these communities against a second wave?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I have to say that during the first wave, and continuing today, not only have we had thorough and consistent engagement with the Chiefs of Ontario and their leadership council every single week, I and many of my colleagues, ministerial colleagues, have joined them. It has been much appreciated. Not all the conversations have been easy, to the member opposite—there have been some difficult and tense moments.

But underpinning that was the confidence that this government was committed to making sure and supporting the incredible leadership that Indigenous leaders have shown, from Regional Chief Archibald to the grand chiefs, especially and including Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler, with the bigger challenges of protecting isolated communities, and the chiefs of those communities. I would say, given the number of COVID cases in those communities, they and we have done a great job. We will continue to remain engaged and make the priority investments to protect those communities. He has the word of the Premier and my word—

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

Next question.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Premier. Our COVID policies and the risk that they pose require an honest and forthright discussion. Dr. Yeadon, a former chief scientist with the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, has stated that most if not all of the PCR tests result in false positives due to high Ct thresholds. Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, states that any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive. The Public Health Agency of Canada reported in May of this year that testing over 25 cycles provides dubious results. The prestigious Oxford professor, Dr. Carl Heneghan, has stated that a PCR test does not equal COVID-19.

My question to the Premier: Is your testing creating both a false understanding of the risk, as well as false positives?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Christine Elliott: The PCR testing is very effective in areas where there are outbreaks. It has proven to be so. We are receiving that information. We need that information in order to take action. We have taken action on several fronts in terms of limiting unmonitored social gatherings, limiting capacities in restaurants and bars, and in other actions that we’ve taken.

But I’m not quite sure what the member is suggesting. Are you suggesting we don’t do any testing? We just stop testing? Is that the reaction that we should be taking with this? What else would you suggest?

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Back to the Premier: I’m glad that question was posed. On July 30, the Associate Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Barbara Yaffe, stated that our testing can result in over 50% false positives, that is, the person actually doesn’t have COVID-19, they have something else or they have nothing. She has also called for limits on testing of asymptomatic people, while the government calls for more—another contradiction in a long list of COVID contradictions.

We know high false positive rates are due to high Cts, and Canadian and world experts agree it should not be more than 25 cycles. Yet according to the Journal of Virology, Ontario labs are testing samples at 38 to 45 cycles. That’s what needs to be done.

Speaker, to the Premier: When did the Premier become aware of these faulty tests and practices, and why have you done nothing to fix them since at least July?

Hon. Christine Elliott: I would say to the member, there are zero inconsistencies coming from our public health experts. Dr. Yaffe has clarified what she indicated before. What she indicated before was that the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Christine Elliott: —PCR testing is very effective in areas where we are having outbreaks, such as what we’re seeing in various parts of the province right now, in Peel, in Ottawa and in Toronto. We need that testing to make those decisions—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston will come to order.

Restart the clock. The minister can conclude her answer.

Hon. Christine Elliott: We are taking action where we need to take action. We’re looking at other methods of testing as well. Some of the antigen testing is looking very promising; it looks as if Health Canada is going to be approving that. It’s a good screening tool, but we need every tool that we can use at our discretion: PCR testing, antigen testing, we’re looking at saliva testing. We need everything that we can do for screening and for testing purposes to keep the people of Ontario safe and healthy.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, I know that this summer you joined the Premier and the Minister of Finance to announce that our government has secured $2 billion in support from the federal government for our municipal partners.

The first round of funding from your ministry has played a critical role in relieving the financial pressures that COVID-19 has put on our communities. Could you provide more details on the historic Safe Restart Agreement?

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to take this opportunity to thank the member for Perth–Wellington, not just for the question but for the great work that he does in his riding. He is so very close to his municipalities and his municipal partners. I want to thank him for that.

As I’ve said in the House before, the Premier worked with our municipal partners, other Premiers, our Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Freeland to reach the historic $4-billion Safe Restart Agreement, which included $2 billion for our municipal partners. Mr. Speaker, $1.22 billion of that municipal support is coming directly from our government, and the funding, as we all know, is addressing those municipal operating needs, but it’s also creating those more longer-term innovative housing solutions, and also supporting our public health costs.

Mr. Speaker, $695 million in municipal operating funding has flowed through phase 1 of the agreement, and there’s an additional $695 million that’s ready to flow for that second phase. I know that municipalities are keenly interested. They’ve been great partners, and we want—

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Thank you, Minister, for your response. I know that this funding has been greatly appreciated across Ontario and certainly in my riding of Perth–Wellington.

Our government knows that this first round of Safe Restart funding will be sufficient to meet the needs of most of our municipalities, but of course some communities have been hit extra-hard, and they will need access to the second round of funding. Could the minister provide more clarity on how and when municipalities can access the next round of funding?

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, thanks to the member. He’s absolutely right: We know collectively, because we’ve all stayed in constant contact with our municipal partners, that for many of them, that first $695-million allocation was sufficient to address some of those operating challenges that they had. But we also know that many of those communities need more assistance. That’s why phase 2 will provide that much-needed $695 million. It will be able to be demonstrated and given to those municipalities that show that need.

Eligible municipalities that will be applying for phase 2 funding will be informed of their additional allocations in the very near future, because we know that they certainly need that to deal with those municipal pressures.

Again, we have been working with our municipal partners throughout the pandemic. I want to thank members from all parties on all sides of the House to ensure that we support them. I am convinced, Speaker, that our municipal partners will be leading the recovery in our province.

Affordable housing

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: My question is for the Premier. Encampments—some people are calling them “Ford towns,” because they are the growing legacy of this Premier’s heartless policies—continue to expand in many neighbourhoods in Toronto and across the province. Winter is coming, and we are facing a humanitarian disaster. Cities can’t cope on their own. There’s simply nowhere for people to go. Shelters, respites and drop-ins are full.

The government needs to step up to create tens of thousands of units of rent-geared-to-income, affordable housing. It needs to create emergency shelters and hotel spaces immediately, accompanied by overdose prevention and harm reduction services and mental health supports, as well as the necessities of life for people in encampments now: washroom facilities, food and water, safe sources of heat and winter survival gear.

COVID has vastly exacerbated what was already a homelessness emergency. When is the government going to act on this looming humanitarian disaster?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thanks very much for the question. I’ve said many times in the House that we on this side of the House believe every Ontarian needs a safe and secure place to call home.

I want to say to the member opposite, through you, Speaker, that our government has acted. We’ve acted both in the budget this year—we’ll be providing almost $1 billion to help sustain, repair and grow our community housing system that was largely neglected by the previous government. In addition to that, Speaker, as part of our announcements with Minister Smith and I, we have now provided to our municipal partners over $510 million as part of that agreement to help our most vulnerable.

We continue to work collaboratively with our federal government, and I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

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

Ms. Rima Berns-McGown: To make matters worse, housing experts are terrified of the eviction crisis they see on the horizon. They’re expecting the numbers of people without housing to swell in the coming months by thousands or even tens of thousands. Most people who experience homelessness are Black or Indigenous. I am currently fighting to keep an Indigenous woman housed in Beaches–East York. The same communities most impacted by COVID-19 are also the most likely to be pushed into homelessness.

It is vital that Ontario both reinstate the residential moratorium on evictions throughout the pandemic and assist tenants directly with their rent payments so that they are not vulnerable to evictions down the road. Today, on Orange Shirt Day of all days, we need to hear: Will the Premier allow evictions and “Ford towns” to continue to grow exponentially, or will he act now to keep people housed?

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, again, I want to remind the member that our province was the first province or territory in Canada to sign on to the Canada-Ontario Housing Benefit, because we realized that for those who are most vulnerable, especially during the pandemic, we need to ensure that we have dollars set aside collaboratively to work with all three levels of government.

I want the member to know, and I want all members to know, that as part of the Safe Restart Agreement, we are encouraging every single service provider in our province to bolster their rent banks, to ensure that there is more money that’s being allocated through our social services relief fund and through the Safe Restart Agreement, to ensure that, as the nights are getting colder, those funds are provided directly to those who most need it.

We will continue to work with that member’s community here in the city of Toronto and all of our service managers to ensure that those dollars that are allocated get to people who—

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

The next question.

Infectious disease control

M lle Amanda Simard: My question is to the Minister of Education. A very serious and alarming issue has come to my attention with specific cases being confirmed to me. The ministry’s current directive is that only local public health units can order a classroom into isolation and can notify parents when there is a confirmed case of COVID in the classroom. Due to the local units being completely overbooked, overburdened and struggling to keep up as it is, it can take days for this to happen. So during those in-between days, children are going back into the classroom as usual. Parents are unknowingly sending their children into a classroom that has had confirmed exposure to COVID-19.

Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of this disturbing situation? How can the minister justify putting the lives of children and families at risk with such a poorly thought out and dangerous directive?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The public health guidance is clear. We want all students and all staff to self-assess before they enter schools. We provided a self-assessment tool for students, launched with the President of the Treasury Board, to make it more accessible and easier for parents to understand the symptoms. We’ve also increased public health nurses to support both screening in schools and, likewise, symptom relief for those children who have ailments. We’ve enhanced the amount of flu vaccines being provided to more young people: 700,000 more have been ordered. It’s $70 million—a historic investment by the province.

Everything we’re doing is to minimize risk, and I would continue to encourage parents to work with and listen to public health in their communities to ensure that those classrooms in those communities are safe.

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

M lle Amanda Simard: Respectfully, to the minister: That doesn’t address the issue. The issue is the directive that it is only the public health units that can order the isolation when there’s a confirmed case. It’s the gap between—that the teachers and the children are going back into the classroom for several days after they know that they’ve been exposed. There’s the problem. What is the minister going to do about that directive?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Speaker, students are encouraged to isolate if there are any symptoms. Public health will provide direction as per the outbreak protocol. In some circumstances, public health will require them to stay home for 14 days and the school board will pivot to online learning, as has been the case in each of the examples where we’ve seen outbreaks affecting a cohort or a school.

In the context of the protocol, Dr. Yaffe, Dr. Williams and the entire COVID-19 command table are constantly refining the protocol. I spoke with Dr. Etches in Ottawa, as well as the director and the chair of the board in Ottawa region, where the member represents. We are constantly looking for ways to improve the data flow as well as to improve the directive. It’s going to be done by public health officials and by doctors, not politicians.

We’ll continue to take their advice and implement it province-wide.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: My question is for the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. Last week, I was proud to join the Minister of Finance, the member for Willowdale and my colleagues from the Ottawa caucus on a virtual budget consultation with individuals from Ottawa’s resilient business community. This town hall was an important opportunity for our government to hear directly from the people of Ottawa during these challenging times. I know this consultation will play a critical role in helping to ensure the challenges faced by Ottawa residents are addressed by our government as we continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and plan for an uncertain future.

Mr. Speaker, this town hall provided an opportunity to hear about the important role Ontario has played in supporting people and businesses during this crisis. Could the parliamentary assistant please share with the House the actions our government has taken to support Ontario’s small business community during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Mr. Stan Cho: I want to thank the member from the great riding of Ottawa West–Nepean. He has been an important voice and an incredible champion for the constituents in the Ottawa region.

Speaker, the member is correct. Hearing directly from businesses and community organizations like those in Ottawa is crucial to help inform Ontario’s economic recovery plan and get the stories behind the numbers. Our government has taken the necessary action to protect the health and well-being of the people of Ontario during this crisis because this is not just the right public policy, Mr. Speaker, it’s the right economic policy.

In March, the Minister of Finance introduced Ontario’s action plan, the first phase of Ontario’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the time since, we’ve made additional investments in the fight against the virus by allocating more support for people, jobs and a safe reopening in response to the second wave. These investments bring our COVID response action plan to a projected $30 billion, up from the $17 billion as first announced.

There’s more to be done, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: Thank you for that answer. It is heartwarming to know that our government is taking the economic recovery of Ontario so seriously.

Mr. Speaker, it’s clear to me that this government is committed to listening as we continue building our recovery plan. I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to consultation and collaboration. As Vice-Chair on the Standing Committee of Finance and Economic Affairs, I have seen first-hand the value of broad and robust consultations in assessing the impact of COVID-19.

Could the parliamentary assistant please share with the House the actions this government has taken to listen to the concerns of Ontarians as we plan for an economic recovery?

Mr. Stan Cho: Again, the member is absolutely right. Our government understands the value of that br