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

December 2, 2020

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2020-Dec-02 vol. A (PDF)

L217A - Wed 2 Dec 2020 / Mer 2 déc 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 2 December 2020 Mercredi 2 décembre 2020

Orders of the Day

Occupiers’ Liability Amendment Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 modifiant la

Loi sur la responsabilité des occupants

Members’ Statements

Hydro rates

Firefighters

Services de santé mentale

Small business

Moharram Ventures

Persons with disabilities

COVID-19 response

Winter highway maintenance

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

Question Period

Government accountability

Long-term care

Long-term care

Adoption

COVID-19 response

Services for persons with disabilities

Hydro rates

COVID-19 response

Long-term care

International trade

Land use planning

Responsabilité gouvernementale / Government accountability

Hospital funding / Financement des hôpitaux

Hospital funding

Food banks

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Public Health Accountability Act (In Honour of Dr. Sheela Basrur), 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la responsabilité en matière de santé publique (en hommage à la Dre Sheela Basrur)

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Sign-language

interpretation

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly

Introduction of Bills

Parya Trillium Foundation Act (Tax Relief), 2020

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

Petitions

Social services

Volunteer service awards

Front-line workers

Restaurant industry

Front-line workers

Small business

Optometry services

Economic reopening and recovery

Anti-smoking initiatives for youth

Volunteer service awards

Documents gouvernementaux

Economic reopening and recovery

Orders of the Day

Ontario Rebuilding and Recovery Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 sur la reconstruction et la relance en Ontario

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Occupiers’ Liability Amendment Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 modifiant la

Loi sur la responsabilité des occupants

Mr. Norman Miller moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Occupiers’ Liability Act / Projet de loi 118, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la responsabilité des occupants.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll recognize the member to lead off the debate.

Mr. Norman Miller: I rise today to ask members to support my private member’s bill, Bill 118, the Occupiers’ Liability Amendment Act, 2020. I’d like to first of all thank Lesley Daw, who has been working really hard on this bill, and also Elizabeth Haig, who is my OLIP intern, who has done a lot of the work, including most of these comments today.

This bill would reduce the notice period for lawsuits for slips and falls on snow and ice from two years to 60 days. We need to make this change because, currently, insurance costs for snow and ice management companies are skyrocketing due to an increased risk of slip-and-fall lawsuits. Some insurance companies have stopped providing coverage to this sector altogether. This lack of insurance, or lack of affordable insurance, has forced many small snow removal companies out of business, leaving Ontarians wondering who will clear the snow and ice this winter. We know we get snow, we know we need snow removal, so we need to do something before we lose more snow removal companies.

I had originally proposed a new notification period of 10 days, the same as the time allotted for notifying municipalities on falls on municipally managed roads and sidewalks. However, after hearing about the challenges that people may face in establishing who to contact after an injury, we amended the proposed limit to 60 days, with the exceptions of extreme cases specified.

I believe 60 days will provide ample time for an injured party to give notice of their injury to either the property owner, the tenant or the snow remover. I also believe this balances the rights of the injured party to seek compensation with the rights of occupiers and contractors to preserve evidence to defend themselves.

Under the current rules, property owners, their tenants, commercial snow and ice management companies can face lawsuits up to two years after someone falls. They may not even know that someone has fallen. As a result, many small businesses have been hit with frivolous, yet crippling, injury lawsuits. This has become so common that insurance providers have hiked up their premiums and deductibles across the board for the entire snow and ice management industry, including for companies with no active lawsuits against them.

Many insurance providers have stopped covering businesses in this industry altogether because there’s such a high risk of expensive litigation. This lack of affordable insurance has forced many small snow and ice management companies out of business. Here in Ontario, we have snow and ice every year, so we need companies that can manage snow removal.

As many of you know, I have served my riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka for nearly 20 years, and I often get my get my ideas for private members’ bills from people in my community. In this case, I was first informed of this issue by this by Dave Finch from Wes Finch and Sons, an excavation landscaping business that manages plowing at the hospital in Bracebridge. He told me that insurance for commercial snow plow companies was getting extremely expensive, especially for companies plowing a hospital parking lot.

After I heard from Mr. Finch, I began to look into the issue and learned it was a common problem. When I introduced my bill, I heard from dozens of landscapers and plowers from my riding and across the province. Most of the businesses that reached out to me are small, family-owned businesses. Many have been serving their communities for decades, but have all seen insurance rates skyrocket to unmanageable levels the last five years.

For those of you who weren’t involved in the committee hearings, I’m going to share some of the stories we heard. Some of these were received as written submissions, while others are taken from oral presentations to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills on November 16. We heard from snow removal contractors of all sizes, from small, family-run businesses to larger operators; some that have faced huge increases in insurance costs, and others that have been unable to get insurance at all.

Mike Dominick operates Husky Services in Cornwall. This year, his insurer informed him that they would not be insuring any snow and ice management businesses, and he was unable to get any coverage. He has had to end his snow removal service for his 100 clients this year, causing Dominick to lay off a dozen part-time employees.

We also heard from insurance brokers who confirmed that it is extremely difficult to find insurance providers for snow removal, as the industry faces a much higher number of claims compared to other industries. Jenny Desroches from Tanner Insurance in Ottawa highlighted that smaller operations seem to be unfairly impacted by steep increases, since insurance providers tend to favour larger businesses, as in companies netting over $1 million a year.

Mr. Gord Fergusson from Youngs Insurance Brokers Inc. broke the issue down even further for us. I’m going to quote him here: “We think with ... the reduction of the time period, it would allow insurance carriers to have a better scope on what they understand to be the risk for this particular customer” or for the snow removal industry in general. When insurance providers know the risk in a timely manner, they can confidently offer renewal and price accordingly, rather than basing their models for yearly insurance rates on the possibility of getting served two years down the line.

For those snow removal businesses that can still get insurance, they’re facing huge increases in the cost of premiums and deductibles. I was shocked to hear some of these numbers. Boffo Landscaping in Maple saw their insurance go up 52%, from $34,000 to $52,561. Triple J Contracting in London has been in business for seven years and employed more than 30 employees. This year, after their insurance rates rose from approximately $20,000 to an astounding $70,000 per year, they were forced to stop offering snow removal services. They have never faced a slip-and-fall claim.

Unfortunately, getting out of the snow removal business led to the layoffs of their part-time staff and half their full-time staff. The company also sold some of their equipment at a loss.

A similar story from my riding came from Muskoka Town and Country Services. After more than 15 years in the snow and ice maintenance business, they were nearly forced to shut down operations in 2018 after struggling to find general liability insurance, despite never having a claim against them. They were able to get new coverage, but the premium was five times what it had been the previous year. That insurance company dropped them the following year when they too decided to no longer provide coverage for the snow removal industry.

At committee we also heard from Heather French, a farmer in Caledon who runs a snow-clearing company in the winter months. Over the last two years, her insurance rates have gone from $15,000 to $112,000. She was also served with a slip-and-fall lawsuit after one year and 11 months. She told us that a shorter notice period would allow her to make sure video footage is backed up and all the records are straight to defend themselves. As Heather bluntly put it at committee, and I agree, “I have” trouble “remembering what I did yesterday, let alone a year” or two “ago.”

TCG National is a large snow-clearing franchise company which has operated in Ontario for 30 years and employs 400 people. Their deductible has jumped from $500 a claim to $25,000 a claim, and their insurance rates have tripled.

Spring Flowers Landscaping in Scarborough has seen their insurance rates jump from just under $15,000 to $54,000 over the last three years.

We received 60 statements from snow and ice removal companies with similarly dizzying figures.

Like I said, we heard of companies of all sizes. One of the larger ones is Clintar Commercial Outdoor Services. They’ve been the snow and ice contractors here at Queen’s Park since 1997. They serve customers throughout the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe. They pay over $2.5 million in insurance premiums every year and they’ve had to get a new insurance provider every year since 2015 because their past insurers have stopped insuring snow and ice contractors.

Of course, these increased insurance costs have to be passed on to customers. At Pratt’s Lawn Care in Bala in my riding in Muskoka, the owners have been struggling to keep costs low in other areas of operation and still have had to double their prices. These clients are not just private homeowners; they are stores, places of worship, hospitals or schools that are saddled with these increased costs to keep their properties safe for the community.

A presenter from Perfect Property Maintenance Kings in the GTA told us they have been forced by multiple insurance companies to refuse snow and ice maintenance service to gyms, places of worship and other community areas because of more liability.

Similarly, Telford Property Management in Caledon told us that their insurance provider has directed them not to service any parking lots with more than 10 spaces. With insurance costs at an all-time high and these new restrictions on where he can seek business, the owner is worried he may be pushed out of the market altogether.

Even when the lawsuits are frivolous or otherwise unsuccessful, snow removers end up paying for them in the long run. One presenter at committee was Shannon Burrows from Weeks Construction in my riding in Parry Sound. Her family has been providing snow removal to people in my riding since 1956. In the last two years, they faced two lawsuits for places they had serviced. In both cases they were found not to be negligent, but their insurance company chose to settle, so now they have that mark on their claim history, which leads to even more increases in their insurance rates.

As you can imagine, when insurance rates are jumping so much from year to year it has become very difficult for these hard-working small business owners to plan for the future. In some cases, snow removal companies have multi-year contracts with their customers, so they can’t increase the rates and have to eat the dramatic increases in insurance costs until the end of the contract.

We heard from Greentario Landscape, a family-owned company in Hamilton that has been doing snow removal for 30 years. They have 40 employees, and they told us that over the past three years they’ve been budgeting to increase wages to their employees to at least $18 an hour, but since their insurance costs and deductibles keep climbing, he’s not sure they will be able to manage this increase. Their deductible on slip-and-fall claims has gone from $2,500 to $25,000 this year alone.

Bill 118 will not only help snow contractors, but their customers, including public institutions, large companies and small businesses. One of the owners of Greentario, Mr. Carmine Filice, is also a member of the Hamilton housing board. He pointed out that housing boards in Ontario are also struggling to absorb the increased costs of snow removal while keeping the rent affordable.

The Ontario Association of School Business Officials came forward to say they frequently see claims being made 18 to 24 months after accidents, at which point the evidence, such as pictures of the snow and ice and footwear, is no longer available. The Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association and some of their members expressed the same complaints. For instance, the committee heard from Nolan Quinn, who owns a Dairy Queen franchise in Cornwall. His snow removal costs have increased so much that this winter he will be shovelling the sidewalks outside his business on his own.

We heard from many businesses that the two-year notice period is simply too long because it hinders their ability to properly defend themselves: Memories have faded, surveillance footage is lost, staff have turned over, so it is difficult to properly gather the evidence necessary to defend themselves.

One business owner, from Let’s Landscape Together in Burlington, was served with a slip-and-fall lawsuit one day before the statute of limitations expired. The claimant said they fell in a parking lot Let’s Landscape Together maintains for snow on January 10, 2018, but waited until January 9, 2020, to file. The same claimant then filed a second claim for another accident in the same spot 30 days later. Paperwork for the second claim was received February 5, 2020, for a fall on February 9, 2018.

For both cases, the business had some records about the weather and where they had plowed and salted, but video records from nearby businesses were lost, and it is unlikely anyone would remember what the condition of the property was like two years later.

Speaking of video footage, I want to acknowledge that even the 60-day notice period may be a challenge for some security systems. While some presenters told us that their video surveillance systems only store 38 days’ worth of footage, we felt that 60 days achieved the best balance between the rights of the occupier and the snow removal contractor, and those of the injured party.

Beyond helping property owners, tenants and contractors defend themselves, one snow operator, from Southwest Property Care in London, also told us that early reporting of slip-and-fall incidents will help them to improve services immediately. If they hear about a fall, they can reassess the services they are providing and make any necessary changes to reduce the risk of someone else falling.

I also want to mention that many of the presenters at committee mentioned that claimants and, indeed, the general public are often not prepared for winter conditions. Snow removal companies cannot guarantee clear and dry pavement in the dead of winter; no one can do that. They do their best to keep conditions safe, but it is still up to all of us to wear proper footwear, stick to designated paths and walk carefully. We adjust our driving habits in the winter, and most of us use winter tires; as pedestrians, we need to do the same thing. Personal responsibility has to come into play somewhere. From time to time I fall down, but it’s usually not anybody else’s fault; it’s usually my fault.

The threat of slip-and-fall lawsuits is creating another problem: an environmental one. Many of our presenters explained that many snow removal companies now rely on using excessive amounts of road salt to mitigate the risk of slip-and-fall lawsuits. I have certainly noticed this walking into Queen’s Park and back in downtown Toronto, where you crunch along on what seems like half an inch of salt the whole way. This has devastating effects on our environment, especially on our water quality. As outlined in the province’s 2010 Water Quality in Ontario report, chloride concentrations in Ontario streams have doubled, on average, since 1970, with increases in urban areas being greater.

In my own riding, the Muskoka Watershed Advisory Group’s recent report identified an increasing level of road salt in Muskoka’s lakes as a top source of pollution in my region. The report estimates that road salt pollution affects about 20% of Muskoka’s lakes. In Jevins Lake near Gravenhurst, research has shown that excessive road salt has caused chloride levels which violate the Canadian water quality guidelines. The Muskoka Watershed Advisory Group has recommended immediate intervention to manage the level of road salt in our lakes. I believe this law is an important step in that process.

As I said earlier, I had originally proposed a 10-day notification period for slip-and-fall claims, as this would bring the rules in line with the timeline for notifying a municipality about a fall on their roads and sidewalks. The timeline was supported by snow and ice management professionals from across the province.

We also heard from insurance groups, like the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association. They admitted that increased litigation has increased insurance rates for snow management businesses, but said this bill offers “a common-sense approach to improving and modernizing the Occupiers’ Liability Act, while still protecting the rights of all parties to this type of litigation.”

Similarly, the Insurance Bureau of Canada told us that Bill 118 strikes a good balance to “allow individuals that have been injured as a result of the negligence of occupiers with respect to snow and ice maintenance to advance their legitimate claims in a timely manner, while ensuring that defendant occupiers are not placed in the untenable position where they become obligated to pay for alleged personal injuries for the sole reason that they are unable to provide a defence.”

However, we did hear concern from some committee members and through some written submissions that 10 days would be too short. I spoke with the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, who explained that it can take longer than 10 days for an injured party to determine who they would need to notify. As a result of that discussion, I brought forward an amendment that would set the notification period at 60 days and allow the injured party to notify either the landlord, the tenant or the snow removal contractor. Any party that receives notification of a slip-and-fall on the property would be required to notify the other parties involved.

I think this is an appropriate middle ground, and I believe my colleagues on the committee agreed. To clarify, we are not suggesting that claimants have 60 days to serve a lawsuit. We are saying that within 60 days of the fall, claimants must notify the property owner, the tenant or the snow-clearing company of the fall. This will ensure that steps can be taken to preserve evidence from the date of the accident, like backing up camera footage, taking statements from staff and identifying other possible witnesses.

As Tony DiGiovanni of Landscape Ontario told us, snow and ice management professionals are not asking for protection against negligence. They are asking for the reduction of the two-year notice period as one step to deal with the fact that obtaining insurance is a serious barrier to safe operations.

It is my hope that narrowing the notice period for slip-and-fall claims will encourage insurance providers to lower their premiums for snow and ice management contractors, as it would limit the possibility for frivolous lawsuits. I also hope this will persuade insurance companies who have stopped serving the snow and ice management industry to get back into the sector. We need to act to make sure that snow and ice management operators can stay in business, the business of managing the ice and snow we get every year, so that with can all stay safe.

Once again, let me say that we live in a climate with winter. As individuals, we need to take some responsibility for our own safety. We need to watch where we’re walking, wear appropriate footwear, and as a province we need to create an environment in which snow removal companies can operate with enough profits to stay in business and without constant fear of being sued. I believe this bill will help do that. This change will decrease the risk for insurance providers, who can then return to providing affordable insurance for snow removal contractors, so that companies can safely manage our snow and ice this winter and every winter to come.

I want to thank everyone who spoke at committee, as well as everyone who submitted written submissions. Finally, I want to thank the House for considering this important legislation. I look forward to everyone’s input on this matter.

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

Mr. Jamie West: I want to thank the member from Parry Sound for his bill, Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Occupiers’ Liability Act. Just for a

summary of it: The bill amends the Occupiers’ Liability Act so that no action shall be brought for the recovery of damages for personal injury caused by snow or ice against an occupier, an independent contractor employed by the occupier or a landlord, unless, within 10 days—which recently was amended to 60 days—after the injury occurs written notice of the claim and of the injury are served.

That’s the legal version. The short version is, if you fall on private property, you used to have two years to make a claim. The original purpose was to bring it to 10 days, which would be in line with provincial and municipal property. That was amended to 60 days as a change.

Before I go on further, I really want to recognize the member from Parry Sound and his efforts to solve this problem. I don’t think many of us had heard about these problems, the high cost of the insurance rates. My city of Sudbury normally has a ton of snow every year—in all of Ontario, really. We live in the north; we have to deal with snow removal. In fact, yesterday I think there was a snowstorm all around Sudbury, but not in Sudbury, which I say is because I bought snow tires this year, so we won’t have any snow. But it is essential.

The bottom line, really, is that these snow removal companies—they can be farmers who are getting extra income in the winter, very small contractors; they can be very large contractors, including the one that services Queen’s Park—are getting gouged. It is a really stressful time and they’re desperate.

What I heard during deputations—to begin, I didn’t get to hear from anybody who was a plaintiff. I would have liked to. There just wasn’t an opportunity for them to be there with the timelines that were there. What I heard, basically, was that there seems to be more of a push of this, “If you don’t win, we don’t get paid,” lawsuit advertising, slip-and-fall advertising. One of the concerns I have with the decrease of time is that maybe they’ll advertise more and harder. You’ll only have 60 days, the timeline is shorter, and that might be an issue as well. Lawsuits have gone up, though.

The difficulty for these operators, and you can imagine, Speaker, is that winter doesn’t stay for two years. Typically, they’ll find out two years after it happens. They try to keep the best records they have, but it’s very hard to verify how clean it was, how sanded it was—all of those things—two year after it happens.

The fourth thing and probably the main thing I learned is that insurance is absolutely skyrocketing, and I think this is the root cause. This is really what we need to address. Because the goal of this bill is to limit the amount of time that you have to put in a lawsuit with the hopes that it will bring the insurance down. If it doesn’t bring the insurance down, we’re back to square one. Frankly, when I asked some of the insurance brokers, “Will this bring insurance down?” the answer was basically, “Maybe. Maybe it will.” They’re going to watch over two or three years.

If the claims go down, then insurance might go down. But my history with insurance is that your rates never go down. I’ve never heard insurance say, “Let me pick up the cheque for that.”

I’m going to talk about insurance, and I think these examples are going to talk about how it affects everything else, because what I think is missing from the bill is the government attempting to do something about these really high insurance rates that are gouging the snow removal companies.

One of the quotes from the brokers when I asked about why we are seeing this suddenly—because it’s about the last five years the rates have gone up—is that he said that as auto insurance profits are squeezed, insurance companies look elsewhere to make more profit. So as more focus gets into one area, they go to other areas, and it seems to be snow removal is one of them.

Insurance has risen by 350%. Basically, the companies dictate the rates to the companies. Some companies just leave. They just notify them within 30 days of renewal, “We’re not renewing you anymore.” And they’ll change the conditions of renewal. They’ll increase the prices, they’ll change the deductible, they’ll tell you you’re no longer insured to do municipal lots. But it doesn’t matter if you have a contract for three years for municipal lots. It’s extremely stressful and people are scrambling to figure out what to do.

Basically, rates keep climbing, deductibles keep climbing, coverage keeps declining. And the bill is trying to reduce the number of lawsuits, which I think is an excellent incentive, because you want fairness. There are people who legitimately slip and fall, but you need a way to defend yourself on all of that stuff. You have to find the balance. I think that the goal, really, is that if we reduce these, insurance will respond, and what we need to do is put some regulations around insurance or help people with what’s happening in insurance.

I’m going to talk about some of the notes I had from deputations with insurance. I’ve shared them with my colleagues, if I run out of time, because it really builds a strong case about what’s happening with insurance.

David Jones the vice-president of franchising for The Gardener Inc. said that typically, previous insurance increases were 3% to 5%—like most things, the cost of living increases. Over the past five years, their increases have been between 25% and 300%, and he said that there’s no connection to what they’ve done. It’s basically because of the industry at large. They also received a 30-day cancellation notice. That leaves these workers, these companies scrambling for insurance. He said that the cost of insurance has gone from 15% to 50% of their revenue.

At some point, businesses, snowplow companies exit the industry, and that’s what’s happening, especially with a lot of the smaller markets. The larger companies can’t afford to pick up those contracts, so you’re going to be in situations where there will be no snowplowing. But it’s the insurance we have to focus on.

Mike Dominick from Husky Services snow removal and property maintenance is one of those companies that exited the industry. He closed down operations due to not being able to locate insurance. They can’t afford it. They can’t find people to insure them at a reasonable price. It isn’t cost-effective. So 12 people who work for him when there’s not snow on the ground are laid off during the winter months.

Shannon Burrows from Weeks Construction—I always drive past Weeks Construction. There’s a big sign on 69—I don’t know if it’s called 401 now that most of it is four-laned, but it’s a really cool sign. They had two claims. For both of them, they were not at fault, and for both of them, they wanted to fight. The insurance company chose not to fight. They paid out $20,000, and their rates went up. She also said that when they put “snow” in their literature, their rates went up—just having the word “snow.”

David Finch, I believe, talked to the member from Parry Sound about bringing this bill forward, from Wes Finch and Sons—three generations of excavation. They’ve been doing this for a long time. He was trying to get insurance because he services a hospital, and they were denying his coverage because another hospital that they don’t service had claims. He’s at the point now where only Lloyd’s of London covers them.

Nolan Quinn, owner-operator of Dairy Queen in Cornwall—this is one of those front-line workers struggling to keep their doors open. He’s really passionate about his conversations and his deputation. I want to congratulate Nolan for how hard he’s working. He was told that the local snowplow company can’t do snow removal anymore and he had to search. He said that hospitals, churches and restaurants have been blacklisted. That was his inside track from his friend who had done it before. Snowplow removal companies told him that rates have climbed to over $25,000 since last year. He’s paying 30% more and getting less.

His previous contract had plows, salt, sand and shovelling, but he can’t afford the shovelling anymore, so he’s doing it himself. We talked to him, I believe, on Tuesday, Speaker, and he had worked 45 hours since Friday—and there wasn’t snow on the ground yet, so imagine what the quality of the snow removal would be for somebody like this, because they can’t afford the insurance.

Greg Wildeboer, Whispering Pines Landscaping, has been doing it for 25 years: claim-free for 22 years. In the 23rd year, someone had a slip-and-fall. Greg’s company was found at fault because the property owner chose salt on demand. It’s a cheaper option. So instead of salt every time, they say salt on demand and they will let you know when they want salt. Greg’s company was found at fault because, in the eyes of the court, they didn’t properly educate the property owner about the risks of salt on demand, and so they had a $27,000 claim.

This September, he received notice that 13 different insurance companies had turned them down for insurance and that his insurance for snow removal would be cancelled at the end of the month, so basically in October.

Heather French, owner-operator of Humberview Services Ltd., talked about grain farmers in Caledon. In order to help make ends meet, they perform winter snow removal in the community. Their insurance has gone from $15,000 to $112,000 because of one slip-and-fall accident. Several of the local snow removal contractors had to exit the business. They said that one of the problems is, when you’re fighting it, once you have the claim, it doesn’t matter if you won or not. Until it’s settled, it’s on your file and rates climb. I said, “If it’s settled, do you get a rebate?” “No. No, you don’t.” What I said earlier is, basically, insurance almost never goes backwards.

Trevor Garner, president of Landscape Plus Inc., in the Kitchener and Guelph area: 28 employees, snow and ice since 2002. In 2017—and this is shocking—Economical Insurance notified them they won’t insure them any longer. His insurance, in 2017, was $16,191. He reached out to 19 agencies and not one of them was interested in giving him even a quote. He finally got Lloyd’s of London. Lloyd’s of London seems to be the place that a lot of people are going for insurance. His insurance went from $16,191 to $28,742. Then, Lloyd’s exited. He had to go AIG and it was $38,921. AIG exited.

He had to go to Allianz insurance; it was $92,511. From 2017 to today—and I don’t know if it’s three or four years, because I don’t know if we’re including 2020. But within three or four years, his insurance has gone from $16,191 to $92,511. That’s a drastic increase that no business could survive.

Carmen Filice, president of Greentario Landscaping: He talked as well about having a slip-and-fall claim that he wanted to fight, and insurance decided they would settle. He felt it was no-fault. His rates increased by 100%. I wrote down his quote. He said, “We did nothing wrong. How can our industry keep increasing?”

It’s unfair to them that the insurance company owns the deck of cards, owns the rules and deals whatever hand they want. This is an employee who was trying to always pay a minimum living wage; that’s going to be in jeopardy. He can’t find a carrier that will provide insurance. He does a lot of work with not-for-profits. He’s saying, “I can’t pass this cost on to not-for-profits. At some point, they won’t be able to afford it.” It’s a real concern, and in a really successful business that could be growing, he can’t afford to grow his business. We heard that again and again from different snowplow operators.

Doug Dolson is the owner of Paramount Landscaping. They do 24 cities in the greater Toronto area, with more than 300 customers. He talked about the theme we heard again and again: deductibles increasing; renewals and struggling with those; insurance seeming to be slower and slower to provide quotes, so they have less time to look around and find quotes. He talked about this sort of middle-of-the-fence company that we’ve talked about. It was a friend of his named Mike Jones. He does snow removal to supplement his farm.

We’ve talked about this several times, Speaker, with farm workers making ends meet with snow removal, which is great. It’s a win-win situation for the community they live in and the farmers themselves.

Mike Jones’s insurance climbed 500%: $145,000. Eight days before renewal, Mike was told that it was going to be a 500% increase. That was last year. This year, after 22 years of snow removal, he was told of another increase that was going to be a smaller increase, but they were excluding any municipal work, and Mike had signed a contract with his municipality. So you’re in a contract where you’ve agreed to provide service, yet the insurance company is changing the terms of your agreement partway through.

I know I’m hammering on the insurance, but I’m trying to make the point that this is really what we need to address. The goal of reducing the amount of claims, frivolous claims, I think is a good idea—if they’re frivolous. But if the goal is just to get rid of claims in hopes that insurance goes down, we’re missing the point. The problem we’re having is insurance.

Terry Nicholson, vice-president of Clintar outdoor services: It started in 1973, the largest snow removal service in Ontario. If you’re happy with the snow removal at Queen’s Park, it’s Clintar services that does it. He does about $30 million in snow. It’s the biggest company. He said that every renewal for the past five years has left them scrambling. They actually moved their renewal date back to April so they can try to find a place, because it has become a pattern, and so they can try to adjust prices for the fall.

He’ll pass those prices along to us, and we’ll have to pay for those increases from the insurance companies. He said that the availability of insurance is the greatest cost. They’ve had four insurers in the past five years, and they have to go to a fifth insurer this year. Their premiums have doubled, deductibles keep climbing and, generally, it’s hard to pass those off to the customer because you sign a two- or three-year contract for snow removal.

I asked one of the people deputing, how do you pass it on—if all of a sudden you have a 500% increase in your insurance, how do you let your customers know? He said, “I take the insurance contract and I show them, because most people wouldn’t believe it.” I said earlier that I had no idea that people were being gouged like this. I don’t think anyone has a cozy relationship with insurance. I don’t think people like renewing their insurance every year—it’s a necessary evil—but when you talk about a 500% increase in insurance, that’s amazing.

This gentleman, from the largest snowplow company in Ontario, says that smaller companies reach out to them on a regular basis just asking them to take their contracts and their equipment. They’re just drowning in debt. They can’t find anyone to take on their insurance, and they can’t take them on.

The problem we have, one of them, is that the response to the, “We win or you don’t pay” lawsuits seems to be that they figured out the sweet spot where insurance companies will settle any claim that’s less than 100 grand. It’s not worth it. It’s going to cost them 100 grand to fight. I keep thinking of that movie, Other People’s Money. It’s other people’s money, so we’ll settle and we’ll just increase the rates. This happens again and again.

There seems to be an opinion that these lawyers advertising “You won’t pay unless we win” have increased the cases, and from the deputations we’ve heard, that’s likely so. I would like to hear from some plaintiffs to hear why they got involved. But the cases have gone up. The problem with the insurance is when these cases come forward and the snowplow operator says, “No, no. I can prove this didn’t happen,” the insurance company says, “No, we’ll settle,” and the rates go up. It’s very frustrating for these operators.

I’m running short on time. What we need to do is we need to focus on the insurance. I appreciate the goal of the bill to help these snowplow operators stay in business, and, at first blush, it does look like the problem is that there are frivolous lawsuits. At first blush, it looks that way. The real problem is that insurance has open rein to do whatever they want and seems to have run roughshod over these company offers.

Like I said, when I asked a few insurance brokers who were deputizing, “Will rates go down in response to this?” the answer was maybe—maybe they will. So we could be back here again trying to resolve this and trying to figure out what the solution is or how we wrap our heads around the insurance, because, even though there may be frivolous lawsuits—and I tend to think that, as Canadians, we don’t file a ton of those. I feel like that’s one of those things that we look down our nose at Americans about because we always see those stories in America, but maybe there are some. Maybe there’s 10%. I don’t know.

But if we change this from two years to six months, there’s also an opportunity for these companies—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Two years to two months.

Mr. Jamie West: Sorry, two years to two months—there’s an opportunity for these companies to start advertising harder. That you have to file, you have to file. So everybody who slips at all will file right away, just in case.

I did a run for charity about a month ago and my knee was sore afterwards. I wouldn’t file a lawsuit, but my initial reaction was, “My knee is sore, my knee is sore.” People who fall, the same thing happens. You’re a little embarrassed, you don’t bring it up, but if there’s a company every day saying, “You might be hurt. This happened to Grandma Betty and she broke her hip. You should file right away,” we could get more. That gives the insurance companies the right to jack rates up even more and we’ll have an even bigger problem with this. Thank you.

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

Mr. John Fraser: I want to congratulate the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka—or thank him, I should say—for bringing this bill forward. Somebody came to him and said, “We’ve got a challenge, we’ve got a problem.” It’s a really important problem in the place where we live. Winter is a big thing here in Canada, here in Ontario, and we need to have snow removed, so the bill is a good bill. Is it going to solve everything? No. But we know we don’t do that here on a regular basis. We try to fix those things that we can fix right now. Will it put downward pressure on insurance rates? I think so. How much? I don’t know.

I think one of the things that we do have to look at to address this, and I think this came up in committee—the member would be familiar with this—is that in New England, they actually have a code and have some limited protections for snow removal companies. They have to be able to meet certain standards, and they get, I guess you’d say, a certification, because in New England, in New Hampshire, getting rid of snow is a pretty big thing. I think we need to look at that so that we can use it as more of a finely tuned tool to solve this problem. What we’re using here is a good but somewhat blunt instrument.

The member from Sudbury made a good point: We might get a reverse reaction in terms of what’s going to happen with trial lawyers and injury claims. That’s a whole other issue, and the fact that we allow clearing houses for these kinds of things is something that needs to be looked at. Specifically, for what the member has tried to do, he has done the right thing today, but the work is not done, and I think he would probably agree. I think he is probably thinking about continuing that, and I encourage him, and encourage all members to support this bill. Thank you for your time.

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

Mr. Stephen Crawford: It’s a real pleasure to be able to speak on Bill 118, and I want to thank the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka for bringing this to the Legislature. It impacts everyone in Ontario. It impacts me in my riding of Oakville. I’m a part-time resident, as well, of his great riding of Parry Sound–Muskoka, and I’ve talked to some contractors up there, as well, and they’ve been affected. Whether you’re in Oakville, Parry Sound, Ottawa or Timmins, I think everyone is affected. We get snow everywhere in this province, so first, I do want to thank the member for bringing this forward.

As the winter season is now upon us—we’re now entering it; we’ve got snow outside, as everyone can see, the colder weather is here and the first snowfalls—this is a very timely bill that is proposing to amend the Occupiers’ Liability Act to adjust the statute of limitations on slips and falls on private property from two years to 60 days. If passed, this bill would reduce the notice period for lawsuits for slips and falls on snow and ice to 60 days. I know that during committee, for which I was a member, the time frame increased from 10 days to 60 days.

Nevertheless, reducing the time period is important for the snowplowing business, and I believe this number of 60 days is a reasonable compromise.

As members of the Legislature, we have the duty to improve the challenges that people experience, and I know that the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka worked hard with his staff to engage with many stakeholders on this topic. At the time I last checked, the member had received over 60 quotes in support of this legislation, and I’m sure there are countless others who are now aware of the legislation and support it in its entirety.

Receiving feedback has pointed out specific problems that need to be addressed. Snow removal companies are having greater difficulty securing reasonable insurance rates, and they’re concerned about the two-year time frame to issue a claim. Just reading the news, insurance hikes of 400% are not unheard of in the industry.

Many owners of landscaping companies and their staff of seasonal workers depend on the summer months for gardening and planting, and in the winter months their income is earned through snowplowing. But the winter presents a challenge because of the snow and ice that could result in slips and falls.

Looking through the support obtained for the bill, it spans across Ontario. For example, as I mentioned, I’ve talked to stakeholders in my riding. Dependable Lawn Care, who have been doing business for nine years, stated, “Two years to serve paper and notice is unacceptable and this loophole needs to be adjusted to help the ‘small guy’ defend themselves from the predatory lawyers.... Due to all the legal lawyer shenanigans, my insurance rates for snow liability have skyrocketed through the roof, and one more increase may force me to close!”

Other small businesses in Halton region have endorsed this proposed legislation, and, again, I want to thank the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka for addressing the concerns for many businesses in my riding. It is unreasonable that someone can bring a lawsuit forward against a contractor who removes snow or the occupant of the property just shy of two years after the event occurred. After this time lapse, events can be forgotten, it’s hard to get accurate data, and staff who could serve as witnesses could have left their job. The result is a challenge piecing all this information together in an adequate defence.

I cannot imagine going through a lawsuit two years after a slip-and-fall incident that will hike insurance rates to unreasonable levels. Snow removal workers wake up at the crack of dawn to clear driveways, and the last thing they need is a headache from frivolous claims.

I believe this bill will solve insurance problems for companies in my riding. Many Ontarians will be turning to snow removal services in the coming weeks, and as the snow continues to fall, lower insurance will help lower service fees. I fully endorse this bill, and I hope every member of the Legislature will do so as well.

I will now be sharing my time with the members from Thornhill and Barrie–Innisfil. Thank you.

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

Mr. Jeff Burch: It’s a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 118, the Occupiers’ Liability Amendment Act.

I grew up around law firms. I was going to mention, my mom moved from PEI to Ontario when she was 19 years old and worked for the same litigation lawyer for 42 years. I worked in the law firm moving boxes around in the summer.

I’m kind of surprised that the government didn’t speak to more lawyers, get more legal opinions when the member came out with this bill, because it seems to me that it’s a little shy on the research side.

In Ontario, if you fall on private property, under the current law you have two years to make a claim and there is no requirement or deadline for providing written notice. However, if a fall occurs on provincial or municipal property, there is currently a 10-day written notice requirement window.

The original version of this bill amended the Occupiers’ Liability Act so that no action would be brought for the recovery of damages for personal injury caused by snow or ice against an occupier, an independent contractor employed by the occupier or a landlord, unless, within 10 days after the injury occurs, written notice of the claim and of the injury are served. I understand that after committee, the bill was amended to reflect a period of 60 days.

This bill would be a disincentive for those who want to seek compensation for injury caused by someone else’s neglect. I understand there is a serious issue of insurance gouging for businesses; my friend from Sudbury touched on that. It’s my understanding that this bill was proposed following the news of a snow removal company operating in the member’s riding facing significant surges in insurance costs following slip-and-fall claims that were made against them.

I’ve also heard of the plight of snow removal companies. There’s an

article from the CBC: Christopher Thacker, who owned a company called Mr. Mow says that his company may be driven out of business if costs continue to skyrocket. His company’s mandatory liability insurance has risen from $5,000 when he first started to pay to almost $70,000 just last year. This year, his insurance broker told him to expect it to almost double.

Tony DiGiovanni, executive director of the Landscape Ontario Horticultural Trades Association, says some members are reporting insurance premium increases anywhere from 25% to 300%. So it’s a serious problem.

However, the issue of insurance gouging is by no means limited to slips and falls. The Globe and Mail reported on restaurants who were facing skyrocketing insurance costs and dropped coverage. The Premier himself, back in October, discussed the difficulty with the insurance companies, saying “They’re absolutely just refusing to insure people, we don’t play that game.... You guys don’t get to get all the cream and gravy ... and just slough off everything else and think we aren’t going to insure it.” The Premier said the budget would address the issue, but to date we have not seen any changes on this file or the issue being addressed.

If we talk about victim impacts, insurance gouging is a real problem. The insurance industry has been running amok in the province for years now. However, the solution to that problem is not and cannot be short-changing victims. When someone gets hurt, the last thing on their mind should be, “How fast can I get a lawyer?” It should be getting the medical care they need and taking the time to recover. If this bill passes, it will mean even more pain and suffering for those who have been hurt because of someone else’s negligence.

By bringing in these unnecessary time limits, we’re not only making it harder for people to get the healing and compensation they deserve, we risk letting landlords off the hook when it comes to their duty to keep people safe on their property.

Our job is not to find new and creative ways to make life harder for everyday families. It’s our job to fight for what matters, and that includes victim compensation.

Some stakeholder reaction: We’ve had reaction from Allen Wynperle, the president of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association. His position can be summed up in one sentence when he said that this bill will hurt victims and that it is “unduly cumbersome.” He notes that this bill tries to implement the same scheme currently in place for municipal or provincial property on private property, but the situations are entirely different and will not work in the same way.

For example, if someone slips on municipal property, the lawyers know exactly who to contact and can easily file the notice. However, in the proposed bill, if someone gets hurt at the mall, the owner of the space and the person who’s ultimately responsible is often less clear. That means the victim and/or the lawyer must first figure out who exactly the landlord is or who owns the mall, which could require a title search and could end up taking weeks to figure out.

Once you find out who owns the mall, you’ll have to serve them, but they may not be on the property themselves, which creates another barrier, since the tenants can’t be served, they have no responsibility for the property. Allen further notes that by forcing a 10-day window to give notice, people may end up suing who otherwise may not have if they had had more time.

Response from injury lawyers: We’ve had some response to this bill from them. Bergeron Clifford says, “The concern with the proposed bill is that most people will not be aware of the 10-day notice requirement. In addition, information about the property owner’s name and address aren’t always readily available. Identifying who is responsible can sometimes take longer than 10 days.” And that came, obviously, before the change.

Tullio D’Angela, a personal injury lawyer since the 2000s, wrote, “Those injured in accidents are often faced with significant statutory and policy hurdles, which must be overcome to recover compensation. It appears that further limits on the rights of ... Ontarians is rearing its head. This time it’s Bill 118, which is a private member’s bill to amend the Occupiers’ Liability Act.”

He summarizes some of the amendments that he has issues with:

“‘Limitation period ...

“‘6.1(1)No action shall be brought for the recovery of damages for personal injury caused by snow or ice against a person or persons listed in subsection (2) unless, within 10 days after the occurrence of the injury, written notice of the claim, including the date, time and location of the occurrence, has been served on one or more of the persons....

“‘

(2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) are the following:

“‘(

a) An occupier.

“‘(

b) An independent contractor employed by the occupier.

“‘(

c) In the case of a tenancy described in subsection 8(1), a landlord.

“‘

(3) Failure to give notice is not a bar to the action in the case of the death of the injured person as a result of the injury.

“‘

(4) Failure to give notice or insufficiency of the notice is not a bar to the action if a judge finds that there is reasonable excuse for the want or the insufficiency of the notice and that the defendant is not prejudiced in its defence.’

“The notice provision proposed is” very similar, as I’d mentioned earlier, “to the limits imposed by s. 44 of the Municipal Act and s. 42 of the City of Toronto Act.” He goes on to say, “If these changes are implemented, the ramifications could be” very “significant.”

“What constitutes a ‘reasonable excuse’ has been addressed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Crinson v. Toronto.... The court held that the trial judge erred in requiring the plaintiff to prove that he was so incapacitated in the 10 days following the accident that he was unable to give notice to the defendant. The question to be addressed is whether in all the circumstances of the case, it was reasonable for the plaintiff not to give notice within the time frame pursuant to the statute.”

In this case, “the plaintiff was taking Percocet, a powerful narcotic. He was in a restrictive cast for 12 weeks and required intensive therapy for months. During that period, he was depressed and anxious about his ability to return to work and support his family. He was unaware that he was required to give notice until he was contacted by a lawyer. He gave notice shortly after that. In all the circumstances, the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for his failure to give notice.... As the defendant did not assert any prejudice to its defence, the action was not barred....”

Another case: “In Bramer v. City of Hamilton ... the plaintiff, a lawyer, failed to report the accident within” the time period. “In considering whether there was a ‘reasonable excuse’ for the delay in providing notice the court considered:

“—the plaintiff had no knowledge of the time requirement;

“—the notice was ‘only 27 days late’;

“—the plaintiff had not spoken to a lawyer about her fall or potential claim;

“—the municipality’s website related to snow on sidewalk issues did not specify a limitation period; and

“—the plaintiff honestly did not know how long her symptoms would last and hoped they would resolve, in which case she would not have commenced a claim.”

“The amendments being proposed appear to be just another attempt to curtail the legitimately injured Ontarians from recovering damages for the negligent actions of others. The likely thinking here is that this would help to reduce claims and, therefore, result in lower premiums,” as speakers have discussed. But many of the legal opinions “believe strongly in the law of unintended consequences, especially when government is involved.”

Many of the legal opinions are that, as a result of the amendments:

“

(1) There will not likely be a reduction in claims. Lawyers ... will fight for those legitimately injured.

“

(2) A greater number of

summary judgment motions may result as defendants will want to take a run at closing a file down sooner rather than later....” Litigation costs and insurance premiums will continue to rise, so this bill will not actually address that.

“

(3) Winter maintenance contractors and property owners could take a lax approach in performing winter maintenance or maintaining records if they wrongly assume that missing” a “notice period will result in a claim being barred.

“

(4) Even if there is no prejudice, there still remains the possibility that someone with a legitimate claim can be barred from recovering damages because that person did not have a reasonable excuse for the delay. If this is the case, then the amendments would essentially reward negligent behaviour.

“

(5) The amendments will not result in improved investigations by insurers. Just ask anyone involved in such claims against municipalities.

“

(6) The notice provision is untenable since it is almost impossible to determine whether a third-party contractor is involved within the notice period. Would notice to a property owner bind the contractor? If not, how can a plaintiff determine who is responsible for the winter maintenance? The amendments are unclear and stand to make matters more complex.”

So if the concern is that premiums for property owners and winter maintenance contractors are not affordable, these amendments will rule in even more unaffordable premiums.

Trial lawyers write, “We need to let the government know that this private member’s bill is not the way to go to improve insurance affordability, if that is indeed the goal. I suggest that all concerned contact their MPP and let them know that Bill 118 should not become law in this province.” So that’s what a lot of the experts are saying.

Speaker, I will remind the House that this isn’t the first time that we’ve seen from the government actions that put the safety of everyday Ontarians on the line and take the side of corporations. We’ve seen it with the nursing home liability under Bill 218. This government tabled Bill 218 not long ago, which not only rolled back the ability for municipalities to hold marked ballot decisions, it also limited the liability of a broad range of entities as it related to the exposure of COVID-19.

It retroactively banned any court action related to an individual being, or potentially being, infected with or exposed to coronavirus, so long as the person being sued made a good-faith effort to follow the relevant laws and public health direction at the time and was not grossly negligent. So this is not the first time the government has come out with a bill that actually takes the position of corporations over that of everyday individuals.

The government cancelled free prescription medication given to those under 25 through the pharmacare program. This government has removed legislative positions such as the privatization officer, the chief scientist, the investment officer, the environmental commissioner’s office, the Ontario child advocate and the French language commissioner.

Let’s remember that this government has reduced legal aid by 30%. They killed Bill 148, which provided part-time workers the same pay as full-time workers and guaranteed 10 days off. There have been a series of ministerial zoning orders that degrade the environment, taking the side of developers over the side of the environment and everyday citizens.

There’s Bill 175, which privatized even more home care and removed the existing provisions of public control and accountability. It further privatized—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Excuse me. I appreciate what the member is doing and saying right now; however, I do have some concern with regard to your content and the bill that is before us. I would ask that your comments be directed to the actual bill that is being debated. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you, Speaker. I guess what I was trying to do is demonstrate that, this bill, as I think I’ve demonstrated through my speaking, doesn’t address the issue of rising insurance premiums. It actually decreases our ability, or the ability of citizens, to sue, and so it actually hurts victims.

The passage of the bill actually takes the side of insurance companies and businesses over everyday people who are injured, and our job here as legislators is really to help everyday people, and so passing a bill that’s going to limit the ability of people to sue when they’re injured—as I mentioned, in Ontario, if you fall on private property, under the current law you have two years to make a claim. Introducing these notice periods really damages the ability of people to sue.

The original version of this bill and the current version really is—let’s say someone fell on a property and they were injured. They should really be thinking about their medical recovery; they should be thinking about getting better. They should not be thinking about these notice periods and possibly losing their ability for compensation.

There’s a long list, and what I was trying to demonstrate is that this government has not been shy about taking the side of corporations and the side of insurance companies and the side of other businesses, and putting them ahead of everyday Ontarians, and I think this is another example. There’s a long list of those things.

I think that when the average person in Ontario slips and falls, and you have trial lawyers all over the province saying that they have a right to sue, they have a right to compensation, coming along with a bill under the guise of something that will lower insurance premiums, when all of the legal opinions say that’s not actually what will happen—what might actually happen is insurance premiums may go up, because this is not going to address that problem. All it really does is—it will protect landlords; it will protect insurance companies; it will protect some businesses in Ontario. It will not protect average, everyday people.

That’s just another example in a very long, long line of actions by this government that do not protect average, everyday families, but rather, protect their friends.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very pleased today rise today and to say a few words on the Occupiers’ Liability Amendment Act put out by my colleague.

We’ve heard a lot about issues with the insurance industry, but what we’re debating today is specifically slips and falls and trying to ensure that the companies do what I consider to be an essential service—remove the snow and ice from our roads, sidewalks and walkways so that we can decrease injury. Now, we can’t make it a 0% possibility of somebody injuring themselves. All we’re trying to do is to maintain reasonable conditions during the winter.

I have Derrad property management in my riding. They have emailed me. They’re hugely supportive of the changes we’re trying to make, specifically that instead of having two years to serve notice that you’re going to sue, it will now be only 60 days; so from two years to two months to serve notice that somebody is injured and that you’re looking to launch a lawsuit. That gives warning to the companies that they should save all their information that they have from audiovisual or interviewing employees—which we all know, after two years, it’s very possible those same employees aren’t even there.

I had an experience when I was an optometrist at the Re/Max building. I had a clinic in the Re/Max building up in Keswick. I actually found out we shared a parking lot, and the cleaning of the parking lot, with the Country Style that was next door. The way I found that out is I got served notice of a lawsuit.

A woman went out to pick up her glasses. We weren’t even open yet. She didn’t have an appointment, but she decided she needed to pick up her glasses on a day that the police had issued a freezing rain warning to not go out unless it was an emergency. Unfortunately, this woman decided to drive her car and come in the parking lot. It was just an absolute, absolute mess in the parking lot. It doesn’t matter how much salt you put down, a layer of ice with rain on top of it is a complete mess. Unfortunately for this woman, and for everybody involved, she fell and broke her hip.

When they were served with the papers, my insurance company, as well as my landlord at the Re/Max building and the Country Style next door—we were all devastated. My staff and I called this woman every day to see how she was doing. She had surgery. She mended perfectly. There was no medical doctor who would say that she had a lasting disability because of it, but obviously it was a horrific incident for her and her family, and for myself, my staff and my landlord as well.

My insurance company wanted to settle with her. They offered her $10,000 to settle; they didn’t want to go to court. They knew it would cost them more to go to court. She and her lawyer refused. To tell you the truth, I didn’t want my insurance company to settle because I felt we hadn’t done anything wrong.

But it did go to court and it was a very trying experience for me. I still remember the day I answered my front door with a little baby on my hip. It was a bailiff serving me with papers. That was probably the worst experience of my professional career as an optometrist. I got served the papers and it was a lot of work having to go downtown to give a deposition. In the end, it did go to court and she got awarded zero. So I think that there are sometimes frivolous lawsuits where it might be that the person wasn’t really injured. In this case, the woman did fall and did injure herself just getting out of her car. She didn’t even make it out of her car; she put one foot down and slipped.

I support my colleague for putting forward this piece of legislation. I think it’s very, very important for us that we do everything we can to lower insurance rates in a way that makes sense. We all know it has a domino effect: If there are fewer lawsuits, then it means that insurance rates will go down. Anybody who is severely injured and in the hospital and can’t serve notice within the two months, there is a part of this legislation that allows for them to still serve notice under those kinds of very difficult and trying circumstances.

What we’re saying here is anybody who wasn’t severely injured and not hospitalized has two months to get themselves in order and decide if they want to sue and speak to their lawyer. They don’t have to actually launch the lawsuit; they just have to serve the notice so that all the companies involved and all the professionals involved have the time. To go back two months is not unreasonable to go to your employees and go to your audiovisual system.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I hope everybody—

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. Unfortunately, the time for debate has expired, but it is time for members’ statements.

Members’ Statements

Hydro rates

Mr. Ian Arthur: Over the past several months, my office has heard from so many Kingstonians who are experiencing significantly higher hydro bills every single month than they are used to. A number of Kingstonians who called my office said that their bills have gone up $100 compared to the same month last year.

For over 100 years, affordable, public electricity helped build Ontario into an economic powerhouse and a province where opportunity attracted people from across Canada and the entire world. It has allowed each successive generation to build new opportunities. However, since the Conservative and the Liberal governments privatized Ontario’s hydro system, the system has come to include healthy profit margins for private and foreign companies, all at the expense of Ontario ratepayers and their families.

The current government did inherit a mess from the Liberals, but they’re making it worse. Few issues exemplify the incompetence of governments like the energy sector in Ontario. While campaigning in 2018, the Premier did promise that he would reduce electricity rates by 12%. Instead, they’ve jumped significantly, from 13 cents to 21 cents per kilowatt hour for some folks, since the Premier took office. Even band-aid solutions like the Ontario Electricity Rebate—my constituents are still paying more, even making use of those programs. During a pandemic, with so much financial strain, this is unfair for the people of Ontario.

Firefighters

Ms. Amy Fee: Last week, I had the honour of meeting with firefighters from my riding. I was immediately struck by just how grateful they were that I would take the time out of my day to meet with them. To me, it is the least I can do to show support for the firefighters in my community, who go to work every day to ensure that all residents are safe.

When Ontarians are experiencing an emergency, over 11,000 career professional firefighters are there. I believe most people presume that our career firefighters are qualified to a recognized industry standard, such as the National Fire Protection Association. Many may also believe these same firefighters are certified to the same level from one municipality to another, but they are not. While we have standardized provincial qualifications for other first responders and even skilled trades professionals, sadly, we do not have a recognized industry standard for our career professional firefighters.

Additionally, simultaneous notification with EMS dramatically improves outcomes in critical situations when every second counts. In 2012, Kitchener and Barrie were early adopters of this system, and in Barrie, response times improved by 36% in the first year alone. Last year, Cambridge residents experienced an improvement to response times when Cambridge consolidated dispatch services with Kitchener to ensure simultaneous notification with EMS. Unfortunately, not all departments across Ontario are dispatched at the same time as EMS.

I just want to finish off by saying a heartfelt thank you to all of our fantastic professional career firefighters in Ontario.

Services de santé mentale

M. Guy Bourgouin: Je me lève aujourd’hui pour parler de la crise de santé mentale à laquelle on fait face, due à l’absence de ressources de santé mentale dans le comté que j’ai l’honneur de représenter.

M me Lyne Levesque de Hearst est la mère d’un jeune adulte ayant de graves problèmes de santé mentale. Comme toute mère, M me Levesque a fait l’impossible pour aider son fils.

Malgré ces efforts, son fils n’a pas reçu le soutien que toutes et tous les Ontariens méritent, et depuis un an, ça s’est gravement aggravé.

M me Levesque a fait face à l’impensable : elle a été obligée de porter des accusations contre son propre fils. Présentement, M me Levesque se trouve dévastée, seule et découragée, alors que son fils est en détention.

Son fils, comme tous les Ontariens, mérite d’avoir accès aux services de santé mentale, peu importe où on demeure en Ontario. Rien de toute cette situation ne serait arrivé si les ressources et les services de santé mentale auraient été en place dans le Nord-Est.

Je demande, donc, au ministre associé délégué à la Santé mentale et à la Lutte contre les dépendances, pourquoi M me Levesque et son fils doivent-ils faire face à cette situation bouleversante pour elle, son fils et sa famille? Où est le soutien pour les résidents du nord-est de la province?

Small business

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: These are trying times for Ontario small business owners. The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for so many restaurants, small retailers and everyday mom-and-pop shops.

In my riding, Markham–Thornhill, hundreds of small businesses have told me of the daily struggle they are going through just to make ends meet, just to keep their workers employed and paid. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to those small business owners who are worried they might not make it through this pandemic.

Our government is working each and every day to help Ontario’s business community in their economic recovery while keeping Ontarians safe from COVID-19. We are making electricity costs more affordable, assisting businesses in areas under lockdown with municipal and education property taxes, supporting businesses through the Ontario Together Fund, the Ontario Made program and the new Invest Ontario agency.

Since the start of this pandemic, our government has invested billions of dollars to support business owners, to protect workers and to remove barriers to our economic recovery. While there is hope over the horizon with a vaccine, I want to remind those small business owners who are struggling through this difficult time, not only in the Markham–Thornhill riding but across Ontario, that we won’t let you down.

Moharram Ventures

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Today, I rise to recognize a brilliant individual whose creativity and ingenuity are boundless. Tarek Moharram of Moharram Ventures from my riding of London North Centre is an example of someone who doesn’t simply accept the status quo. He believes in fostering innovation as well as responsible systems.

In the next 60 seconds, 700 tonnes of plastic will be produced on this planet. His invention, Truly Green Plastic, a fully biodegradable product, will help mitigate the disastrous impact of single-use plastics. Additionally, Truly Green Plastic uses cannabis plant waste and represents the circular economy at its best.

As if that weren’t enough, Tarek also told me about a platform he developed to assist those seeking legal representation. Too often, people call a lawyer from a billboard. I’m sure you’re thinking about the astronomical contingency fees charged by these organizations, Speaker. Tarek’s platform, contingentSee, is revolutionizing how people secure legal representation. Their system empowers clients as they anonymously post information about their potential case. Lawyers review the postings and then make a bid on the cases they would most like to represent. It helps people on both sides of the equation.

Congratulations, Moharram Ventures, for your brilliant, timely and socially responsible innovations. I look forward to many more.

Persons with disabilities

Roughly one billion people on this planet have a disability. One in seven Ontarians has a disability, and if you’re over 60, it’s almost one in two. Over the next 20 years, the number will rise to one in five Ontarians, and the number of people over 60 may actually invert.

Persons with disabilities are one of the most excluded groups in our society and amongst the hardest hit during this crisis. We must recognize the value that persons with disabilities have in our society.

A few weeks ago, I spoke for National Disability Employment Awareness Month. Just like this day of action, it recognizes the potential that persons with disabilities have and how they can provide unique insight and be such a valuable member of any team.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Vincent Ke: I’d like to take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge the Chinese community for its generous donations made throughout the past months of the pandemic. Last Friday, I joined Premier Ford alongside MPP Wai, MPP Pang, MPP Babikian and MPP Kanapathi in a virtual donation appreciation meeting to acknowledge and show our deep appreciation to the incredible donors whose support has helped our communities so much during the pandemic.

As our government relies on expert guidance from public health officials to steer our way through this public health crisis, we also count on the public to co-operate to be a part of the solution. It is wonderful to see so many remarkable individuals and businesses demonstrate true Ontario spirit during this unprecedented time. Those who willingly donate their time, money, food and PPE to help lessen the hardship of others deserve our gratitude.

Our province is lucky to have strong leadership and incredible co-operation from Ontarians as we continue to fight together to stop the spread of the virus. I’m sure we will all get through the current challenges to triumph over the virus because of the collective action of Ontarians, the people who choose to make a difference.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, Ontario—Toronto—has had a taste of winter, and in northern Ontario we have also had that taste of winter for a while. One thing that comes with a taste of winter in northern Ontario is driving on northern Ontario highways.

We bring this up lots in the House, but this specific incident I would like to bring to the Minister of Transportation’s attention—we will send her the video and we want answers as to why this happened.

On November 28, a Saturday, there were no weather warnings, but Marijke Vervoort and her family got in an accident on Highway 11 south of Temagami. Luckily, they weren’t hurt, but she took a video of the highway conditions, and she described it as black ice. But the video was very obvious: It wasn’t black ice; it was a layer of ice that—people were seen walking; they could barely walk on it. This is the Trans-Canada Highway that should be patrolled, should be salted, should be sanded, and it was obvious on that morning that nothing—nothing—was done.

I’m sure everyone is trying to do their best on the roads, but this video made it obvious that on November 28, a layer of ice was causing accidents on the Trans-Canada Highway and there was no action taken. I would like an answer from the Minister of Transportation.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Daryl Kramp: I rise today to speak on a matter that I know we all hear about almost every day: the stressful challenges from this horrible year, 2020. I know it has weighed heavily on all the people of Ontario. The anxiety has been extreme for those losing family and friends to COVID and for those unable to even give their last respects to those who are close to them, no matter the cause of their deaths.

Tragically, we have lost elders and even younger leaders in our neighbourhoods, our organizations and our lives. We have lost dreams and promise and people who have made them happen. It has been a challenging year, at best, for all of us.

There’s no bright side to COVID-19, yet, despite these adversities, there are heroes who have risen to the occasion, as there always are. They walk among us and make the best of a bad situation. Some are well-known leaders. Some are simply working quietly in the background, enabling us to be fed and clothed, to send our children to school and to go to work safely.

There is inner strength and bravado, Mr. Speaker. Because you know what you bring to the table; we all do. But we also have to recognize when the stress gets too much. So I say to colleagues all and Ontarians: Please, recognize when you need help. Reach out for it. Also to everyone, as we approach this Christmas season, an emotional time of year for many, many people, please be there for your neighbour.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, before I begin I want to give a shout-out to a special little girl who is watching me right now. I just want to say hi to princess Eliyanna. I know you’re watching on TV, and Auntie Goldie misses you.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read a comment that I received from someone a couple of days ago by email. This person wrote to me and said: “Hi Goldie, I just wanted to reach out and say ... as a health care professional and someone who was really sick from COVID, I respect that your government is looking out for people’s best interests. I couldn’t do your job. People have too much ability to spread hate. Just wanted to reach out and say thank you, Goldie. Take care.”

When I responded to this person and let them know that I would like to share their comments in the Legislature, and I asked them if I could identify them, this was their response: “Thank you for your response, Goldie. I really appreciated that.... I think there is so much more we will learn from this virus as time goes on. Until that happens we all just have to do our part.

Mr. Speaker, my message to all Ontarians is: I know this is a difficult time for us all. I know that we’re all under a lot of stress and we’re dealing with COVID fatigue, but I think it’s important for all of us to remember that we have to be kind, we have to be supportive, and that no one should be afraid for speaking out against their experiences with COVID.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Sara Singh: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, nearly 300 more students and staff contracted COVID-19. We now know that that could just be the tip of the iceberg.

Ontario’s auditor revealed last week that the Ford government paid a consultant $4.8 million to, in part, develop some sort of a back-to-school plan. Will the Premier make that report public today?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, we unveiled a plan after following the advice and the counsel of the Chief Medical Officer of Health every step of the way to ensure students remain safe. The principal we listened to in the development of our plan is the Chief Medical Officer of Health, which is why Dr. Williams, Dr. Yaffe, Dr. Huyer and so many others have worked with us in good faith to build the plan, and that’s why the chief medical officer has endorsed our plan—$1.3 billion of investment.

Today, 84.6% of schools have no active cases of COVID at all. Of schools with cases, 60% have a single case within them. I should note, of students in this province where we are firmly committed to ensure they remain safe: 99.92% of students are COVID-free, no active cases at all; and likewise for staff: 99.87% of staff have no active cases.

Our commitment is to keep students safe. We’ll listen to the science, the medical leadership, to ensure we continue to do that into 2021.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: Instead of spending money to keep families safe, this government chose to stuff the pockets of consultants and insiders instead.

Today’s Globe and Mail report shows that some Brampton schools have become complete ghost towns as anxious parents pull their children out of school and struggle with online learning.

Speaker, through you to the minister, does he think that spending millions of dollars on a report that apparently didn’t even suggest capping class sizes or investing in our students was really a good investment? And will you release that report today?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Speaker, this is coming from the New Democratic Party, who opposed—twice now—the Support for Learners concept of giving money directly in to the pockets of parents, the same political party who voted in this House against the child care tax credit, providing 75% of eligible expenses for working moms and dads. How is this consistent with the interest of affordability in the midst of a recession, in the midst of a pandemic?

This government will, yes, do both: invest in public education and in the safety of kids, and make life affordable for the people of this province. We will not apologize for doing that.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: Speaker, the Ford government has completely failed families here in Ontario and the only people who seem to think otherwise are on that side of the House, or people working for big, American consulting firms.

Teachers, students, families—all Ontarians—deserve to know what other advice is in this report. So will the Premier release this unredacted report and will he do that today? And if not, explain to the people of Ontario why you aren’t.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, the advice we followed was informed by the Chief Medical Officer of Health. Why? Because we believe and have confidence in that gentleman, who has provided counsel to government and cabinet about how to get through this pandemic. We will continue to follow his lead. It’s why this province stands alone in this country with launching asymptomatic testing in the highest-risk regions, including in the member opposite’s region and likewise in my own, in York, and in Peel, in Toronto and in Ottawa.

We will stand ready, working with public health and the Ministry of Health to do more to ensure we keep schools open, a societal imperative that we are absolutely resolved to ensure, working with the Minister of Health, the Deputy Premier, to deliver on that imperative.

We are working in close collaboration with our nurses on the ground. We’ve doubled public health nurses for our schools. We are going to continue to do everything possible, including allocating an additional $380 million of federal monies to protect our schools and protect the progress we’ve made in this province.

Long-term care

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Long-Term Care. Yesterday, another five families lost loved ones due to COVID in long-term-care homes in Ontario. And, once again, the government declined to tell us why they weren’t giving information to their own long-term-care commission and why they are continuing to ignore the commission’s advice.

In their report in July, the commission called on the government to address the fact that many long-term-care homes still have residents living three and four to a room, contrary to public health advice. Can the government tell us how many long-term-care homes in outbreak have residents unprotected in those ward rooms?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you for the question. The ward rooms, unfortunately, are a real problem, as wave 1 indicated, really indicating the neglect of the previous government for 15 years to address the capacity issues in long-term care in any fulsome way. Homes built in the 1970s were not redeveloped. Between 2011 and 2018, only 611 beds were built. The capacity was sorely neglected. And here we are now, working with public health, working with our Chief Medical Officer of Health, the assistant chief medical officer of health and Ontario Health to address the long-standing issues not only in the capacity problems but also in the staffing.

My heart goes out to everyone who has been affected by this horrible virus. Ontario is doing everything it can to address this issue. You can see across Canada, whether it’s Manitoba, Alberta or BC—fortunately, the Atlantic provinces have been relatively spared so far—this virus spares nobody. That’s why everyone has to keep up the effort to make sure that they have a role and responsibility in limiting community spread.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Ward rooms are a problem. We agree with the minister. COVID has often been described as a war, and it is. In the second wave, we have a better understanding of the enemy, as does the government. So it’s not enough to say that it has been a long-standing problem and, you know what, these are just going to be casualties of the war.

You’ve had months to take emergency measures, to understand that ward rooms are a problem. Why have you not come up with a plan for emergency measures and treated this like an emergency and treated seniors like the people they are and not casualties of the COVID war?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll ask members to please take their seats and remind members to make their comments through the Chair.

The response: the Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Those comments by the member opposite are very, very disrespectful to the people who are working round the clock to make sure that every measure and every tool—we’re looking at the capacity issues, integrating the response to our long-term-care homes, making sure that we have the staff and the response that is needed for these homes in outbreak. We’ve been doing this for almost a year now and we have never stopped. We’ve been absolutely diligent in this process.

So for anyone to insinuate that all the good people who are working so hard to address this issue with a virus that has never been seen in this world—I will not allow those people to be insulted. I will not allow our PSWs to be insulted. I will not allow it.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: My mother died in a long-term-care home in March. I have, and our party has, ultimate respect for the people who work in long-term care, for the people who work in the system, for the people who have been overworked constantly and who are now even more overworked because this government didn’t take the steps to hire more people.

COVID is a war. You field hospitals or rent hotel rooms or do something when you know that people in wards are at a greater risk.

Comparing to other provinces—we don’t need comparisons to other provinces; we need a Minister of Long-Term Care who is going to work for people in Ontario, in long-term-care homes in Ontario. Come up with a plan. Act now before more people die in wards.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll ask the members to take their seats again.

Minister of Long-Term Care.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: I can assure the member opposite that our government has done nothing but attempt to support and commit to making sure our long-term-care residents and staff and families are supported through this horrible, horrible time of COVID-19. There are so many measures we are taking. I won’t list them now, but I would like to tell you a little bit about the situation in Quebec—and Ontario has really been under siege. I wouldn’t equate this to a war—the millions of people who have died in World War II, in World War I, in Afghanistan, in Korea, across the globe in wars.

Everyone can do their part. You heard General Hillier say the other day that this is something that we can do to suppress community spread, to reduce your social contacts: stay home. Reduce the community spread, and you will help our homes. But, ultimately, the truth is that there are no simple solutions to this. The ward rooms were long-standing, thanks to the previous government, supported by the NDP when there was a minority government. We must—

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

The next question.

Long-term care

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Premier. This morning, Hamilton families learned that public health has had to intervene to impose public health orders on two more long-term-care facilities. This is the fifth time public health has had to issue orders to protect seniors in Hamilton long-term care. Hamilton’s medical officer of health says that, unfortunately, long-term-care operators are “still thinking influenza”—the flu. How is it that after everything we learned in the first wave, the government is still treating COVID like it’s the flu?

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

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: That simply just isn’t the case. We know that COVID-19 can ravage homes. It’s ravaging countries. It’s ravaging provinces. There’s no question that COVID-19 is a very different beast. The transmission is different. The potential for aerosol spread—this is not the same whatsoever.

But I want to remind the member opposite that the reason those public health units are able to do what they do is because they have the power to address the issues in their public health units and in their regions. This is very important, that they do that to be able to respond quickly, to be able to get into our homes, to provide immediate response as soon as there’s a first case, whether it’s a resident or staff.

I remind everyone that 92% of our long-term-care homes right now have no resident cases, and the ones that have resident cases are getting the support that they need through Public Health, through Ontario Health, making sure that the hospital acute care sector is integrated with the medical expertise, the infection prevention and control expertise, the staffing supports. These are all ongoing, and this government is committed, with a priority of long-term-care residents, staff and families being at the centre of everything we do, to do everything we can to ensure that they are protected and supported.

What you raise is really evidence that our system of response is working. We have been proactive as well, to understand that COVID-19 is not influenza. It is not. I think that’s very clear in the science. So the fact that our public health units are going in and assisting our homes immediately and doing what is required of public health is wonderful and very much appreciated.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Only a few weeks ago, the minister said that 99.9% of long-term-care homes didn’t have an outbreak. Now we’re at 92% that don’t have outbreaks. It’s getting worse, not better.

This is the fifth public health order that has been issued in Hamilton. As of yesterday, these five homes have had 257 residents infected with COVID. That’s 257 families left wondering if parents and grandparents will survive.

The Premier has promised an iron ring of protection. Long-term-care homes treated COVID like the flu. Why has nothing changed? It has been five orders, five times a public health official has intervened. Please, why has nothing changed?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: It’s clear that there have been ongoing efforts, and I’m not sure exactly where that commentary is coming from. To correct the record there, I have said that 92% of our long-term-care homes have no resident cases; that is what I have said. Please don’t misrepresent what I have said.

We have a situation in our long-term-care homes where the primary driver of an outbreak is—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I have to ask the minister to withdraw her unparliamentary comment.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Withdraw. I do believe that it’s important to make sure that my statements are not put back to me in some way other than what I said.

The public health unit in the region is the primary driver of an outbreak. It is the primary driver. That means if the community spread is high, there will be increased outbreaks. The biggest driver of an outbreak’s severity is the number of ward rooms, as we are addressing. That’s why we’re following the public health advice and the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health: to make sure that we follow their directives and take their measures to secure, as much as possible, residents and staff in long-term care. We’ll continue to do that.

Adoption

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: There are thousands of kids in the extended care of children’s aid societies eligible for adoption. These are children and youth who need loving families and a secure place to call home.

In my riding of Carleton, and working with the children’s aid societies in my area, it is clear that more needs to be done to simplify the adoption system. One of my constituents told me that it takes years and is a cumbersome process to adopt a child. It is a very complex and outdated system.

In the current system, because there is no centralization, a child living one block north of Steeles Avenue may not know or be able to be paired with a family one block south of Steeles in Toronto, simply because they are two different children’s aid societies. That is absolutely ridiculous and limits the ability of these kids, who just need and deserve the support of a loving family.

Can the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues tell this House and my constituents who want to adopt why these issues still exist, and will she commit to fixing the system?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member from Carleton for that question.

The member is unfortunately correct. Ontario’s adoption system is severely lacking. It is slow, disjointed and very hard to navigate for families. But that’s why our government has been working with our partners in this sector to make tangible, positive changes so that more kids and families can be connected.

Last year, the parliamentary assistant and member for Ottawa West–Nepean, as well as other members in this House, held round tables with parents, prospective adoptive parents, adopted children, adoption agencies and others to hear about the challenges facing the adoption system. Our government has also been working closely with the sector to listen and identify gaps in the system.

Speaker, this is just one step that we’re taking. I announced last month $900,000 annually to centralize the adoption process so that location is not a barrier for children and youth in search of their forever home. We are bringing the adoption system in Ontario out of the age of the postal code and into the age of the IP address.

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

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you to the minister for the response.

Not only is the system clunky and hard to navigate; for the parents who do make it through and adopt a child, they are often left without proper help and supports on how to be the wonderful parents that they want to be. These individuals, like many in my riding, just want to provide the best care to their child and help them succeed at every opportunity. But they are sometimes left on their own, without guidance, or, after having received initial help, left to fend for themselves. It’s concerning that those who open their homes and hearts to these kids aren’t being helped as much as they could be.

I know the previous Liberal government left the child welfare system and the adoption system, by extension, outdated and poorly managed. I know the opposition have never asked a single question on this in the House since I was elected in 2018. My question is simple: Will the minister commit to providing more support to children, youth and families?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you again to the member for that question. I want to thank the thousands of families across Ontario who have opened their hearts and homes to children and youth in need of a family. These mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and grandparents are providing what many of us take for granted: a loving family that is there for us through life’s many challenges and celebrations. Through this, Speaker, I can confidently say to the member that yes, we will commit to providing additional help and ongoing supports for the moms and dads who need help.

In fact, last month I announced nearly $600,000 more annually to enhance post-adoption training and provide individualized supports to families. This includes funding for classes designed for adoptive caregivers who are parenting children who have experienced trauma and loss as part of their history. It also means funding buddy-mentor programs and pairing caregivers with a local parent to help them find the appropriate services in their community.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Good morning, Minister. Yesterday, the Windsor-Essex County Health Unit reported that our local public health capacity will soon be “on the verge of collapsing.”

Public health officials said they just don’t have enough staff to do the contact tracing and the case management in the community. They also said that adding to this pressure is the outbreaks in schools. There are now 25 schools in Windsor-Essex where cohorts have been dismissed, and yet class sizes have not been reduced. Local health staff are working 12- to 15-hour days, seven days a week. They’re doing the best they can with the limited resources they have. We need help, and we need it now.

Speaker, will the minister give the Windsor-Essex County Health Unit the resources they need immediately and prevent this looming collapse?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you very much to the member opposite for the question. We are aware there is considerable concern regarding public health resources in Windsor-Essex. We have been following it very closely. There is some more significant community transmission there, which is why we’ve been putting further restrictions in the area to make sure that we can start bending that curve and helping out.

Still, we understand there are concerns with respect to health resources. We have increased the funding to Ontario’s health unit by over 14%. Since 2018, there have been considerably more resources put in there. I can advise that 96.8% of cases and 89.7% of contacts are being reached within 24 hours.

That said, we have also been in contact with Windsor-Essex and are providing over 24 provincial contact tracers to aid with the work they’re already doing to try and do that contact management to help get those numbers more under control.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question? The member for Windsor West.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: Back to the Premier: I just want to remind the Minister of Health that just last year, they actually cut $1.5 million from our health unit, which was already one of the lowest funded. When they talk about an increase of 14%, we already started from behind and you put us even further behind.

Health care workers are burnt out. Small businesses are barely hanging on and can’t afford another lockdown. The people of Windsor continue to make sacrifices while this Conservative government fails to step up. They just stand by and monitor the situation.

Our health unit has been underfunded for years. Before COVID, we were one of the lowest-funded public health systems in the entire province. This Conservative government didn’t prioritize public health and prevention measures before the pandemic, and they’ve failed to step up with the support that we need now. They’re sitting on $9 billion in unused COVID relief funding while exhausted front-line workers are scrambling to keep the virus at bay. People are getting sick and people are dying.

Will the Premier immediately give our health unit the resources they need to stay on top of screening, testing and tracing, along with the other public health services they provide in our community to keep us all safe?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Significant resources have already been given to the Windsor-Essex health unit. The member may remember that while there were some changes that were being proposed pursuant to the Auditor General’s report to modernize our system of public health—we were undergoing that at the time that COVID struck and we mitigated some of the charges that it would have been responsible for. There was no great loss, as the member has suggested.

We have also provided additional resources for tracing and contact management. If more resources are needed for that, we will certainly provide them. But we’ve also provided an additional 30 beds to the hospitals and alternate health facilities, because we know Windsor-Essex is going through a very difficult time. We will provide the resources as they are needed in order to be able to flatten the curve and protect the people and the health and well-being of the people of Windsor-Essex, which has been our goal since this pandemic began.

Services for persons with disabilities

Mr. Stephen Blais: My question is for the Premier. Jean-Marc Lang is 26 years old. He has autism and severe behavioural issues. Since August 2019, he has been on a list for emergency priority placement in specialized residential care, and an agency has confirmed they have a spot for Jean-Marc ready and waiting. But Jean-Marc is still waiting. What’s worse is that Jean-Marc has been in the secure ward of the civic campus of the Ottawa Hospital since February.

Jean-Marc has not been allowed outside to see the sun or breathe fresh air for more than nine months. His mom, Hélène, describes it as being worse than in jail. Jean-Marc’s only crime was that he was born with autism and behavioural issues.

I’ve written to the minister about this. We’ve spoken on the phone, we’ve exchanged text messages, and there’s still no movement. He tells me that there’s no money.

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has built a budget with contingencies, with reserves, billions of dollars in unspent allocations, and yet there’s still no money. My question: Will the government commit to providing Jean-Marc’s family relief today and get him into the residential care facility he needs to be in?

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

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for the question. I am aware of the member’s correspondence on this topic with the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, but as the member knows, I cannot comment on this individual case here in the House.

What I can share more generally is that in complex cases, a network of developmental and community service partners works with families to identify interim and long-term solutions in order to support the individual.

The ministry also has a consistent province-wide process to help people who require urgent supports. That process recognizes that every individual has different needs, which is why, in each case, it’s reviewed on an individual basis. Those determined to be most at risk are prioritized for available resources.

Beyond residential services, adults with a developmental disability are likely also eligible for funding through the Passport Program and the Ontario Disability Support Program.

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

Mr. Stephen Blais: Jean-Marc has been prioritized since August of last year.

Joshua McPhail-Monty is a 23-year-old man from Orléans with a dual diagnosis of autism and behavioural issues. His parents, Vicki and Jean-François, have described that Josh’s behaviour is so bad that at times it’s tough to get through the day. He’s constantly in crisis, screaming, and often sedated.

Josh has been admitted to the general campus of the Ottawa Hospital since July 2019. That’s approaching 18 months, Mr. Speaker. Like Jean-Marc Lang, Josh and his parents are waiting for placement in specialized care and to diagnose and treat the recent behavioural changes that he has been experiencing. Like Jean-Marc, for a year and a half, Josh has not been allowed to go outside, breathe fresh air or see the sun.

Mr. Speaker, when will the government recognize that languishing in a hospital for 18 months is not right, that Josh and his parents deserve better and that the province needs to provide the support this family so desperately needs right now?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you again to the member for the supplementary. Our government recognized the growing demand for developmental services. This year, we are providing approximately $2.9 billion in annual funding for developmental services, including about $2 billion dedicated to residential services. As part of budget 2020, we are providing increased funding of $361 million for the developmental services sector to support clients currently in service and support more residential placements for new high-risk clients.

Speaker, I can tell you we are already hearing positive feedback on new investments. Brad Saunders, the CEO for Community Living Toronto, says today’s budget announcements “represent a significant step forward toward a modern, future-oriented developmental services sector. Thousands of individuals and families will benefit from new funding and service opportunities, and the agencies that support them will be able to do their work on a more stable and secure footing.”

I hope that this member supports budget 2020.

Hydro rates

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Small businesses in my riding of Carleton have been struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic. While we thank Ontarians for doing the right thing and staying at home when possible, we know that small businesses have been hit the hardest. I know it’s even more difficult for businesses that have not been able to easily pivot online but are still paying their full fixed costs like electricity.

Can the Associate Minister of Energy tell this House what the government is doing to support small businesses, like the ones in my riding, with their electricity costs?

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you to the member for that important question and for her incredible work on behalf of the people of Carleton.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, while we make progress to contain this deadly virus, we know people will need to stay home when possible, and businesses will need ongoing support. That’s why we announced $8 million to support small business electricity consumers struggling to pay their energy bills, as a result of COVID-19, through the COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program for Small Business.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business thanked the government for their contribution, saying that they are “pleased to see the government is providing $8 million in immediate energy cost relief to those small businesses hardest hit by COVID-19.

“Competitive electricity rates will be a key component to small business success as we begin down the long road to economic recovery.”

Providing additional rate relief, flexibility and customer choice on electricity bills will help ensure everyone can recover from this extraordinary crisis and lead our economic recovery. We’ll continue to do everything we can to support our small businesses and the people of Ontario.

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

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you to the associate minister for his answer. Mr. Speaker, I know this is excellent news for businesses in my riding of Carleton. Business associations like the Osgoode Ward Business Association, the Stittsville Business Association, the Manotick BIA and more will love this great news. I’m sure that they will share it with all of their members.

Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to hear that small businesses across Ontario have access to this funding to help cover their electricity bills during this difficult time. As COVID-19 numbers continue to rise rapidly in certain regions, I know that we’ve had to make the tough but necessary decisions to protect our hospitals, long-term-care and retirement homes by moving some regions into lockdown. For these businesses that have no choice but to close to protect Ontarians, can the minister tell the House what supports are available to them?

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you again to the member from Carleton for her great work. Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to share that we are now providing $600 million in relief to support eligible businesses required to close or significantly restrict services due to enhanced public health measures, by doubling our initial commitment of $300 million made in the 2020 budget, Ontario’s Action Plan: Protect, Support, Recover.

Businesses can apply online for temporary property tax and energy cost rebate grants via an easy-to-use one-window portal. The rebates will cover the length of time that a business is required to temporarily close or significantly restrict services as a result of being located in an area categorized as red control or lockdown. We are proud to stand up for small businesses. A detailed list of eligible businesses as well as instructions for applying can be found at ontario.ca/covidsupport.

Mr. Speaker, we’re here for business, we’re here for the people of Ontario, and we’ll continue to do that until we’re through to recovery.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Hospitals across the province are struggling under the surging second wave and Ontarians are worried about what these pressures are going to mean for their own health care. Hospitals are already trying to catch up from a backlog of surgeries and other procedures created during the first wave. Now, in my region, Grand River Hospital has had to pause surgeries this week because their ICU is over capacity, which means even more people are going to be waiting for potentially life-altering health care because of this government’s failure to invest in preventing the second wave.

They’ve denied the paid sick days, Mr. Speaker. They’ve done insufficient contact tracing. They’ve had a sloppy testing rollout across this province. And so right now, we are at a crisis—another health care crisis for hospitals in Ontario. What does the Premier have to say to the families in K-W who are now stressed and suffering because of his bad choices?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: I have to start by saying that I fundamentally disagree with the assertions made by the member opposite. In fact, we have planned since the beginning of this pandemic to enhance our capacity, to make sure that we have the capacity, tracers that we need, to make sure that we can bring forward a response that merits a substantive increase in the cases that we’ve seen between wave 1 and wave 2.

Clearly, we’ve seen that wave 2 is having a more significant impact on our health care system, but we planned for that. In fact, we have created over 3,100 beds in the province of Ontario since the beginning of March. We’ve invested $351 million to create more than 2,350 new beds at 57 hospitals and alternate health facilities across the province. We’ve also invested over $1 billion in testing, tracing and contact management, to make sure that hospitals can continue to do their work to take care of the COVID-19 patients, as well as being able to take care of the surgeries and procedures that were postponed during wave 1.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Mr. Speaker, there is a serious disconnect between that answer and the reality that is facing Ontario’s hospitals and communities across this province. The net deficit for the Ontario Hospital Association is predicted to be at $500 million. That’s including a revenue loss of $320 million.

But, Speaker, it’s not just the Grand River Hospital that’s facing a capacity crisis right now. St. Mary’s and Cambridge Memorial Hospital in the region are also close to hitting capacity, and ICU numbers and hospitalizations continue to grow each and every day in every region across this province.

Ontario is at a breaking point. Thanks to this government’s choices and failure to invest, it means that things are only going to get worse, unless there’s an immediate and an urgent investment. What is the Premier going to do to ensure that our hospitals have the support they need to get through this crisis? Do it now. We’re at the tipping point.

Hon. Christine Elliott: In fact, Ontario is not in crisis right now. You want to speak about who is in crisis? Have you taken a look at Alberta, where they’re doubling up patients in intensive care units? We’re not doing that in Ontario. We’ve made substantive investments. We’ve made significant increases to hospitals, the biggest increase in a decade, in the past year. We’ve increased the number of beds by over 3,100 beds. We’ve invested $1 billion for testing, tracing and contact management. We are flattening this curve.

Interjections.

Hon. Christine Elliott: It’s Ontario. Again, I know it’s nothing to brag about, but we’re standing at 100 cases per 100,000. Manitoba is at 662 per 100,000. Alberta is at 380 per 100,000. Ontario is still the lowest in Canada—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The member for Waterloo will come to order. The member for London North Centre will come to order. The member for Northumberland–Peterborough South will come to order. The Minister of Education will come to order.

Please start the clock. The next question.

Long-term care

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care. Speaker, yesterday I asked the minister about 120 vacant single-bed rooms at the Perley and Rideau Veterans’ Health Centre. Thankfully, it’s my understanding that today they’ve restarted admissions, two to three people a day.

Given that the Perley, for months now, has had almost no resident cases, few staff cases, has done an excellent job of managing COVID-19 and is in fact advising other long-term-care homes, 120 vacant beds, in any reality, doesn’t make sense. People like Mr. Mroz and Mrs. Tooke, who I mentioned yesterday, and their families are suffering. They’re not the only ones.

Speaker, through you: Will the minister take action to ensure that the circumstances that led to this situation do not occur again?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: I just want to emphasize the importance that this is not a simple solution. There are many pieces to this. Whether it’s the staffing, whether it’s infection prevention and control, there are many aspects to this. It’s not a simple process.

But there’s a clear contrast to be made, Speaker. The fact is, the previous Liberal government built only 611 beds since 2011, and then opened applications for new beds weeks before an election. The previous government chose not to make investments in long-term care, and the member opposite said, “We all know that we have to build more long-term-care spaces here in this province.” This was when he was with the previous government in power. He said, “You’ve got beds that were built in the 1970s—they’re called Bs and Cs—that need to be redeveloped so people are no longer in rooms where there are four people.”

Well, it takes a bit of time to build beds and the time that you had was squandered. Your government chose not—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I once again ask members to make their comments through the Chair.

The supplementary question.

Mr. John Fraser: I’ll be happy to debate that in a late show, if the minister will come. I am not sure that the Tookes or the Mrozes are going to like that answer.

There are 120 vacant beds. We found a way to bring essential caregivers back in. We found that way. This is an analogous circumstance. I’m just asking you to use that lens, that’s all.

Right now the rules exist that if there’s one more staff case at the Perley—1,000 staff; 450 beds—the admissions will stop. The minister knows that. These beds are in single rooms. They’re at a premium for infection control. Thousands of people are waiting for beds in the community.

We can debate what the minister obviously wants to debate—and I’d be happy to see her next week—but right now she needs to take action. She needs to find a solution to this. There is a solution; she knows that.

I am shocked that the minister responded that way. It’s hard to control my anger because you’re not really addressing the situation. You have 120 vacant beds—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, the member from Northumberland–Peterborough South will come to order.

The Minister of Long-Term Care to respond.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: The reality is that COVID-19 is very, very transmissible. Our homes must have the necessary isolation space for cases, should they arrive. We’ve learned from the first wave. This has been a continuous learning process to understand how we contain it once it’s into the home and how we prevent it from getting into the home in the first place. That’s rapid testing, asymptomatic testing and making sure that our staff are trained on an ongoing basis and reinforced by the hospital expertise in terms of addressing infection control issues in the home. This is ongoin