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

November 4, 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-Nov-04 vol. A (PDF)

L205A - Wed 4 Nov 2020 / Mer 4 nov 2020

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 November 2020 Mercredi 4 novembre 2020

Orders of the Day

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

Private members’ public business

Members’ Statements

Cinemas

Food drive

Registered practical nurses

Social services

Environmental protection

Canadian soldiers / Soldats canadiens

Organ and tissue donation

Laboratory services

Anita Stewart

John Weir Foote

Question Period

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

College standards and accreditation

Education funding

College standards and accreditation

COVID-19 response

Long-term care

Poverty

Municipal elections

Infrastructure funding

Front-line workers

Small business

Social assistance

Student assistance

Subventions destinées à l’éducation / Education funding

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

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)

Skypride Travel & Tours Ltd. Act, 2020

1040062 Ontario Incorporated Act, 2020

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Front-line workers

Petitions

Education funding

Access to personal health records

Affordable housing

Small business

Optometry services

Gestion des situations d’urgence

Education funding

Education funding

Education funding

Public sector compensation

Gasoline prices

Health care funding

Private members’ public business

Orders of the Day

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

Private Members’ Public Business

Exalting Our Veterans Act, 2020 / Loi de 2020 rendant hommage à nos anciens combattants

Orders of the Day

Report on Ontario’s Provincial Emergency / Rapport sur la situation d’urgence provinciale de l’Ontario

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 3, 2020, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 207,

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

Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires, la

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

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

Miss Monique Taylor: Good morning. I’m happy to have the opportunity today to lead off debate for the opposition on third reading of Bill 207, the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act, 2020.

This was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to open up this act and to make changes. However, since our first debate on this bill, very little has changed. As we all know, this act introduced technical changes to legal procedure and

definitions, and slightly alters legal tests. Some of these changes are welcome. We know that the legal professionals we’ve spoken with are glad to see some of these changes.

The bill has three schedules. The first amends the Children’s Law Reform Act to change

definitions and terminology used when relating to custody and other matters. This includes adding a statutory definition of the “best interests of the child.” This bill also requires that family violence be considered as a matter that is relevant to the best interests of the child, and that the child be protected from the conflict that arises from litigation. These are good things. There is also a soft requirement for counsel to encourage clients to seek alternative dispute resolution, including mediation.

Schedule 2 of this bill amends the Courts of Justice Act to clarify the appeals procedure for family law matters. Before this, it was a mixture of legislation and case law. These changes clarify and streamline some of the appeals procedure.

Schedule 3 of the bills amends the Family Law Act to require the Minister of Finance to provide the court with certified copies of notices of calculation for child support matters.

Through the committee process over the past weeks, only one amendment passed, and that was to change the appeals process in certain types of cases. There is still a great deal missing from this bill. Many of the issues I raised in my lead debate on this bill have still not been addressed. This bill, even after committee, does nothing to address the crisis in family law that I have discussed in the past.

While the changes to the law introduced in the bill are fine, I again have to ask, does the family in court actually have legal representation so they have the best chance of getting a good outcome? Once again, I have to ask: After the family law case, how does the family go on and live under the court orders? Do the community and the government agencies which enforce the orders have the ability to serve families? I hope once again to touch on these issues and explain what is missing from the bill in my debate today.

Through the committee, we heard some difficult stories and a lot of good advice on how to change the family law system. The appeals process stands out as an important piece of what is needed to change in this bill. It has been noted many times that the appeal routes for family law cases are confusing, time-consuming and often lead to jurisdictional issues and wasted time. The process is highly confusing. The appeals court you go to depends on the type of order that was made, which court your case was heard at or what was spelled out in the legislation.

The legislation added an extra requirement where people would need a leave to appeal to make the appeal of their decision. This means you would need to make a motion to the court explaining why they should hear your appeal, and there are rules on how much time you have to provide notice and what you have to provide next and so on. This process could take months, and it could be next to impossible for self-represented parties.

We supported the position of the Ontario Association of Child Protection Lawyers, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies to amend the legislation to provide a direct appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal without the leave requirement in child protection cases. We asked that the bill be amended so the leave requirement for appeals be removed for all cases under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. The government also introduced a similar motion, which passed, but only applies to adoption and child protection cases.

We also introduced several other amendments to make this legislation stronger and to reflect the needs of stakeholders and experts in family law. When it comes to the best interests of the child test, we wanted to add a clause that recognizes the cultural heritage of the child, especially as it related to Indigenous children.

We wanted the best interests test to consider the “child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage, and in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, the importance of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community given the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and traditions.”

We also wanted to ensure that the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs were considered, as well as “the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.” We put these considerations into amendments that were voted down by the government.

Further, we introduced an amendment to more fully consider the issue of family violence in the best interests of the child test. Family law practitioners and experts told us that if there is family violence, they were concerned about what could be considered the best interests of the child. So we introduced amendments to ensure that family violence was properly considered. These amendments were directly requested by people who work in this area, day-to-day. These are the experts that we should be listening to.

We understand the government wanted to align the provincial and federal laws when it comes to family matters. However, there was nothing stopping this government from going further and beefing up the legislation to make it better: a made-in-Ontario approach. We can add additional considerations that meet the needs of families that were recommended by stakeholders.

Another amendment we introduced was a new duty for lawyers to screen for family violence at the outset of a case. That way, the lawyer would know right away what options are on the table and how to proceed in a way that does not subject a child or spouse to further abuse. This would be a duty for lawyers and would have been collaboratively determined through regulation, in consultation with the law association and experts. This was a recommendation that came straight from the front-line practitioners, who were supportive as long as they had a say in how it works.

The government’s response to this was odd. They accused me of trying to interfere with the law society. They said that lawyers are self-regulating and that the law society should implement this change if they wanted to. They deflected the responsibility. To quote the member from Durham, she said, “I’m just trying to understand what the proposal is from the New Democrats. Are they saying that the law society should no longer be a self-regulating organization?” That’s a draft from Hansard.

There are duties and responsibilities placed on lawyers in other areas of law. It’s not like we’re inventing a new way of working. There are all kinds of laws and regulations in each field of law that impact lawyers. This duty would be created in collaboration and consultation with them, and it’s not unheard of.

You don’t have to look very far for similar requirements being placed on lawyers in legislation. In this very bill,

schedule 1 introduces a change to the Children’s Law Reform Act that imposes a duty on lawyers to encourage their clients to resolve matters using alternative dispute resolution. The government introduced this positive requirement on lawyers in their own bill. Surely, they’ve read their own bill and, thus, are okay with governing the conduct of lawyers to some degree.

Our suggestion in amendment 10 to screen for family violence was to put this change into regulations in order to provide for ample time to consult with lawyers and other stakeholders. It would have been a good change, and the lawyers we talked to agreed. It’s a shame that the government voted this amendment down, and without any good reason.

The real issue here is that practitioners have called for some type of screening for violence, but the government is not interested. Instead, they hide behind technicalities and deflections.

Last week, we introduced an amendment to address an issue in the Family Law Act. In that act, there is a limit to who can strike an agreement in the predetermined categories that can create a settlement agreement and avoid going to court. We introduced an amendment that would make this more flexible. We would make it easier for people to strike settlement agreements and avoid costly court appearances. The government shut this amendment down, first by claiming it was out of order and then by voting it down when they realized it wasn’t.

Some of the responses by the government members to our amendments were confusing. It appears that this government wants to align the rules with the federal Divorce Act and do nothing more. I want to remind the government that while it is good to make the rules easier for people in the Family Court system, the federal Divorce Act does not limit us from making our family law system more responsive to the needs of Ontarians. If anything, we should use our power as a government to ensure that the needs of families are met through family law. Our stakeholders and experts gave us great advice, but this government followed very little of it.

As I mentioned before in this House, Ontario’s family law system has been in crisis for decades. Countless judges, lawyers, academics and community workers have spoken about this. This bill is largely unchanged from the last time we discussed it here in this House, so there is still a lot missing and it still does not address the crisis in family law. These are legal matters that affect the family. Divorces, splitting assets, custody of children, child protection and adoption: All of these matters affect the course of people’s lives. It is emotionally charged and deeply personal.

It is deeply disturbing that across Canada, more than 50% of people that go to Family Court do so without a lawyer. According to the National Self-Represented Litigants Project, which presented at committee, court outcomes are significantly worse for those without legal representation. In their submission to the committee, they write, “The result is a travesty of justice for many Ontarians who are not getting a fair chance. This is completely unchanged by whatever legal name you give to ‘custody’ or ‘access,’ or even the definition of ‘best interests of the child’ (as this bill enacts).”

The most important reason that people show up without a lawyer is the cost. As of 2013, the average cost for a basic family law case was $12,000. So many people in Ontario still simply cannot afford legal help, and our legal system is designed to keep regular people out. The result is that very few Ontarians can afford access to justice in our Family Court system. Too many people have no choice but to try to follow advice from legal clinics and duty counsel offices while they go it alone.

As a result, our legal system is slowed to a crawl, and these people have worse outcomes that impact their family for years. These inequities are amplified for single mother families. They face a high risk of poverty if they can’t obtain and enforce their child support orders. This impacts women fleeing abusive situations or families interacting with the child welfare system.

Of course, if you’re rich, this doesn’t matter to you. You can simply hire the best lawyer you can afford and get your way.

Many people who show up to court without lawyers simply ran out of money as they went along. Some people are able to pay a lawyer at the outset, but lengthy court cases deplete their funds.

As I mentioned the last time I brought up these issues, this is not new. The issues in our family law system are decades in the making and were caused by successive Conservative and Liberal governments.

Last time I spoke on this bill and the crisis in family law, I quoted Justice Warren K. Winkler, who was the Chief Justice of Ontario, who spoke in 2011 about the family law crisis. In 2011, Justice Winkler said this:

“There is a growing concern among the bar and the general public that our family justice system is not delivering on its primary purpose: access to justice for families in transition.

“I was made starkly aware of the level of dissatisfaction with our family justice system after I became Chief Justice of Ontario four years ago. I travelled throughout the province, and met with law associations to get their feedback on issues facing the legal system. The overwhelming theme of these conversations was that the family justice system was in a state of crisis....

“I agree with Alf Mamo”—a family lawyer—“who has written that our goal in family justice reform should be ‘meaningful access to justice,’ which he defines as ‘the ability of a citizen to bring about a solution to his or her legal problems that is (

a) financially affordable; (

b) timely; (

c) easy to understand; and (

d) easy to manoeuvre through.’

“Unfortunately, rather than a system that is financially affordable, timely, easy to understand and manoeuvre through, the public is experiencing a process that is unaffordable, slow and overly complex. Moreover, rather than finding solutions to their problems, litigants often find that the legal process exacerbates problems in an already emotionally charged situation.

“There are two noteworthy trends occurring in the family justice system. Those that can afford it are increasingly choosing methods of private mediation or arbitration where they seek a faster and more efficient process over which they have greater control. Meanwhile, the public court system is increasingly dominated by self-represented litigants. These litigants either commence their litigation in this manner or are forced to represent themselves after exhausting their funds midway through the process. More than half of family law litigants are self-represented. In some Toronto-area courts, over 70 percent are reported to be self-represented.

“We are thus increasingly seeing a two-tiered justice system. On the one hand we have a public court system which is filled with large numbers of people who cannot afford lawyers, and on the other we have a second process for people who can afford to seek justice elsewhere.”

I have read these words again because they clearly lay out the issues with family law. We in this House cannot say we were never warned about the two-tiered justice system. This bill before us today does not get at the root of the issue that Justice Winkler highlighted nine years ago, which is that people need access to legal help in order for family law to be a fair and just process.

This bill still misses a key component to fixing the family law system: providing access to justice for Ontarians. While aligning Ontario’s family law with the federal government is good, the bill doesn’t help with the very first barrier faced by families: accessing a lawyer to help them make sense of the family law system.

The first barrier in family law is access to legal representation. This government would like us to believe that changing

definitions and some procedures will enable people to continue to represent themselves in court. This government assumes that most people are self-represented at court because that is their preference. In reality, access to legal advice and representation is a real financial barrier in this province, and pretending it is not doesn’t serve anyone.

This government has made huge cuts to legal aid during its mandate. Reversing these cuts is the first place that you have to start if you want to ensure that families can get through the Family Court system. Give people who need lawyers and can’t afford them access to lawyers. This minister has no idea about the economic reality for most Ontarians. Lawyers are expensive, and most people in court want them but can’t afford them.

I want to call your attention once again to this government’s $133-million funding cut to Legal Aid Ontario. That’s 30% of the budget for Legal Aid Ontario gone. That is devastating for this organization. There was a huge public outcry back when the cut was made. It was so bad that the Premier promised everyone access to legal aid if they called him—probably one of the times he gave out his cell phone number. Of course, we know that the Premier did not actually guarantee legal aid to anyone. Originally, the devastating 30% cut was supposed to rise another $30 million by next year, but, thankfully, the opposition to these cuts worked.

This bill and this government are not thinking clearly if they believe they are making the family law system better while simultaneously reducing Ontario families’ ability to obtain legal support. These actions work against each other; there is a contradiction here. The legal system will be easier to navigate through the bill, but those who cannot afford lawyers and who don’t qualify for legal aid due to cuts will still face the same hurdles they faced before these changes.

Legal Aid Ontario and its network of legal clinics are indispensable parts of our legal system that provide access to justice to thousands of Ontarians each year. These legal clinics exist all across the province, and people from all of our ridings have accessed their services. The Hamilton Community Legal Clinic in my community serves roughly 6,000 clients a year. Many of these clients are fighting for the basics. The clinic works to make sure that people stay housed, with some form of income. It also helps with many of their ODSP and OW applications, and helps with WSIB.

Last year, Legal Aid Ontario, through its clinics, provided over 100,000 legal aid certificates and helped 650,000 people through its duty counsel services. If there is one thing that this government excels at, it is cutting supports for those who need it the most.

I’ve spoken about this issue before several times in this House, when we debated the bill a few weeks ago, and when we debated Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act. The cuts to legal aid hit Ontario’s most vulnerable people the hardest. That includes women fleeing violence, refugees fleeing persecution, people facing homelessness, and many more. In family law, single mothers bear the brunt of the lack of access to justice. They have to worry about both the power imbalance of their relationship and the court system. If they don’t receive legal help, they could end up without the monetary support their child needs, or with less parenting time to access their child.

Access to justice through providing legal aid also helps lower the cost of court proceedings. People who don’t have lawyers, who don’t know court rules and procedures, end up slowing down the court system. It’s worth considering the cost of self-representation to the system. Cases drag out much longer than is necessary, taking up court resources.

The Conservative cuts to legal aid are not only cruel, they’re fiscally irresponsible, short-sighted and naive. There is a large gap in this province. There are so many people that don’t qualify for legal aid but can’t afford a lawyer. I would say most people fall into this category. The threshold for legal aid is far too low, and everyone knows this. This bill should be addressing this issue and reversing the devastating cuts.

In the last debate, I quoted Ontario Court of Appeal Chief Justice George Strathy discussing self-representation and cuts to legal aid. He said this: “It is, quite frankly, a false economy to think that cutting these vital services saves money. When litigants are unrepresented and unsupported, the justice system slows to a crawl, valuable resources are drained, and other cases are held back. More important, the most vulnerable members of our society, those whom our justice system purports to protect, are further victimized because their playing field is uneven.”

Further, at the same virtual event, Chief Justice Lise Maisonneuve of the Ontario Court of Justice said, “Even more than before the pandemic arrived, legal aid in this province needs to be properly funded to ensure that the most at risk in our society are served, particularly in light of the move to virtual proceedings which many vulnerable litigants may be challenged to access due to limited access to telephones or Internet. Without the support legal aid is intended to provide, justice may be out of their reach in this new reality.”

I read these quotes into the record once again to demonstrate that those inside the legal system know these issues. We are not making this stuff up. Ontario’s senior judges can clearly see that this government has attacked access to justice in Ontario by cutting funding to Legal Aid Ontario. They also know that it makes absolutely no sense for saving money or for making sure that people are treated fairly in their legal disputes.

As the critic for youth and children’s services, I know that the child welfare system is one of the areas where access to justice is sorely needed. The child welfare system is another area where the lack of access to justice intersects with family law in a way that is very damaging for families and children. Families are routinely outgunned by children’s aid societies, who have legal teams that are well versed in child protection laws.

Children’s aid has an important mission and can do important work in preventing harm to children. Prevention work and helping families before any apprehension is made is important, but there are still many families who went to court and lost custody of their children simply because they were out-resourced. We’ve all heard these cases. Child protection cases move quickly, deadlines come fast, and they are complicated. The court operates in a different language and has its own rules and procedures.

At committee, Dr. Julie Macfarlane of the National Self-Represented Litigants Project told us this:

“I think the other thing that this committee really needs to understand is that parents often are facing children’s aid societies without representation. This is extremely common. It is especially common amongst Indigenous families. What the children’s aid society has done, systemically—and we have data on this, going back many years—is, they have used something called the

summary judgment procedure to strike out those self-represented litigants. A

summary judgment, as the lawyers here will know, is something that you bring forward at an early stage to try to say that the other side shouldn’t have any kind of a full trial or a full hearing or any arguments.

“We have data showing that when those motions are brought against self-represented people, 96% of the time they’re successful—and that includes a lot of families who would like to go to a hearing to make their case to children’s aid. I think that is an absolute travesty, that families who are facing such a critical decision about the future of their family and may already have had children removed—as I say, we see this problem especially affecting Indigenous families, whose children are removed at a far higher rate, still. They should have representation. To imagine that the children’s aid society, as a government agency, can simply knock them out 96% of the time is absolutely outrageous.”

I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Macfarlane here. Families should not be outgunned by children’s aid societies. They should have a fair chance to make their case. The lack of access to justice in family law feeds on existing social inequalities, and that makes them that much worse. It is no surprise that Indigenous and Black children and youth are overrepresented in the child welfare system when these communities are disproportionately unable to access legal services as well. To improve family law, especially in the areas that are most damaging to families, we must improve access to legal services for families.

The bill, as I’ve said before, is fine when it comes to

schedule 1 changes. The best interests of the child test is a good addition to our legal system. Courts have a clear and consistent definition for this legal test. It brings this important issue out of case law. However, like I have discussed before, we must remember that the best interests of the child do not exist in a legal vacuum, but are determined by the world that the child lives in. These legal decisions are all about what comes next for the family once the court case is over. There are community programs and services that allow for the best interests of the child to be met, but they need to be supported too.

I have raised the issue with the Family Responsibility Office, which enforces court orders, in previous debate on this bill. That office consistently generates most of the complaints for the Ombudsman when it comes to social services. I often have to send those who reach out to my office to our local legal clinic so that they can get legal advice on dealing with their FRO cases.

Community programs that support families are important as well and should be considered when we are talking about the best interests of the child. In the previous debate, I brought up a supervised visitation program in my city, in my riding, run by the YWCA. As I mentioned, the Hamilton YWCA has supervised custodial visits for parents and other family members for many years. These supervised visits allow court orders about parental visits to be done in a safe and healthy way.

The YWCA had received government funding to provide this service—about $178,000 of provincial base funding annually. What I found shocking is that amount has not changed since 2008. That’s 12 years of inflation eroding this organization’s ability to do this important work that is very much related to family law outcomes. During COVID-19, this problem became even worse, as they didn’t have any money to open with additional safety measures—no money for PPE or cleaning. It’s difficult to see the bill’s emphasis on the best interests of the child, and then see how, outside of the courtroom, this government could refuse programs that allow the best interests of the child to be met.

Life goes on for families. They leave the legal dispute behind and they try to live and abide by court orders. Community services like the YWCA’s supervised access program allow families to follow court orders safely, but they’re chronically underfunded. Like I said, what happens in the courtroom does not happen in a vacuum. If a family doesn’t have access to a lawyer before the court case and then does not have access to help after the court case, fixing the courts is just not enough.

Schedule 1 of this bill also includes some language around mediation and alternative means of resolving disputes. Here, as well, the government does not go nearly far enough. This bill gives new duties for legal advisers to encourage families to seek mediation or other dispute resolution processes.

Section 47.3(2) reads, “It is the duty of every legal adviser who undertakes to act on a person’s behalf in any proceeding under this part,

“(

a) to encourage the person to attempt to resolve the matters that may be the subject of an order under this part through an alternative dispute resolution process, as provided for under subsection 47.2(1), unless the circumstances of the case are of such a nature that it would clearly not be appropriate to do so.”

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

So the bill is very softly trying to move families into mediation. Mediation is good, but perhaps some form of mediation should be required, when appropriate and with legal counsel. If some form of alternative dispute resolution is not required, it generally doesn’t happen for these families. That is what we’ve heard from the lawyers and the experts. Mediation frees up our legal system to focus on other matters, and it is much cheaper for family members involved. It helps the family narrow and understand the dispute and work with families to resolve the dispute.

But again, any push from this government towards mediation or alternative dispute resolution, which this bill suggests, should come with legal support.

In their submission to the committee, the Society of United Professionals takes this position. They write, “It is important that the call for greater use of negotiation and mediation be supported with additional legal services for low and middle-income Ontarians, including legal aid services.

“These services will be necessary to allow parties to make effective use of these processes with a clear understanding of their rights and obligations, and to facilitate a pathway for their agreements to be formalized in domestic contracts or court orders.”

Further, as I read into the record earlier, from Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler—at the opening of the courts in 2010, he spoke about mediation and the need to really push mediation in family law disputes—before his time, Speaker, and we’re still not there: “In the area of family law, I question the effectiveness of the slow and steady approach of fine-tuning and rationalizing the present system. Rather than incremental change, perhaps it is time to consider a more dramatic and pragmatic revision of the manner in which family law services are delivered across Ontario.

“Experience has shown that litigants need a family law justice system that provides early access to legal information and timely disclosure of financial data. The centrepiece of such an upfront family dispute resolution scheme ought to be an alternative dispute resolution process. Such an approach would have the advantage of being more informal, with fewer procedural steps, thus reducing costs to the litigants and increasing the opportunity for early and fair resolution. Accordingly, only in the event that the alternative dispute resolution process is unsuccessful would access to the costly, time-consuming, adversarial and sometimes acrimonious court process be made available to litigants.

“I think the time has come for a fresh conceptual approach to resolution of family disputes in Ontario.”

Any call for greater use of mediation, which this government is suggesting, should come with legal support. As I’ve said in the past, there is no ambition in this bill, no strong desire to try to move these cases into alternative dispute resolution processes.

Another element missing from this legislation that many experts our team have spoken with agree should be a priority is the expansion of unified Family Courts. Family law is complicated, and it involves both federal and provincial legislation. Jurisdiction over family cases in Ontario is divided between the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice. It gets more complicated when you parse out what each court is responsible for. Under federal law, the Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction in cases involving divorce and division of property.

Under provincial law, child protection and adoption cases must be heard in the Ontario Court of Justice. Both courts can preside over child and spousal support cases and child custody and access cases.

You can see how the difference in overlapping jurisdictions can complicate things for families. Now imagine adding the inability to afford a lawyer on top of this. It just continues to get worse and worse.

Right now, there are there are 25 Family Courts in Ontario. These are one-stop shops. These court locations can hear all of the issues related to family law in both federal and provincial jurisdiction. Outside of these family courts, overlapping jurisdictions make this area of law a mess for families and even lawyers. Those we have spoken to about this bill see a missed opportunity to prioritize and expand unified Family Courts.

This bill introduces several changes to the language used in family law cases. They’re all very supportable from our side of the House. We think they are very positive changes. What was called a “custody order” will be called “parenting orders,” and those orders will set out parenting time, with no distinction in language between what used to be “custody and access” and “decision-making responsibility.” This language reduces the adversarial nature of these disputes.

The definition of family violence in the bill is also something that I can support. The definition reads as such: “Any conduct ... towards another family member that is violent or threatening, that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, or that causes the other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person, and, in the case of a child, includes direct or indirect exposure to such conduct.” The bill goes on to say, “The conduct need not constitute a criminal offence,” and it lists the actions that can constitute family violence.

This definition, plus the requirement that family violence be considered in legal matters, will likely ensure that the courts take family violence seriously. It’s something that has been going on for much too long. We heard from quite a few folks through the committee process who want further education, as I had said, and further help to ensure that people recognize family violence before we even get into the court system, to ensure that people have the ability to stand strong on their own, when we know that a lot of partners can be abusive and very dominating. To ensure that they have this in legislation is good, but again, it should have gone further.

These are welcome additions to the system that ensure more consideration is given to family violence in deciding what is the best outcome for families. The language changes are also very welcome, as this bill makes the language used in court and outside of court less adversarial and confrontational as families continue to live their lives. These changes will help many people continue their lives after the family dispute, but again, we need to make sure the people who have these disputes have access to legal help.

We heard very clearly that access to legal help is one of the greatest challenges. We’ve heard from several justices, who I’ve quoted here today, who know that families are outgunned, particularly in family law. When you’re taking someone’s child, you should be giving them every opportunity for the best representation. We know that children’s aid societies have the best representation. We know they have all the top lawyers who know the ins and outs of the law—all the language, all the little bits and pieces and how they can use the “gotchas” and everything.

Every tool that could possibly be in the box, the lawyers for a children’s aid society have. Then we’re sending moms or dads, people who need help, people who have already been struggling or else they wouldn’t even be there in the first place—life is obviously not good for them, or else they wouldn’t be in a child protection case with their child and their family. So they’re already down and out, and now we’re sending them to the wolves to literally get eaten alive without representation.

If somebody has a little bit of money and they try to get a lawyer, we know that the percentage of families that end up without a lawyer at the end of the system because they’ve run out of money on the way through is so high. It’s so great.

That is one of the biggest things that this bill is missing, and the opportunity, the once-in-a-decade opportunity to open this act to make changes, to make a reform, has been missed because those are the people who need us the most, and yet they were the first ones to get chopped. There’s something wrong with that.

A government is created to take care of their people, to ensure that the people in our communities can live healthy and decent lives. Most people don’t ask for too much. If they like a lot, they work hard to get it and they strive for better. But a lot of people are just happy to go to work and have a roof over their head, take care of their kids, send their kids to school with a decent lunch—a simple life.

But when that family falls into trouble, sometimes through no fault of their own, and we leave them to hang to dry and we send them in to the wolves to take away their children—the most precious thing that any of us can have and to give from ourselves. To have that child taken away from you just because you don’t have the ability to have representation, that’s a gross misconduct. That’s just wrong on every level.

If we’re not ensuring that people truly have access to that justice, then you’re failing as a government. You’re failing at the opportunity to open this act and to make changes for the greater good of our community and say that it’s better for folks because it will be easier for them to represent themselves. That’s not the province that I want to live in. That’s not the province that people take pride in. That’s not the country that we take pride in as Canadians, taking care of each other and making sure we’re looking out for our neighbour. That’s the pride of Canada.

When we miss opportunities like this, to continue to allow families to be outgunned by children’s aid and our court system—cutting legal aid services that truly serve our most vulnerable populations. You’ve heard throughout my speech, it’s people who are having trouble with their homes, their apartments. They’re getting evicted. They have bedbugs and mould and ceilings caving in, and nobody cares about them, so they have to go to a tribunal and they don’t know how to represent themselves. Some folks don’t even know how to read the applications. We all know this from our office.

How much of our staff—I know my staff are constantly filling out paperwork for folks. We’re holding people’s hands as far as we can to get them through the process.

But we need a legal system. I’m not a lawyer. My staff are not lawyers. We can’t give legal advice. People need access to legal advice. They need these services, our most vulnerable who don’t have a leg to stand on, who can’t fight back against their landlord when literally their roof is caving in on them and they have black mould in their homes. These are the services of legal aid. This is one of your first attacks on vulnerable people in this province: $133 million; 30% of the budget gone, attacking our most vulnerable people in the court system who are already outgunned.

This is where this bill falls short. As I said, there are many things in this bill that we agree with. We’ll be supporting this bill. There’s nothing that we can’t see that couldn’t be fixed. One of the greatest things that I noticed right off the bat when I started reading the written submissions before committee was hearing from the Ontario Association of Child Protection Lawyers. I noted right off the bat that there was a problem with the appeals system.

I asked the minister first thing—he was our first deputation the first day of committee. I asked the AG specifically about what—because I don’t understand; I’m not a lawyer. I’m doing my best to get through this. I have a team of people around me, but this was something I recognized as I was at committee so I had nobody to ask. So, I go to the AG. I’m like, “What does this mean? What does this mean when the protection lawyers are saying that this appeal process is a problem?” Unfortunately, I felt like he fluffed me off, that he was saying—he literally said, “It’s the parents.

It’s their lawyers.” Well, that’s the greatest need. If they have a problem with the appeal process—I’ll tell you, Speaker, I stayed on that like a dog with a bone.

I was sending out notes everywhere: “What does this mean?” Then finally, we started to hear from the Ontario children’s lawyers, and we heard from the OACAS that, yes, this appeal process was a problem. Then the minister got on the phone—good for him—with all of these folks that night, and by the next day there was already talk of change. There was already talk of change. But these are the same people who were not spoken to in the consultation process. They said very clearly in their letter—I’m sure I have it with me—that they hadn’t been consulted, that they hadn’t been talked to.

I understand that the government is looking to mirror, and I understand that MPP Park—I’m sorry, I can’t think of her riding, so respectfully—had done a lot of work. She had been travelling around. She had been looking at the court system. She had been listening to folks. But she kind of missed some of the really important people that needed to be talked to, and those were the child protection lawyers, because they are some of the seriously most outgunned here in our province.

I’ll tell you, being the critic for children’s services, I have heard from many families—and I know you have too, Speaker—whose children have been taken by the children’s aid or they were in the court process. We can’t do anything when they’re in the court process; our hands are tied. There is nothing worse than just feeling like a fish out of water in this really important role as an MPP in representing my riding, and yet I have a family who is getting eaten alive in the court system, and they’re going to take their kids. They’re going to take their most valuable thing: their children. And there’s nothing that I can do to help them.

What I can do to help them is what I’m doing right now. It’s talking about the issues that they’re facing. It’s talking about how they’re outgunned in the system. It’s by saying to the government—we’re at the third reading; I know this is it, but I’m not going to give up. I’m going to continue to fight for these families. I’m going to continue to fight for access to justice. I’m going to continue to speak up when I can that we need a law system that truly provides people with the opportunity to go into a court with legal representation.

Like I said, the greatest downfall of this bill is the access to justice. And like I said, the minister had said yesterday in his hour lead that this bill is about making it better so that people can be self-represented. Does he really think people want to be self-represented? Is he out of touch with so many Ontarians? That’s the concern.

This is my plea. Maybe this is a piece of a puzzle. Maybe this is a piece of legislation that’s going to continue to move, that he is going to add more, that there is going to be more coming that will truly help families. I’m hopeful. The forever optimist, I am; I’ve been accused. But that’s okay, because you know, if I just gave up and I just said, “To heck with it, they’re never going to listen so I might as well not even bother,” then I shouldn’t be here, right?

The optimism in me is that we will get to the point in my lifetime that we have a government that cares about people, that cares about the most vulnerable people, that doesn’t chop their legs out from under them in the legal system, that doesn’t allow them to be outgunned, and doesn’t allow them to have their children taken away just because they don’t have the legal representation, the smarts, the knowledge and the ability to fight back to a lawyer who does this every single day of their life. Every single day of their life, the lawyers for the children’s aid are guns blazing, right? “Gotcha.”

I can find you one more thing: We’ve seen it with Motherisk and what happened there. For folks who weren’t here at the time, Motherisk was doing the testing of hair follicles for people who were within the children’s aid society and there were concerns of drug abuse. The hair-testing—the follicles would be sent to Motherisk. They claimed to have all these credentials. What it came down to at the end of the day is they really didn’t have the technology and the credentials to be even doing the work and to be used in a manner that was the be-all and end-all.

Gratefully, they were shut down. There are appeals, because people lost their kids because they were accused of being drug addicts when, quite frankly, the tests were wrong and they weren’t what they should have been. If we had had the appeal process that the government was looking at for child protection, those families would never have had the opportunity to get to the appeal unless they went to the leave, and it’s a whole very confusing process. Going through it, and the work that I’ve already done on this bill, I still find so much of it confusing.

So imagine our families who are at home in our community; like I said, those simple families who are just trying to get through every day of life, and going to work and making sure their kids have clean clothes or a good, healthy lunch—simple. They don’t own a car. They’re on the bus. They’re living a good life. Then something bad happens, and they have no ability to fight back in a court of law; particularly when we had cases like Motherisk, where people could be accused of many things and possibly had never done them, and yet they were accused and found guilty of them, per se, because people trusted Motherisk and the test results that came back, when in fact that was not the case at all.

The Society of United Professionals wrote this, and this is their overarching perspective: “Speaking generally, Bill 207 is useful legislation to align the provisions of provincial family law legislation with the provisions of the amended Divorce Act, which will come into force on March 1, 2021.

These positive changes include a shift from the charged and status-related terms ‘custody and access’ to the more neutral and functional terms ‘decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and contact,’ a codification of the case law with respect to mobility cases and a process for allowing mobility issues to be more easily addressed outside of court, recognizing the harm of involving children in conflict between parties, and exhorting parties and counsel to utilize negotiation, mediation, and collaborative law, where appropriate.

“While these are generally positive provisions, it would be unfortunate if Bill 207 represented the ‘once in a lifetime’ review of family law statutes in Ontario. The access to justice crisis is most pronounced in family law, the area with the highest rate of self-represented parties. It is worth noting that this crisis exists despite the efforts and dedication of court staff, the judiciary, members of the private bar/certificate lawyers, paralegals, and staff, and the host of professional associations and agencies serving family law litigants.

“It is beyond the scope of this submission to delve into all of the challenges experienced by people seeking resolution of their family law disputes. It is clear, however, that this bill will not likely result in the transformation of family law and the delivery of services to help” people “resolve their parenting support, property entitlements, and other related issues, include the cross-cutting issue of domestic violence.

“It is also important to recognize, without going into greater depth, that family law issues and their resolution exist within the context of broader socio-economic conditions and the availability of things like affordable housing, shelters and domestic violence services, supervised access centres, mental health services and a host of other programs and services. This of course includes funding for legal aid services, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and other agencies necessary to give effect to legislative objectives. Policy regimes, such as drug policy, can also have significant implications.

“And during the pandemic, availability of affordable Internet and access to computers and other devices has taken on added significance. Despite the fact that the use of technology has in many ways increased the ability of some to engage with the court, it is clear that the access to justice barriers for people who are unable to access or use these technologies has been exacerbated. The challenges are also greater for members of equity seeking groups.”

We’re hearing from the Society of United Professionals about the barriers and the challenges that families are still facing.

We needed this legislation to address the two-tiered legal system that we have, where those with thousands of dollars on hand can afford legal representation in their family law dispute and those who don’t have to go it alone. This bill does nothing to improve access to justice for families. It does not reverse the massive 30% cut to legal aid this government introduced. These are important issues about family resources, child custody decision-making power and parents rights. These legal matters have a lifetime repercussion for children and families.

Access to legal help in family law must be a priority. We should be making it easier to get legal help, not harder. Nor does it offer consideration for life outside the courtroom as family lives go on but the community agencies that are supposed to help facilitate court orders are slowly defunded.

While this bill does have a number of changes that we agree with, and we know what legal experts have been calling for, we hope to see this government do more to help those in family law disputes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you very much. It’s time for questions and responses. I recognize the member from Carleton.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I listened intently to the member’s debate this morning, when she was speaking about how it’s frustrating for her that as an MPP she can’t interfere in the legal system. That’s because MPPs are not supposed to interfere in the legal system. Our judiciary system is supposed to be independent.

Coming from a legal background, I have a lot of constituents reach out to me as well for assistance, but I have to clarify that as an MPP I can’t provide them with legal advice. What I can do is work on fixing legislation to make it easier for them to do what they need to get done.

Part of what this legislation is doing is it is simplifying the appeals process. It’s getting rid of the need to require leave for appeal for child custody matters. Essentially, this is simplifying the process. It’s making it more affordable and more accessible.

My question to the member is, does she support the measures in this legislation that actually make it accessible for families like yours and mine in our ridings?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Hamilton Mountain for her response.

Miss Monique Taylor: I was very clear on the fact that no, I am not a lawyer and no, I cannot give legal advice, which is the problem: We can’t even send our constituents into the community to get that, with the lack of services available to them.

Also, I do agree with many measures in this bill. When she talks about the appeal process, I fought that right from the very get-go. As soon as I saw what was happening here, through our written submissions, I realized that the office of the child protection lawyer was saying that concern. What she’s talking about is something that I was on and helped to get the government to change their mind on, that decision—to make sure that it is easier for families.

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

Mr. Ian Arthur: It’s a pleasure to rise. Thank you to the member from Hamilton Mountain for this debate.

I want to talk a little bit about context, because I think this was a theme that ran throughout your speech, and the removal of pieces of legislation from how they operate in the real world.

I think if there was one thing I took away from you, it was asking this government to understand how this is going to play out on the ground. This is in respect to this legislation, but I think this has actually been a theme of this government through many pieces of legislation—no greater example than the autism file, that attempted to possibly do something well and did not take into account the lives that it affected on the ground.

So, Speaker, through you, my question is this: How could this government better prepare pieces of legislation to both improve the process, which we have admitted that this piece of legislation does, but to operate better in context on the ground?

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you very much to the member from Kingston and the Islands. He’s absolutely right: This is where the bill falls short. I talked about families finally getting through the court system, and be what it may and how it comes out, but then when you have services that are court-ordered by the courts after the fact, like the YWCA that we talked about for supervised access, if we can’t get that part of the system to actually help families—so we’re forcing them to do something through the court and then we’re not allowing the system to actually provide that service because they’re underfunded.

It really needs to be more than this legislation to ensure that families can get the supports and live the life that they need to live.

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

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I’m happy to rise and to talk about the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act, 2020. Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, but I know good friends of mine are a couple of lawyers and they are specialized in family law. I was talking to them. They are very positively talking about the changes that our ministers and the Attorney General are taking on.

Our government is introducing changes that would allow parents to request and receive certificate copies of support payment notices online, without having to go into the courtroom. These are the common-sense changes that help make our justice system work better for families. This is an important change, especially now as we seek to limit in-person interaction.

My question to my colleague the member from Hamilton Mountain: She passionately talked about family supports. Will the member support Bill 207 and give single parents the opportunity to enforce their child support orders online and avoid the need for an in-person visit?

Miss Monique Taylor: Family responsibility is a beast of its own. It’s probably one of the highest call levels to my office, where people are constantly saying, “I’m not getting this amount; I’m supposed to get this amount.” So if there are any changes that are coming forward through this bill, I’m grateful for them. But we also need to make sure that family responsibility has the ability, at this point during COVID, to actually enforce the mandate so we know that no mandates are happening—that parents are not getting away without paying their child supports. There’s nothing forcing them to do so during this time.

So, lots of work to do on family responsibility. I welcome any measures of family responsibility that actually make it easier and help parents through that process.

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

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: My riding represents 20% First Nations. On the James Bay coast, there’s a lot of isolated communities. In your allocution you did mention the lack of service for First Nations. First Nations in my riding, they lack good schools, they lack good hospitals and now the services, the family services, and also legal aid. I would like to hear from you how this government can fix this issue so that they have the service. Because they’ve been cut, and with even less services, they’ll be impacted even more. So I would like to hear from you on this particular issue.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you so much. Yes, First Nations families are completely impacted by lack of services, as we very well know. Indigenous children are overrepresented in our children’s aid societies, and that’s for a reason. We know that they don’t have proper services. We’re hearing about the lack of fresh water, housing, not having supports in the communities that are necessary to keep families healthy and safe and able to move together, ensuring that we’re keeping families together.

I know that the ministry is trying to work on these things, but without proper housing supports, education—kids have to leave their families, their culture, their language and leave for thousands of miles to go to high school, and end up in communities where, quite frankly, they’re abused. We need to do better by those young people and those families.

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

Mrs. Robin Martin: When asked about the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act, Frances Wood, chair of the Ontario Bar Association family law section, said that the OBA “has been a strong advocate for changes that streamline and remove barriers to the family law system to increase the public’s access to the help they need from lawyers.

We commend the Attorney General for offering clarity and equal application of laws to married and non-married spouses by responding to our call for consistency between provincial and federal laws following changes to the Divorce Act.” We look forward to working with the Attorney General to strengthen access to justice as these and other amendments introduced today move forward.

This is Ontario’s largest legal organization, and we listened to them. Will the opposition do the same and support Bill 207?

Miss Monique Taylor: I think I was very clear and I’ve been very clear through the entire process that we are supporting this bill. We understand that these are changes that need to be made. We understand that we had to move in line with federal legislation. There is nothing wrong with that. I’ve said several good things about pieces that are in this bill.

What the member fails to mention and maybe failed to hear were the things that are missing from this bill, where we could have ensured that families truly have access to justice, that they have legal representation when they need it, that they’re not outgunned in the court system, that they have the supports, and when they get through the court system, that they have the supports to actually fulfill the court orders that have been put upon them.

I’m supporting this bill. We’re all supporting this bill. We look forward to its passage, but it was a missed opportunity, once in a lifetime, once in a generation to open this act, to do some good work. They missed the opportunity to truly make sure that there was access to justice in the province of Ontario.

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

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Private members’ public business

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: If you seek it, I’m sure you’ll find unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding the order of precedence for private members’ public business.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Calandra is seeking unanimous consent of the House. Agreed? Agreed.

Back to the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I move that a change be made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members’ public business such that Ms. Skelly assumes ballot item number 31 and Ms. Bell assumes ballot item number 32.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Mr. Calandra has moved that a change be made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members’ public business such that Ms. Skelly assumes ballot item number 31 and Ms. Bell assumes ballot item number 32. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Members’ Statements

Cinemas

Mr. Ian Arthur: I rise today to recognize local cinemas and to speak to the difficulties they are facing in this pandemic. In Kingston, our local independent cinema, the Screening Room, is a gem of our community. It’s the last independent downtown cinema that we have, and it’s a place where I’ve had many fabulous evenings with families and friends.

But these small businesses, like so many others, are facing unprecedented financial hardship, if not outright closure, because of the inadequate supports available to them as well as other artistic venues. These are all venues that have worked hard to operate within the conditions put forward by public health, but who have simply seen their attendance and revenues drop too much to be able to continue.

My office has received many emails from a campaign named Save My Cinema, which are advocating for several reasonable supports, including working with all levels of government to extend the commercial tenant eviction ban for six months so that they can get through the last quarter of this year and the first quarter of next year, and still have the projectors playing movies when we get to the spring and we, hopefully, are through this pandemic.

Aside from the government providing additional supports, I want to encourage everyone here and everyone out there who can afford to do so to buy a gift certificate. Make it a stocking stuffer. You don’t have to go to the cinema right away, but make that purchase now to try to give them some of the revenue they are going to need to get through this winter. And then they will have a welcoming space for you when you go back in the spring.

Food drive

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today about a very special group of students in my riding of Carleton, from St. Stephen Catholic elementary school in Stittsville. Ms. Shannon O’Brien’s 5C class won the food donation championship at their school because they donated, collectively, 288 items to the local Stittsville Food Bank. They reached out to me with a thank you for the letter of congratulations that I sent them, and we ended up connecting. I was very pleased that this past Monday, I had a virtual meeting with the class over Zoom.

They got to ask me about what it’s like to be an MPP, and we chatted a little bit. It was a lot of fun and very interesting. It was also very inspiring to see how engaged these young students were in politics and in getting involved in their community.

I want to let them all know that I’m so proud of you. Congratulations for your hard work. You’re not getting just the letter, but I’ve also signed scrolls for each and every one of you, which you will be getting very shortly.

On top of that, I just want to say that not just this class, but all students in Carleton are so inspiring. It shows that Ontario has a very bright future ahead of us.

Registered practical nurses

Mr. Jeff Burch: Since the start of the pandemic, I’ve been hearing from registered practical nurses, also known as RPNs, and other health care workers about the impact the pandemic has had on them. We all know that the coronavirus has put pressure on our already overburdened health care system.

RPNs with Niagara Health say that prior to the pandemic, they already faced staff shortages. With more patients and less time, RPNs report that their caseloads are far above the standard rate over 50% of the time. They’re gravely concerned that with very little time to spend on patient care, rushing from one emergency to the other puts them and their patients at risk. Jake, an RPN at Niagara hospital, says that he has been exposed to COVID-19 twice. He has been unable to see his family or his friends due to the risk. Another RPN with the Niagara Health System said two units adjacent to hers went into an outbreak.

Despite the increased work, the risk of exposure and the emotional impact of having to be away from family and friends, RPNs have received no pandemic pay. The government has not even made sure their workloads are manageable. RPNs continue to receive depressed wages despite the increase in their work and exposure.

Speaker, this House cannot call health care workers like RPNs heroes one day and disregard their work the next day. Workers providing critical services during this crisis deserve to be compensated at the level that recognizes the essential work they’re doing. It’s the right thing to do. Let’s treat RPNs with the respect they deserve now.

Social services

Mr. Mike Harris: Last week, I had the opportunity to announce that our government will be providing Waterloo region with $6.5 million in social services relief funding. It will be used to support the region’s plan to create modular homes on surplus lands, and almost half will go to supporting the service agencies that operate our local emergency shelters. A huge thank you goes to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for supporting the work that these organizations do.

I want to take a moment and recognize one of their more recent initiatives. The House of Friendship and Inner City Health Alliance members have been developing the ShelterCare model. They’ve been doing this for just about a year now, and they launched it during the pandemic. ShelterCare combines health care and shelter by giving those experiencing homelessness access to 24/7 shelter and care for their mental and physical health. The outcomes have been a great success. Overdoses have been reduced by 50%, and EMS calls have decreased by 75%.

In the past six months, 50 men have been housed, with none of them returning back to shelter. To quote the House of Friendship’s housing services director, “This way of shelter has proven so successful that there is no going back.”

I look forward to sharing the continued successes of ShelterCare with my colleagues and supporting this ongoing work in my community.

Environmental protection

Ms. Jennifer K. French: The Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing are using a tool called a minister’s zoning order to bulldoze the planning process across communities. Minister’s zoning orders were once rare, but in the last eight months, under the cover of COVID, this government has quietly issued more than the last government issued in 15 years. The MZOs allow the government to exempt certain projects from public consultations, environmental reviews and other planning rules, and they cannot be appealed.

The Premier should not be using a pandemic as cover to issue dozens of MZOs to pave over farmland and irreplaceable, provincially significant coastal wetlands like Duffins Creek in Pickering. We’ve already lost an estimate 90% of wetlands across the GTA.

Speaker, Duffins Creek is a beautiful area, with swans and birds and wetland critters to keep you company. I’ve taken my paddleboard for hours, exploring the creek and then paddling out onto Lake Ontario. The creek wends and winds through cattails and grasses and takes you into stands of trees that arch low across the creek, draped with fruited grapevines—like a scene out of Narnia. It is a favourite local place to go for families, cyclists, picnickers and kayakers. But the minister has made a deal to pave paradise and put up a warehouse.

Wetlands are awesome. They serve as filters and essentially the lungs of our ecosystem, mitigating flooding, sequestering carbon, filtering runoff, purifying drinking water and protecting the quality of the lakes they guard. No warehouse will do that.

The province can’t just replace significant wetlands or make it up to folks. And if the government’s plan is to take all of the trees and put them in a tree museum, they should not expect communities to let them get away with it.

Canadian soldiers / Soldats canadiens

Mr. John Fraser: Tomorrow is the start of Remembrance Week in Ontario, which is recognized by an initiative from the member from Simcoe–Grey, who kindly asked Cheri DiNovo and myself to co-sponsor his bill. It’s something I’m very proud of, and I want to thank him again for including us.

Remembrance Day is going to be different this year at the Perley and Rideau Veterans’ Health Centre in Ottawa South; we won’t be all together as we are every year. Linda and I won’t be there with my father-in-law, Lorne Hooper, a veteran and resident of the Perley. He passed away almost one year ago.

War touches everyone’s family in some way, somewhere. In Linda’s family, her uncles fought overseas in World War II. James Cavanagh flew 36 flights over Germany, including in the bombing of Dresden. Bill served on the Assiniboine. Neil served in the army overseas. They all made it home but with very deep, lasting scars.

One brother didn’t. Robert Ansley Cavanagh died at Dieppe in August 1942, along with thousands of other young men. My mother-in-law, Yvonne, who was closest to Ansley, dearly loved him. She kept his picture on her dresser for 75 years, looking at it every day. She never forgot him—never. She had a deep, lasting scar.

So we now have his picture in our house, along with his letters home. Thanks to her, we’ll never forget him, the sacrifice that he made. That’s why I mention him today. It’s our duty to always remember those sacrifices that are made on our behalf.

Lest we forget. Nous nous souviendrons.

Organ and tissue donation

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: It is an honour to rise today to speak about the importance of organ and tissue donation. Over 1,600 men, women and children are currently waiting for a life-saving organ transplant in Ontario, including 29 people in my riding, Markham–Thornhill.

Last week, I met with the Trillium Gift of Life Network to discuss how we can improve donor registration rates across the province. The numbers are shocking: Every three days, someone in Ontario dies a preventable death, waiting for a transplant.

More than 90% of Ontarians are in favour of organ donation, yet only one in three Ontarians have actually registered to become a donor. One organ donor can save eight lives and enhance the life of up to 75 others through their tissue donation.

Ontario has some of the best facilities in the world for organ transplants. Everyone has the potential to be a donor, regardless of age, medical condition or sexual orientation. I would encourage every eligible Ontarian to speak with their family about becoming a donor today and help save someone’s life.

Laboratory services

M me France Gélinas: The private lab system in Ontario always had some customer issues, but since the pandemic, the problems have increased to the point that they literally leave seniors out in the cold.

Yolande Gignac tried for several weeks to get into LifeLabs, but they had no record of her requisition. When she finally was able to book an appointment, she worried about how long she would have to wait, because there is always a big crowd waiting outside LifeLabs in her community.

Hélène Beauchamp left her home in Gogama to drive all the way to Azilda, so she would be there when LifeLabs opened their doors at 8 a.m. After driving for two hours and waiting outside in the cold for another hour, the LifeLabs employee told her they had no record of her appointment.

Elie Martel from Capreol—some people would know him—called LifeLabs a dozen times; no one ever picked up. Finally, his daughter Shelley booked him an appointment online. Picture this: An 85-year-old man, who just had surgery, has to wait outside in the cold, in the wind, in the snow, with no place to sit. He cannot wait in his car, because there is no receptionist at the Val Caron LifeLabs site, just a lab technologist that comes to the door asking for the next appointment. If you’re not there at the door, you lose.

LifeLabs’ 1-800 number is either busy or they just keep you on the line; nobody ever picks up. We tried reaching LifeLabs to let them know, to file a complaint. It is impossible to talk to them. The level of customer service from this private lab is not acceptable. Winter is coming in Nickel Belt, and it’s cold outside. The minister has to look into this to make this better.

Anita Stewart

Mr. Vincent Ke: Today I want to pay tribute to an incredible woman, a Canadian icon, an activist and a proud agri-food culture pioneer: Dr. Anita Stewart, who passed away last week.

Back in 2003, when the US placed sanctions on the export of Canadian beef due to mad cow disease, Dr. Stewart responded by holding the world’s longest barbecue. Her successful initiative evolved into Food Day Canada, a wonderful event that continues to take place every summer.

Dr. Stewart provided the inspiration and tremendous support for my first private member’s bill, Bill 163, entitled the Food Day Ontario (Food Day Canada in Ontario) Act, 2020. I still recall that during the second reading, she and many of her friends were right there in the members’ gallery supporting my bill. I am humbled to have had the privilege to work closely with Dr. Stewart, who was not only a respected trailblazer in her field, but also a very dear friend to me and many others.

I extend my deepest condolences to Dr. Stewart’s family, colleagues and friends.

John Weir Foote

Mr. Daryl Kramp: As Remembrance Day approaches, my thoughts always turn to great individuals who gave their all for all of us. One such hero was John Weir Foote, from my hometown of Madoc. Many here will know the name, because he never stopped serving.

I would like to pay tribute today to John, who served with the Canadian Chaplain Services attached to the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry. Reverend John Foote was the first Canadian chaplain to win the Victoria Cross. He ministered to his troops during the blistering battle of Dieppe on August 19, 1942, through eight ungodly hours of death. He carried soldiers from the beach under heavy fire to safety. He assisted medics in tending to the wounded. The next day, incredibly, he refused to evacuate and surrendered to the Germans so he could continue ministering his charges who had become prisoners of war.

Freedom came back to him three years later after the Allies took back Europe. But John Weir was not done serving. Educated at Western, Queen’s and McGill, he still had more to give here back home.

Lieutenant Colonel Foote served for a decade in this chamber, from 1949 to 1959, as the Progressive Conservative MPP for Durham. His votes supported the building of the first Toronto subway, expansion of Ontario universities and the launch of Highway 401.

I think of John when I drive to Toronto each week through Durham and along the 401. John was a giant wherever he strode, and we all serve in his shadow. Lest we forget.

Question Period

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my first question this morning is for the Premier. Front-line doctors and public health experts are raising dire concerns about the Premier’s latest rewrite of the government’s response to the second wave of the pandemic. Dr. Michael Warner, the medical director of critical care at Michael Garron Hospital, is pretty blunt about it. He says it “creates the preconditions for rolling lockdowns, continued economic uncertainty, and unnecessary death and illness.”

Did medical experts at the Premier’s command table raise any of these same concerns? And if so, why did the Premier ignore them?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you for the question. I think there are a few things that need to be mentioned with respect to this question.

First of all, with the modelling that was produced last week, there was an indication that Ontario was moving much in the same way as Australia had in Victoria, with a sudden, sharp peak. But in reality, it looks more like Ontario is following the same tradition as Michigan, which reached a level of between 800 and 1,000 cases per day, higher than of course we’d like to, but reaching a sort of plateau.

What’s happening with this new case framework that’s been brought forward is to allow for earlier intervention so that closures might not have to be necessary. There is a gradation, steps up and steps down, within this framework that allows for businesses to understand if there are concerns with what’s happening in their area, that there can be some restrictions placed on it, but not closures. This is something that has been formulated with public health by public health for the benefit of all the people of Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, doctors fighting COVID-19 in our hospitals are desperately warning that the Premier is marching us right into disaster. Last summer, the Ford government ignored similar pleas and refused to prepare properly for the second wave, leaving us with understaffed long-term-care homes, where tragedies continue to unfold; crowded schools, where outbreaks continue to occur; and families left waiting for hours and hours and hours for a COVID-19 test. And now doctors warn us we’re heading into disaster again. This is what doctors are saying.

If the Premier has evidence to back up his plan, he can make it public today. So will he make public any reports and documents prepared for the government by public health experts supporting these measures?

Hon. Christine Elliott: As a matter of fact, our government has been very clear and very transparent with the people of Ontario about what the state of affairs is in Ontario. The Premier has been very clear about that throughout.

In addition to this framework that we have provided the people of Ontario, we also are providing a daily dashboard that they can take a look at to understand, in their own public health unit, what is the state of affairs, how many tests have been conducted, what level are they in, so that people can make their own determination about what they want to do.

It’s really important for the people of Ontario to assume part of their responsibility, because we are all in this together. It’s important for the people of Ontario to have that information. That is what we’re going to continue to provide on a weekly, updated basis for the people of Ontario, so they can see what we are seeing, which is the number of cases; unfortunately, the number of deaths; the number of people in hospital; and the number of people in intensive care. All of those issues are readily available for the people of Ontario to see.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People are tired of watching the Premier veer all over the map as more and more people fall sick—1,050 yesterday. He promised the largest flu immunization in Ontario’s history, but people are being turned away at pharmacies and other clinics due to a lack of supply. He promised contact tracing so effective it could stop the virus in its tracks, but in Toronto we still don’t know where two thirds of people actually contracted COVID-19.

Now he has new plan, which one expert compared to throwing in the towel in the fight against COVID-19. So why would people have any confidence whatsoever in the Premier and his government?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Because in fact we do have a very clear and comprehensive plan: Our fall preparedness plan contemplates all of the issues that the leader of the official opposition has just raised. We also have a very clear framework for allowing decisions to be made about whether there should be any lockdowns or any restrictions placed on any geographic area. That’s important for the people of the area to know. It’s important for the businesses of the area to know. It’s important for the doctors and hospitals to know as well.

We have had conversations with the Ontario Hospital Association, with the Ontario Medical Association and with the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, and in fact what we’re seeing now is that we do have the capacity in our health care system. It’s not being overloaded to the point of being overwhelmed.

We know that COVID-19 is going to be with us until a vaccine is available, and so we have to have a framework to be able to make those decisions. That is what we have that’s been developed in consultation with the public health experts who are advising the government.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The next question is for the Premier, but I just want to say that we’re talking to those folks too and they’re really worried, because the last thing we want is to get to a point where things are overloaded and overwhelmed. It’s the government’s job to stop us from getting there, and folks are very worried that that’s exactly where we’re headed.

If the Premier was really interested, though, in another aspect of this, which is support for small businesses to help them pay the bills and keep people on the payroll, he’d be investing the money needed to get COVID-19 under control and provide direct supports to small business in our province. The government’s refusal to invest in contact tracing and testing last summer is one of the reasons that we’re in the crisis that we are today.

In the summer the government quietly backed away from a goal of getting to 100,000 tests a day by October. We’re now in November. Yesterday, we tested a quarter of that amount, Speaker. Does the government have a plan to reach their target, or any evidence that says that their new scheme is safe, when we’re so far away from where we should be at this moment in time?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: I think it’s really important to remember that while we have the ability to reach up to 50,000 tests per day, it is demand-driven, so it depends on the number of people that actually show up. I’m not sure if the leader of the official opposition would like us to just go and grab people and bring them in for testing. That’s not what we do in Ontario.

We want to make testing available for people, and we have. We are putting $1 billion into extra testing and contact tracing and management. We have put the money into that. We do have those available and ready to go. We have 160 assessment centres. People can go and make an appointment there. They can also go to pharmacies. They can be tested. We do have contact tracers available. We’ve hired 600 more on top of the 2,750 contact tracers we already have. We’re getting another 600 more from Statistics Canada. At that point we’ll have 4,000 contact tracers with $1 billion behind it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Minister of Health knows very well that what this government did to deal with their lack of ability to prepare for a second wave is actually make testing less accessible for the people of Ontario, and that is nothing to brag about.

Small businesses and the people who work for them need help. They need help to get them through the second wave of this pandemic, not a constantly changing scheme from the Premier that sees more and more people getting sick. For months and months small businesses have been pleading for direct support from this government to help them pay the rent and keep people on the payroll. But yesterday the government told businesses hanging by a thread in places like northern Ontario, Windsor, Hamilton, Kingston and London, “You’re all on your own, because none of you are going to get a penny of the $300 million in aid that the government announced a little while back.”

If the Premier was truly interested in helping small business and spurring economic recovery, why is he constantly coming up short when it comes providing the support that they need to stay afloat?

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

Mr. Stan Cho: I am proud to announce that this government understands that small businesses are going through a very difficult time right now, and that’s why our government responded very quickly with $30 billion in direct support, $241 million in relief for commercial rent, $50 million for the Ontario Together Fund to help businesses retool during this time of great uncertainty. We heard from small businesses that they need help with their other taxes, like their employer health taxes, so we responded by providing $355 million in direct relief.

We heard from thousands of businesses that they needed help with their hydro bills, so we responded with $175 million in additional hydro rate relief.

Of course, there is more to be done for these small businesses, and that’s why I look forward to outlining this government’s plan tomorrow as we table the 2020 budget, which will state our plan to protect, support and recover in the province of Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Ford government didn’t make the investments that they should have made to prepare for the second wave. They simply didn’t. Now, the government is scrambling to try to react. Tough talk in the Premier’s daily campaign news conferences isn’t going to do anything to repair the damage that they’ve already done to businesses and to our health care system under this Premier’s watch. Now, a new, confusing system with looser rules isn’t going to help. It’s going to make things even worse.

When will this Premier stop making stuff up as he goes along and start making the investments, the direct business support investments and the supports that public health needs to make sure that we can actually fight this pandemic, and do the things that they should have done months and months ago?

Mr. Stan Cho: What this Premier and government have done is listened to the thousands of small businesses out there that are going through this very difficult time that is COVID-19. They asked for help with their hydro rates, and that’s exactly what we provided. They asked for help with their overhead fixed costs, and that’s what that $300 million in the recent announcement is going to help with. It will help with property taxes, keep hydro rates low and help with their other fixed costs.

This government has listened by balancing the investments in health care—$7.7 billion to the health care sector, because nothing is more important than protecting the people that we serve. Those additional supports that have gone to businesses have continued throughout this pandemic in a very adaptive and prudent fashion. As I mentioned before, tomorrow we will outline the next steps to protect, support and recover here in the province of Ontario.

College standards and accreditation

Mr. Chris Glover: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The minister this week made inappropriate comparisons between Ontario’s proud colleges and universities, and Charles McVety’s college. Instead of doing that, he should have done his research before he brought legislation forward to allow Charles McVety to grant science degrees.

Here’s why: In May 2018, Charles McVety said on video at his college, “People talk about the world being billions and billions of years old, but I’ve never seen anything more than 6,000 years old. You have a perfect historical record for about 6,000 years and then ... stopped.”

Mr. Speaker, that’s not science. Why would the minister let Charles McVety grant science degrees when he believes that humans walked the earth with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Ross Romano: Once again, I’m very happy to respond to the question. Last year, we cut red tape in the fall red tape bill. We created a process whereby any agency or institution out there does not apply directly to a minister to obtain minister’s consent. Any licensing process or designation of this nature now goes directly to the independent advisory board, PEQAB. Last year, no one on the other side of the floor raised any concerns with that process. That was the process that was created: directly from the institution to an independent advisory board who then makes a recommendation.

We had two institutions that then were legislated in the same fashion as what you see here: Algoma University and OCAD University. They went through the same process.

What the member opposite doesn’t seem to understand is that this is an independent advisory process where we’ve created an accountable, transparent, clear way to address these matters—clear.

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

Mr. Chris Glover: Day after day, the Minister of Colleges and Universities defends the indefensible in this House, which is allowing a person who has made Islamophobic and homophobic comments to grant university degrees and college degrees in Ontario. But I’m sure that at some point you’ll be rewarded with a cabinet promotion by the Premier for your loyalty to him and his friend.

In a course Charles McVety teaches—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Okay. Once again, you can’t impute motive. I’ll ask the member to rephrase his question.

Mr. Chris Glover: In a course Charles McVety teaches and is still advertised on Twitter, he warns of imminent Islamic war. He writes, “One world governance is here!” He wonders whether trying to stop climate change is “earth worship.” He questioned the science of climate change many times before.

No one is suggesting that Charles McVety can’t hold his own personal views, but no one believes he should be able to teach hate and anti-science beliefs, and then grant degrees. Why won’t the government do the right thing and pull the legislation that gives Charles McVety university-degree-granting authority in arts and science?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members please take their seats.

Again, the Minister of College and Universities.

Hon. Ross Romano: I continually speak about process because I’m trying to help the members opposite to maybe appreciate that there is no mechanism to interfere with this type of procedural process.

No matter what institution it is, for any institution in the province, just like any individual who applies for a licence, there is no way for us to meddle with that process, nor should there be—unless, of course, what the members opposite want us to do as governing members of this House is to actually meddle with process. Do they actually want us to interfere? Is that what they’re asking us to do? Would they like us to actually stick our hands in the pot and try to play games with process?

This is a process. It’s a fair process. It’s an independent advisory process. What does the opposition have against the independent advisory process that is established, that they had no problem with one year ago?

Education funding

Ms. Donna Skelly: My question is to the Minister of Education. School administrators and principals in Hamilton and right across Ontario have been working extraordinarily hard to keep schools safe and ensure quality learning for our kids, thanks to record investments into education by this government.

To support smaller class sizes, staff virtual classes and cover for teachers who may have been exposed to COVID-19, school boards have extensively used their list of supply teachers, but those supply lists are limited and we’ve seen a troubling staff shortage emerge.

Across Ontario, retired teachers are stepping up to the plate, offering to help ensure that we can deliver education safely to our students. Can the Minister of Education please share what our government is doing to bring more teachers into the system and help alleviate the shortage?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Thank you to the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook for the question, for the advocacy for public education. We have, over the past months, been supporting school boards in every region of this province, hiring over 2,700 new educators to reduce classroom sizes and ensure quality learning.

In addition, we’ve also rescinded regulation 274, a relic of the former Liberal government that thankfully has been relegated to history, to ensure that principals have the speed and the latitude to quickly hire. But in addition, we have been working with our school board partners and the principals’ council to encourage the Ontario Teachers’ Federation to allow us to have retiree teachers who have worked up to 50 days work beyond the 50-day current quota. We believe that by rescinding that maximum from 50 to 95 days, for example, it will help our school boards ensure that every parent and every student gets an educator they deserve.

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

Ms. Donna Skelly: It is obvious that the issue of staffing in our classrooms is not a matter of money. Over $200 million of additional funds have been made available this year to address staffing issues and other board priorities, as well as unlocking nearly $500 million in reserve funds. As the minister said, we have already enabled the hiring of over 2,700 new teachers. Despite what the opposition claim, our government is willing to spend what it takes to have schools up and running while keeping everyone involved as safe as possible. This is an issue about a policy that needlessly prevents educators who want to work and want to help from being part of the solution.

Could the minister please explain why all partners must work together to ensure that every student has a teacher?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: It is really an important question.

I think all members of the Legislature accept the premise that every student deserves a teacher.

There is a way, today, right now, that the Ontario Teachers’ Federation can work with the government, knowing that the principals’ councils and the school board associations of this province have asked them since July, since we’ve been negotiating and working with them, to expand that quota from 50 days to 95 days, allowing more retirees, willingly, voluntarily, to re-enter our schools and to staff our schools to ensure that learning continues. That is important.

When we did a survey of our school boards, over two thirds of them, in September—the problem is much worse today—underscored that they have a challenge finding access to supply. We have a solution.

We know parents want us to work together during this pandemic, as the member rightfully mentioned—collaboration in this unprecedented time of difficulty—and we’re willing to do that, and we have for three months. We’re calling on them, in good faith, to expedite the outcome. Let’s get on with this and ensure every school—and every student has a teacher in this province.

College standards and accreditation

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: My question is for the Deputy Premier.

Charles McVety handed Premier Ford electoral victory, giving him his fringe, radical, social conservative support. Now McVety is looking for payback: the power to confer university degrees at Canada Christian College.

When their world is full of hate, LGBTQ youth may lose their home; some may lose their lives. Muslim youth shoulder bigotry every day of their lives.

Government members can’t remain silent, ignore their conscience and claim to respect the process. How can anyone remain silent on McVety’s platform of hate?

Will the Acting Premier stand up for Muslim and LGBTQ youth today? Will she finally stand up against hate?

Interjections.

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

The Minister of Colleges and Universities to respond.

Hon. Ross Romano: Again, everyone on this side of the House, everyone in this House—everybody can agree on the importance of equality and the importance of ensuring that we have a system that is free of hate.

But what we are talking about here, and what I said in my responses to the previous two questions from the members opposite—and I am truly trying to be as clear and simple as I possibly can be about procedural matters here. There is not a process to meddle with an independent advisory process. If you take an independent advisory process like that which we have, the process that was initiated last year in the fall red tape bill, which no one on that side of the House concerned themselves with—two institutions went through the identical process. No concerns were raised. They need to understand the procedural accountability measures that are there, and I hope we can help them appreciate that.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Respectfully, the minister can’t even say McVety’s name. Do you know what is not an independent process? McVety’s platform of hate.

Back to the Acting Premier: I suspect she’s listening, but her silence is deafening. Conservatives talk about their gay friends when it’s convenient; now is the time to speak up for your friends, but instead all we hear is silence.

When government officials pander to radical, fringe social conservatives, they stoke the fires of hatred. This pre-emptive legislation stokes the fires of hatred.

Through you, Speaker, to all government members: Stand up and speak out against McVety’s hate. Your choice will define your political career. It will define you as a human being.

Again to the Acting Premier: Where do you stand on McVety’s platform of hate? Will you finally stand up as a leader?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members, please take their seats.

Hon. Ross Romano: I will once again rise to speak to this matter, and I will continually speak to the facts. The facts are the facts; you cannot change the facts. We have a process. You apply directly to a board. This is not a government process. This is not a process that any minister, any member of this House has the ability to meddle with. It has been made that way for a great reason. It is to remove politics from the equation. It’s to remove pandering.

Interjections.

Hon. Ross Romano: Those on that side of the floor like to laugh and they like to heckle, and they like to pander for reasons, reasons that they want to meddle with process. They don’t like fairness. They don’t like accountability. They don’t like transparency.

We on this side of this House believe in that fair process, and we have brought this into legislation to ensure that everybody in this entire province has the opportunity to hear respectful debate. That is what we are here doing—

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

COVID-19 response

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, this government released another COVID scheme based on meaningless data. As if the public wasn’t already confused enough, our Premier changed the rules yet again; not to stop the virus, which he can’t, but to baffle people and create the appearance that he can. These new measures are absurd, irrational and inane. They’re better suited to a Monty Python parody.

Serving beer after 9 p.m. is now unsafe. Casinos are open, but their tables are closed. Masks are not needed while working out in a gym, but they are when lining up outside, and while your server is wearing goggles to serve your beer. All these rules, but no evidence to support them.

Lockdowns don’t work, just like the millions that are unemployed and the businesses destroyed. Is the endgame a never-ending crisis of confusion and contradictions?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Actually, this framework was designed to provide more certainty to people and to businesses to understand where each part of the region or where each part of the province stands with respect to COVID-19.

You’re right, it’s not going away right away and in the near future until we have a vaccine, so we need to learn how to deal with it, how to live with it. As part of that, we need to provide information to the public on what their responsibilities are, too.

That’s why we’ve developed both a framework as well as a dashboard that’s being posted on our ontario.ca/coronavirus website so that people can click into their specific public health region, understand what stage it’s at, what the restrictions are, if any, and be able to make their own decisions about whether they want to go out to dinner in a restaurant, whether they want to go and work out in gym—whatever it is that they want to do. This is to provide greater certainty to everyone as we’re dealing with COVID-19, going forward.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: To the Premier. Thinking people understand that the true measure of risk from any disease is not the number of cases, but rather the severity of the illness and the number of hospitalizations and deaths that result. If the number of cases meant anything, every province, state and country would shut down from September to April every year for the flu. But that would be absurd, irrational and inane, just like the government’s proposals.

But it gets worse. The Premier proposes testing 100,000 healthy people every day, which his own government acknowledges will produce approximately 1,000 false positives every day, which then justifies this endless circle of futility and misery. Speaker, coronaviruses are real, but the crisis is not. It is one by the Premier’s own making.

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you, Speaker. Through you, I would like to say to the member I don’t know exactly what point it is that you’re trying to make, but I think what we need to look at are the facts. The facts are that we have testing; we are increasing our testing, tracing and contact management by $1 billion; we’re increasing the numbers; we’re increasing the testing and contact management.

I think it’s also really important to note—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: It’s really important to note that in cases per 100,000, Ontario is the sixth in order in any province outside the Atlantic bubble. Manitoba has 252 per 100,000. It goes on: Alberta, Quebec, Saskatchewan, BC. Ontario is the lowest, at 56 per 100,000. That indicates our plan is working and we are making achievements.

The plan that we’ve put into place now is to give certainty to businesses to make sure that we can take action sooner so that businesses might not have to close. We want to keep businesses operating. We want to keep people in business. We want to keep track of their—

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

Long-term care

Mrs. Gila Martow: My question is to the Minister of Long-Term Care.

After years of neglect from the previous government, the wait-list for long-term care in our province has grown to 37,000 people. I know this government has put our seniors at the heart of its strategy for long-term care, so last Friday, I was very pleased to see the minister announce a $5-million investment to launch the Community Paramedicine for Long-Term Care program in five communities across the province.

Families in my riding of Thornhill have been vocal about better access for quality health care. Can the Minister of Long-Term Care please explain to this House how people like Bernice Polan, who is taking care of her husband at home, can benefit from this investment that will help seniors on the long-term-care wait-list stay safe in the comfort of their own homes?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member for Thornhill for being such a strong advocate for seniors in her community and across the province

The new long-term-care-focused community paramedicine program will leverage the skills of community paramedics to help reduce hallway health care and provide additional and appropriate care for seniors. Community paramedics provide quality care through at-home visits for our vulnerable population on the wait-list for long-term care, and this service is available 24/7. When they are not there physically, they have remote monitoring so that community paramedics can be in touch with our loved ones at all hours.

Community paramedics can monitor and respond to changing health conditions so that they can be addressed early. Our seniors deserve the best possible care, and our government is working every day to deliver on that commitment.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: Thank you to the minister for that response. I’m very glad to hear that proactive steps are being taken to provide quality care for our seniors. It’s reassuring to hear that this program will provide better care for seniors in the comfort of their own homes. This new capacity of care will make a big difference in my community of Thornhill, since one of the locations for this innovative pilot project is York region, and I’m sure its positive effects will be felt through the region.

This is exactly the kind of outside-the-box project we need to see more of. Especially in the current COVID-19 environment, seniors can have the peace of mind knowing that they have a safe option to receive quality health care.

As someone who provided optometric care to seniors, I’m asking the minister who provided family health care to seniors for more details on how this will improve patient outcomes across the province for our seniors.

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: This new long-term-care-focused community paramedicine program shows our government’s commitment to ending hallway health care and to keeping seniors safe and keeping them where they want to be: at home.

The program will be delivered through local paramedic services, providing access to health services 24/7 through in-home and remote methods, such as online or virtual supports; home visits and in-home testing procedures; ongoing monitoring of changing or escalating conditions to prevent or reduce emergency visits; additional education about healthy living or managing things like chronic diseases; and connections for participants and their families to home care and community supports.

This program is an excellent example of our government being innovative and co-operating with partners across the health care system. We are grateful for these community paramedics who will allow us to serve seniors better.

Poverty

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I recently hosted a town hall on poverty and those made vulnerable by poverty in my riding of York South–Weston. One participant was Ryan Noble, the executive director of North York Harvest Food Bank.

Since the pandemic began seven months ago, the food bank has seen a 75% increase of need in the community over the same period last year. The North York Harvest Food Bank is doing an incredible job during difficult times. However, as Mr. Noble states, “We cannot reduce food insecurity in a meaningful way without the public, private and non-profit sectors working together to put robust, long-term solutions to poverty in place.”

My question is, what is this government doing to address the needs of communities like mine in York South–Weston that need immediate economic relief?

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

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you to the member for that question. As part of Ontario’s efforts to support children, youth and families through the challenging time, our government has provided $8 million in funding for Feed Ontario. This funding assisted Feed Ontario in producing and distributing pre-packaged hampers to support the great work that food banks across the province have been doing during the COVID-19 outbreak.

We’ve also invested an additional $1 million in the Student Nutrition Program, so it can continue to run throughout the summer months. During this time, the program has been adapted to include new, local approaches to meal delivery, including distributing grocery cards or farm vouchers; delivering food boxes, meal kits or frozen meals; and supporting food banks at this time. This investment also supported the 14 lead agencies who deliver these services to 4,500 student nutrition programs that address food insecurity in communities across the province.

Our government knows that proper nutrition is foundational for success, and we are taking steps to ensure every student has access to healthy food that is served.

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

Mr. Faisal Hassan: Back to the Premier: My riding of York South–Weston and the Toronto northwest have been facing many social and economic challenges only made worse by COVID. The effect of poverty on a community requires investment and attention to mental health supports, access to housing, employment opportunities and overdue increases to individuals living on social assistance and ODSP. We have non-profit groups like North York Harvest Food Bank and other community groups stepping up to the plate. When exactly is this government going to do their part to address poverty in Ontario in a meaningful way?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you again to the member for the question. I can tell you that myself, the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services and my colleagues across this government are very interested in this important issue.

As you know, we launched province-wide consultations at the end of January to inform our new, five-year poverty reduction strategy. This will recognize the impact of COVID-19 on individuals and agencies. I am pleased to share that we are able to extend the online consultations by a month, so more individuals have the opportunity to participate in these consultations.

We heard from people and organizations across the province, including those at heightened risk of poverty, other levels of government and the private and non-profit sectors. They contributed innovative ideas on how to reduce poverty, including how we can continue to encourage job creation and connect people to employment, provide people with the right supports and services, and lower the cost of living to make life more affordable. We will continue to listen to those directly affected by poverty, community organizations, Indigenous partners as we develop a new strategy, which we will look forward to releasing later this year.

Municipal elections

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Good morning. My question is for the Premier. Today is a dark day for democratic participation. It’s bad enough that the government is attacking the ability of people to determine the best way to democratically conduct local elections; now they are denying people an opportunity to participate in our democratic institutions by ramming Bill 218 through committee with only five hours of public hearings. I’ve had many people reach out to my office, including elected municipal councillors, who have been denied an opportunity to speak at committee. It’s my understanding that only one person will be speaking about ranked ballots in today’s committee hearings.

I don’t understand why the Premier is using the heavy hand of big government to attack local democracy, but will he at least agree to letting people be heard at committee by extending the number of days for committee hearings?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member opposite will know that this House voted on the way forward with respect to this bill.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’m disappointed that that was such a brief and unsubstantial answer. Twenty-one thousand people in Kingston voted for ranked ballots. Bill 218 overturned their democratic decision. We have an opportunity in this House to pass a unanimous consent motion that would extend the amount of time for committee hearings.

Speaker, AMO, elected city councillors, numerous people are reaching out because they want their democratic voices to be heard. Will the members opposite, and will the House leader, agree to a unanimous consent motion to extend the hours for committee hearings so that people can be heard, so our democratic institutions can work for the people?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, the member will know that a motion was brought forward in front of the duly elected members of the Legislative Assembly. It was voted on, and the way forward at this committee was approved by the members of this assembly. So no, I will not overturn the democratic vote and voice of the people on this particular issue.

Infrastructure funding

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: My question is for the Minister of Infrastructure. Last summer, the Minister of Infrastructure unveiled the community, culture and recreation stream, one of five streams of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program.

My community was thrilled about the potential for more amenities like sports facilities, community spaces, boardwalks and nature trails being built in the growing city of Mississauga. As the local member of provincial Parliament for Mississauga–Lakeshore, I know first-hand that creating spaces for residents to enjoy the outdoors means a lot to so many people, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic when we’ve been asked to stay home as much as possible.

Not only does improving and increasing community spaces encourage a more healthy and active lifestyle, it creates space for families to spend time together and seniors to remain connected with their community.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell my constituents what kind of investments the city of Mississauga can look forward to through the community, culture and recreation stream of ICIP?

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

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore for your great question. I’d like to remind this House that funding and details around the ICIP program were set by the previous provincial and federal governments in early 2018, prior to the current provincial government’s election, and the CCR stream is the second smallest of the ICIP streams.

The CCR stream allows municipalities, not-for-profits, Indigenous communities and others the opportunity to make strategic investments to improve access to the quality of recreational, cultural and community infrastructure.

Given the fact that Ontario had the largest sub-sovereign debt in the entire western world, you would expect that we would have some great infrastructure to show for it. Unfortunately, we don’t. To put it bluntly, the overwhelming infrastructure deficit created from years of neglect by the previous government resulted in this intake being extremely oversubscribed. We received approximately 1,200 applications totalling more than $10 billion worth of projects for only $1 billion in joint funding available.

We’re doing the best we can with the limited funding available, and I urge all members of this House to join us in urging the federal government for more funding for infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you to the member from Oakville for that answer. In August, the federal Minister of Infrastructure announced the creation of the COVID-19 resilience stream that the province could use to support municipalities in building infrastructure to help rebuild and grow their local economies in the aftermath of the devastating COVID-19 pandemic.

Since then, like many of you, my local municipality has been asking the province to provide them with infrastructure dollars that would help create jobs, grow the economy and get shovels in the ground.

While we were all thrilled to learn that the province has gone to great lengths to reallocate existing funds to offer flexibility to our municipal partners, we would have liked to see new funding from the federal government to support infrastructure needs and ensure that municipalities like the city of Mississauga get their fair share of funding.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us how much funding will be available for my community through the COVID-19 resilience stream, and how much this needed funding will be broken down?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant to reply.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Thank you for the question. The member is quite right. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 resilience stream required our government to reallocate funding between the current ICIP program. That’s why Premier Doug Ford has continued to call on the federal government to end approval dela