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

March 23, 2021

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2021-Mar-23 vol. A (PDF)

L237A - Tue 23 Mar 2021 / Mar 23 mar 2021

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 23 March 2021 Mardi 23 mars 2021

Orders of the Day

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

Members’ Statements

Community services

COVID-19 response

Transportation planning

Réponse à la COVID-19 / COVID-19 response

Greek Independence Day

Mental health services

ProResp

Home care

Lunar new year

Journée internationale de la Francophonie

Shooting in Atlanta

Question Period

COVID-19 immunization

Health care

Member’s conduct

Long-term care

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

Child care

Children’s mental health services

Long-term care / Soins de longue durée

Anti-racism activities

Small business

Mental health services

Tenant protection

Highway construction

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Legislative reform

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Executive Council Amendment Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 modifiant la

Loi sur le Conseil exécutif

Support Workers Pay Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la rémunération des préposés aux services de soutien

Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act (Access to Mental Health Support for Essential Workers), 2021 / Loi de 2021 modifiant la

Loi sur la sécurité professionnelle et l’assurance contre les accidents du travail (accès des travailleurs essentiels aux soutiens en matière de santé mentale)

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Journée internationale de la Francophonie / International Day of la Francophonie

Petitions

Education funding

Optometry services

Social assistance

Long-term care

Toronto Transit Commission

Equal opportunity

Soins de longue durée

Education funding

Education funding

Orders of the Day

Supporting Broadband and Infrastructure Expansion Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 soutenant l’expansion de l’Internet et des infrastructures

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

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Downey moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 245,

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

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

Hon. Doug Downey: I’m honoured to rise in the House today to bring third reading of the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021.

This bill, if passed, would improve access to justice for people across the system by modernizing processes and breaking down barriers in the province’s courts, tribunals, estates law, family law and child protection sectors. These changes that we are proposing will transform the way Ontarians access justice in the courtroom and beyond. If passed, they would benefit people from across the province by saving them money and reducing the time they spend waiting in court.

These changes support our ongoing efforts to move more justice services online and closer to Ontarians. We want to expand access to justice across the province and provide better services to people regardless of where they live, and especially for those who live in rural, northern, Indigenous and francophone communities. If passed, these changes would help us achieve these important milestones.

Some of the changes proposed in the Accelerating Access to Justice Act are building upon the urgent work that the government undertook in the early days of the outbreak. Many of the others support the delivery of changes that have been in the works since I became Attorney General of Ontario. As we continue to debate this legislation, I want to remind everybody of how far we have come. The rapid changes we made were remarkable, and we did this alongside our partners in the courts and the broader justice system, including the many lawyers and paralegals and staff who are on the front lines each and every day.

I have said it many times before: We have moved the justice system forward decades in a matter of months.

Prior to the rapid change of the last year, our government has been doing the work necessary to bring substantive change to a system that was truly neglected by previous governments. As someone who has held a number of roles in the justice sector over many years and who has seen the antiquated processes leading to backlogs and delays, I have to say, I am still so impressed by the speed of our response last year.

When I say “our response,” Mr. Speaker, I mean those on the front lines and our justice partners and those who all did what they do best: worked together and moved in the same direction. Despite the unknown and unprecedented challenges we were suddenly faced with, we moved quickly to uphold the administration of justice.

With a shared objective of keeping people safe, the Ministry of the Attorney General collaborated with our justice partners and public health experts to prioritize the health and safety of the judiciary, jurors, court staff, litigants and the public. It is difficult to describe the scope of the challenges we have faced when we consider the breadth of the justice system and how it is relied on in so many critical ways by Ontarians. The term “essential service” has been at the forefront of conversations throughout the past year, and I would suggest that justice is more than that. It is a value and a right that are the foundation on which life in our province is built.

The pandemic has taught us many lessons, but perhaps what should be the starkest for all of us is that the justice system can’t close in the face of these unimaginable odds. At the best of times, keeping this system moving involves work done on the front lines in full sight of Ontarians who depend on accessing justice, as well as behind the scenes as thousands of people contribute their experience and expertise to keeping the wheels of justice turning. During this pandemic, we needed to work together to find new and innovative ways of delivering justice. And that is what we did.

Speaker, I have to say that this would not have been possible had our government not begun the work to right the ship prior to COVID-19. The research, consultation and legislation like the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, which passed last July, paved the way for the rapid change that occurred during this past year. That is why it is so important that as we look forward, we continue to drive modernization and accelerate access to justice so that our justice system is stronger, more resilient and prepared to respond to the needs of the people of Ontario as we recover from COVID-19 and beyond.

In response to the unprecedented challenges posed by COVID-19, we drove modernization across the sector in a number of ways. We worked with the courts to implement remote hearings as they suspended in-person proceedings. That quick pivot; it happened so fast. We went from in-person hearings to remote hearings almost overnight. It is a remarkable shift that involved so many people, just the rules around how things proceed. The chief justices tucked in and brought their experience to bear. The Ontario Bar Association brought Zoom licences. So many people did their part to make the system come together.

We provided new ways to file civil, family and small claims documents online, ensuring that people didn’t have to make needless trips to the courthouse to resolve their legal matters. We unveiled a new online court case search tool to provide Ontarians with access to court information from the safety of their homes without needing to travel to a courthouse and line up to use a kiosk. We also implemented an emergency order to temporarily allow the virtual witnessing of wills and powers of attorney as long as a lawyer or a paralegal was present.

The onset of COVID-19 marked a period where many Ontarians were anxious to get their legal affairs in order. This emergency order helped many people resolve these matters efficiently and safely. In hindsight, it’s incredible to look back and see how far we have come and how much has changed in the short span of a year. It is impossible to imagine going back. And we won’t.

These groundbreaking changes and the work done by our government prior to COVID-19 have facilitated and formed the bedrock of today’s proposed legislation, the Accelerating Access to Justice Act. We are determined to harness this momentum and to use today’s proposed changes to break down barriers in communities across the province, expand access to justice for all Ontarians and support the justice sector’s continued recovery.

I would like to speak more about how we are reinforcing the strength and capacity of the system to ensure it can best respond to the challenges of today and tomorrow. Ontario’s COVID-19 recovery requires a strong justice system that works as well as it can to help people resolve their legal matters with as few obstacles and delays as possible. If passed, this bill would reduce the time and money Ontarians spend waiting for their day in court by helping to fill judicial vacancies faster.

The changes we have proposed aid in filling judicial vacancies faster, make processes more efficient, and support the publication of detailed diversity statistics so that processes can be even more accountable and transparent. These changes would ensure Ontario’s justice system is better equipped to meet the demands of the system as it evolves.

It should be noted that I have been engaged with justice partners and lawyers for almost two years to find ways to strengthen the system and update it. It should also be noted that these proposals build upon changes that were passed as part of the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act this past July. Changes were made then to the Justices of the Peace Appointments Advisory Committee’s composition to make processes more efficient and require the publication of diversity statistics in its annual reports for every stage of the process: who’s applying, who’s getting interviews, who’s getting recommended, and ultimately, who is being chosen.

We are looking to adopt similar changes today for the appointment of Ontario judges. Currently, judges are selected through a recruitment process that can take up to a year for each and every vacancy. That kind of backlog can start to add up fast. We owe it to Ontarians to ensure the system is working as efficiently as possible at all times. As Attorney General and as a member of this House, I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that the system works so that when vaccines—vacancies arise—you see, Mr. Speaker, I’m reading “vaccines” everywhere.

But it says “vacancies.” When vacancies arise, they can be filled quickly in order to maintain the capacity of the system as close to full strength as possible.

I noted during second reading debate of this legislation that not all members of this House would agree. In fact, I specifically heard from the member from Brampton East. He argued that if something isn’t broken, we shouldn’t fix it. Well, I’m proud that our current system is a model for others, but it is that type of complacency that the opposition is advocating for which has caused so many other elements of our justice system to stand still and fall behind.

A gold standard is achieved through leadership and a commitment to continuous improvement, and that is the leadership our government is showing today with these proposals. These changes will ensure Ontario’s gold standard system is updated for 2021 and endures into the future. This is the responsible thing to do, and I am sure Ontarians are glad that we aren’t listening to the advice of the NDP, or following the example of the Liberals, who allowed the justice system to fall behind and cause needless delays and backlogs for people who rely on it.

Ontarians are waiting too long for their day in court, and in order to fulfill our commitment to advance the justice system, judicial vacancies should be filled faster.

No matter where you live in our province, the growth and well-being of our communities demands easier and faster access to justice and a system that works for people. As we continue to work together to keep Ontarians safe and support our province’s recovery, we are committed to strengthening the capacity of the justice system to help communities overcome the challenges brought on by COVID-19.

As part of the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, we’re proposing to address this issue head-on by increasing the minimum number of candidates the committee presents to the Attorney General from two to a minimum of six. This would allow a larger list of candidates to be considered for appointment.

I should add that the list provided to the Attorney General would only include the names of six or more recommended candidates—candidates who were vetted, interviewed and recommended by the non-partisan, arm’s-length committee. This was already part of the process beforehand, and it’s an important part as it protects the process and helps keep it impartial. This aspect of the process absolutely will not change.

Here I would like to cite a quote from Allen Wynperle, the immediate past president of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, which was one of the legal groups we consulted while considering these changes: “The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) thanks the Attorney General for his continued commitment to consult with interested legal organizations regarding issues of common concern with the justice system. We agree with the minister that the list of judicial candidates he can consider for appointment should be expanded to a minimum of six.”

We are also implementing changes to ensure that the membership on the committee itself remains diverse. Currently, the Law Society of Ontario, the Ontario Bar Association and the Federation of Ontario Law Associations appoint their own representative to committee. Under the proposed changes, the Attorney General would appoint the lawyer committee members, selecting from lists of candidates submitted by each organization.

We have heard some concerns discussed in this chamber and at committee about these proposed changes, and particularly towards our proposal to increase the minimum number of candidates from two to six. Allowing a greater number of candidates on the recommended list allows for a broader pool of candidates for consideration, which is a good thing.

One point is absolutely clear here: We’re not attracting as many diverse candidates as we could or should be. One way we could achieve this is by having the committee bring forward more recommended candidates for the Attorney General to review. It simply makes sense.

I would like to emphasize that this particular change has support among the organizations that make up the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. Charlene Theodore, president of the OBA, told the Toronto Star that the changes allow “for more diverse choices than a list of two.” She went on to describe providing more names for her association’s representative “as an opportunity,” noting the OBA has a diverse and fair-minded membership.

Furthermore, I would add that any suggestion that these changes would politicize the process undermines the professionalism of the Law Society of Ontario, the Ontario Bar Association and the Federation of Ontario Law Associations in selecting their own candidates for this committee. They will still select their own candidates, they will put those candidates forward and they will be chosen from there.

We’re honoured to work with these exceptional legal professionals as part of the judicial appointments process, and we rely upon their expertise to inform these important decisions. As a long-time member of the Ontario Bar Association myself, I can certainly vouch for the high calibre and diverse qualifications and backgrounds of the legal professionals amongst its members. Ms.

Theodore echoed this when she told the Star, “We are underestimating the high-quality bar in this province if we imagine that a short list of six will necessarily introduce political bias.” I can say that our government outright rejects the implications that these proposed changes would somehow politicize or create bias among these individuals.

Our approach here has also been lauded by the many law associations we consulted with as part of this process. I would like to share a quote from Craig O’Brien, who is the president of the County of Carleton Law Association, a very active and very progressive law association: “The County of Carleton Law Association appreciates the extensive consultations undertaken by the Attorney General towards improving the provincial judicial appointment process.

We particularly value the candour and openness shown by the Attorney General and his staff in the collective effort to improve the efficiency and transparency of the process, while ensuring that the independence of the Ontario judiciary is maintained. The CCLA notes that many aspects of our feedback have been incorporated into the Attorney General’s proposals and are confident that the modernized provincial judicial appointment process would help to maintain the public’s trust in the Ontario judiciary.”

More feedback from Tony Loparco, who is the president of the Ontario Crown Attorneys Association: “The OCAA appreciates the Attorney General providing us with the opportunity to consult about the JAAC and JPAAC process”—that’s the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, JAAC, and JPAAC is for JPs. He goes on to say, “We support the movement towards increased transparency in the selection process.”

Speaker, as I have mentioned previously, we’ve consulted with the chair of the committee, and, as you can see, we’ve talked to members of various legal organizations in order to weigh these proposals. They’ve provided their views on the appointments process and what can be done to improve it. These proposals are based on what we’ve heard and what we understand is needed to make improvements while ensuring transparency and upholding the integrity of the current system. This ongoing dialogue with our many legal partners also propels so many of the items we are proposing today as part of the Accelerating Access to Justice Act.

Another word here about promoting diversity in the judicial appointments process: I would like to mention another proposed change which would help keep us and the judicial appointments committee accountable towards assessing a diverse pool of prospective judges. The proposals would require the committee to publish detailed diversity statistics in their annual reports using information the applicants have shared voluntarily during the application process. By collecting and reviewing these statistics, we’ll have a chance to analyze, improve and promote diversity on Ontario’s bench.

Again, we want to continue to drive improvement and that means ensuring that Ontario’s judges should reflect the evolving diversity of the province’s communities. By collecting and reviewing these statistics, we will be able to have a proper sense of where improvements can be made.

As I mentioned earlier, we’re also proposing a change in the Accelerating Access to Justice Act that will speed up the process to fill vacancies by helping to solve a long-standing issue: that of candidates needing to reapply for similar vacancies in the same year. Candidates often have to reapply to be considered for the same vacancy in the same location they just applied for. If a vacancy comes up in Toronto and they apply for it and they don’t get it, and another vacancy comes up, they have to reapply for it in Toronto. It really doesn’t make any sense. This process is unnecessarily burdensome and it’s a disincentive for many qualified applicants to seek out these roles.

Our proposed change, if passed, would require the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee to recommend all of the remaining candidates who were recommended for the previous vacancy—just to be clear, I don’t get a look at all of the candidates, just the ones who were recommended. If they send me six for the first vacancy, and another vacancy comes open—presumably I’ve appointed one—they’ll send me the five with an update. This way, we’ll be able to fill judicial vacancies faster by ensuring candidates don’t have to go through the same process all over again.

Furthermore, if there are fewer than six candidates remaining who were recommended for the previous vacancy—because somebody may have made a life choice, moved on to something else or withdrawn their name from the pool—then the committee would look at the other applicants in the pool and determine if any of them could be recommended for the vacancy to bring the list of recommended candidates up to at least six.

As you see, Speaker, a big part of our thinking behind these proposals was, how do we get more applicants? How do we get a broader, more diverse pool of lawyers to apply? And how can we make this process easier and more accessible for them?

Now, I’m going to talk about the current process; it’s already undergone a form of digital transformation over the past year that has greatly improved the way the applications are submitted and processed. Previously, the applicants, if somebody wanted to become a judge, would fill out a 20-page application with materials outlining their case history, cases they’ve been involved in, their experience, community involvement, and why they believe they would be a good judge. There are a whole bunch of parts to that. So they would fill out those 20 pages.

You would think that you fill out your application and you would send it in. But that, in fact, isn’t what happens at all. You fill it out and then you photocopy it 13 more times, and then you send that in. So you end up with a ton of paper, and you think, “Wow, that’s over 200 pages of material.” It’s antiquated, it deters qualified lawyers from putting their hat in the ring, and, quite frankly, we can do better. Those pages come in, those 200 pages for each applicant, so you can imagine the amount of paper. With just 10 applicants, you have 2,000 pieces of paper.

You can imagine in Toronto, we get many, many more than that.

But it doesn’t stop there. The fun is just beginning, because somebody has to receive all that paper. They have to take those 14 applications apart and make 14 piles of each of the applicants. Then they have to take those piles and they have to courier them to the members of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee for them to be able to review. So they receive these couriers and they must—I have never been a member of the JAAC, Mr.

Speaker, but I would think that you would get your pile of paper and turn around and look at the filing cabinets in your living room or in your home office, if you’re lucky enough to have one, and think, “This paper just never stops.” And they don’t just throw the paper out afterwards; you either keep it or return it, because you have to have records.

Mr. Speaker, we’re talking millions of pieces of paper over the course of the year between the JPAAC and the JAAC. We’re talking a ton of paper. Well, in this day and age where I signed for my condo on my phone, it doesn’t make any sense to be moving all that paper around, let alone the fact that it’s just purely wasteful. That is not something that any of us value: being wasteful of resources and our paper.

Mr. Speaker, we moved quickly over the last year to create an interim electronic application process. We allowed them to do a revolutionary thing, Mr. Speaker. We allowed the applicants to fill out those 20 pages, and we let them do something revolutionary: We let them email them in. That email could be sent out securely to the members of the JAAC, and they could review them online if they chose, which I’m told most do. Then they would have a chance to continue to not have to store paper, not have to receive paper, or even if they’re not storing it, not have to shred or return it.

We’re continuing to work with the Ontario Digital Service and the Public Appointments Secretariat to refine and improve this process. So we used the tools right in front of us, but we think we can make it better. We think we can make it more efficient and create a system that is meeting the gold standard that our Ontario judicial appointments process is already.

All of these changes are intended to cut down on time-consuming paperwork, as I just said, and would encourage a broader pool of lawyers to consider applying. You say, “Why would that encourage lawyers to apply?” Well, because it’s easier. It’s going to be an easier process. We want to attract the best. We want to attract people who are best suited to be judges. I’m not convinced—and this is just me speculating. I’ve been in this area, in the administration of law, for a very long time.

I don’t have a line of sight into who is actually applying, and I shouldn’t, but I have a gut feeling that we’re not attracting as many people and as diverse people as we could. I think we can do better. With transparency and diversity statistics and making the system easier to apply and to engage with, I think we will. I think we’ll do even better. People will look back and say we had a gold standard, but we’re moving to platinum, because we can improve what we have by using the tools that we have.

I cannot thank enough the numerous legal stakeholders who provided written submissions and testimony on the changes to judicial appointments during the public hearing stage. We heard that some clarification is needed to various portions of the proposed amendments, and we made those changes at the clause-by-clause stage. In particular, at committee we moved to strike out

section 43(11) of the proposed legislation to clarify that the Chair of the committee cannot, by virtue of statute, unilaterally share confidential information with the Attorney General or anyone else that the committee policies don’t otherwise allow for.

Our government has not stopped listening to the people on the front lines or the people at the heart of the process who know how the judicial appointment system works. We know it can be improved. We have incorporated their feedback from our initial consultation and onwards. We heard from judges who had been through the process. We heard from people who had applied and not been selected. We heard from practitioners who had no interest in applying but wanted to make sure that our system was at its best.

I just want to reflect for a moment on the kind of consultation—we’re doing things very differently within the Ministry of the Attorney General than we did before. Again, this started back in 2019. It’s a different approach to engaging with the legal stakeholders, the people who have an opinion and the general public.

I went out and had a meeting with the Federation of Ontario Law Associations. In the fall of 2019, I said, “Here is something that’s on my mind. Here is something that I would like to talk about. I want to talk about our appointments process for judges.”

Before this, it’s very much a mystery. It’s a bit of a mystery box. How do you become a judge? Who knows, right? How do you become a judge? It’s a bit of a black box. Everybody thinks they know something. People have opinions: Here’s how you can promote yourself, here’s how you do this and here’s how you do that. Look, there should be no secret here. We want the best to be confident, that they’ll come forward, that they’ll be considered and many of them will be selected. We need to take the mystery away from some of this. We need to make it more accessible.

We need the public to have confidence in the judiciary by knowing that they were promoted or recommended by an independent body, and that will not change. The criteria have not changed. There are a number of things that really are important. We heard from our legal stakeholders, our legal partners in this. But some things can change and some things are being proposed to change.

In terms of our consultation, again, I mentioned I said it at a podium in the fall of 2019; I said it again in February of 2020 before COVID hit: I’m very open about a policy discussion about a very important area. We shouldn’t be afraid to float ideas. It has changed over that course of almost a year and a half. It has changed because we listen to people, because we heard what was important to them.

Where we have seen a previous government, who now sits down at the end, be resistant to change, the only reason they were resistant to change, the only reason they wouldn’t change things at committee is because it was a point of pride, because they came up with it. We need to be better than that. We need to float ideas. We need to almost brainstorm with our stakeholders to say, “How can things be better?”

Yes, we have a great standard. It doesn’t mean we can’t touch it. It just means that we should be able to be careful around it, listen to people, take the time, reflect, go back, come up with some refined ideas, re-engage and make this work. That’s what we’ve done, Mr. Speaker. Almost a year and a half, we’ve been having this active, public, live discussion. I am so happy with what we’ve landed on, and I’m confident that it will bring the appointment of judges into 2021 and maintain the integral parts that were there when we started.

Now, I would like to speak about something else, about the proposed changes to allowing virtual witnessing of wills and powers of attorney, something many in the justice sector agree with us is long overdue.

As I mentioned earlier, this particular area of estates law was one that came to the forefront during the onset of COVID-19. We heard from many Ontarians who were seeking to get their legal affairs in order and who were dealing with a lot of uncertainty and anxiety about how to manage this process. We’re talking about witnesses meeting lawyers in driveways and in the yards of testators, watching through windows as wills were signed. We heard of lawyers and witnesses meeting in parking garages and watching wills get signed through car windows.

People were doing the best they could, managing in a very difficult situation, but these types of processes don’t need to be this difficult or awkward or inconvenient. We got to work consulting virtually with experts across the province and quickly came up with an interim solution with an emergency order to temporarily allow virtual witnessing. This is an example of the speed with which we got things done in the early days of the pandemic, Speaker. It was something truly remarkable.

But of course, we couldn’t stop there. This kick-started more conversations about ways to improve the process for witnessing and powers of attorney and ways to update the estates law system overall. This was an area of law that had remained relatively stagnant for nearly 20 years. It didn’t need to be this way. We had the right tools at our disposal, and with the support of the estates bar, we had a lot of ideas on ways to make these processes work far better for people.

There have been some questions coming up regarding why we aren’t making the whole process digital. We’ve seen that British Columbia is moving towards passing legislation to permit digital wills, and similar actions are taking place in the US, in the UK and in Australia. Based on our ongoing discussions with members of the Ontario estates law bar, we believe we have landed in a good place. But of course, we’ll continue to monitor the successes and best practices in other jurisdictions and weigh them against the needs of Ontarians in accessing justice here.

Speaker, while we feel these proposed changes support and enhance access to justice, there have been some concerns raised about how virtual witnessing impacts those who do not have access to a computer or Internet services. We’ve thought about this. We have considered these issues. I want to stress that the proposed virtual witnessing rules would not be mandatory for anyone. They are simply available as an option to help people access these services more quickly and efficiently, while also keeping people safe during these uncertain times.

As Minister Bethlenfalvy and others in our government say, it’s digital first, but not digital only. In other words, virtual witnessing is just another tool in the toolkit. It’s optional, not mandatory.

We expect that lawyers and paralegals will consider the rules around virtual witnessing and the needs of their clients as well as the challenging circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak in determining what is the best approach for them and for their clients. We trust that these partners, including at the Law Society of Ontario, will continue to develop best practices that are most suitable to their clients’ unique situations, whether that includes virtual witnessing or not.

In addition to virtual witnessing, we are also proposing changes to other estate matters in the Accelerating Access to Justice Act. Again, these changes are driven by the many valuable conversations we’ve had with members of the estates bar, and I’ll touch on them briefly here. I’d like to add, though, that some of these changes have evolved through my experience practising law for 20 years. Whenever a change comes forward for a proposal and we think about it, I always picture myself sitting across the table from my client, thinking, “What would the client think? How would the client receive this?

Is this in the client’s best interest?” I don’t want to build a system that works for me, the lawyer on this side of the table; I want to build a system that’s successful and responsive and resilient for the client who is across the table from me.

Things like virtual witnessing are something that my clients—not all of my clients, but some of my clients—would have wanted. It would be more convenient. They may be rural, and it’s a whole-day trip for them to come into town to sit down and give me instructions, only to go away while I draft the will or my assistant drafts the will, and then have them drive all the way back into town again, simply to sign a document, when they’re completely Internet savvy, they’re more than capable and they’re more than happy to get their business done in real time in a way that suits their lifestyle.

Whether it be somebody who’s older and doesn’t want to drive in or it’s somebody who is a young entrepreneur running their business who just doesn’t have the time, but they can make the time in their office to get this done, to get their affairs in order, those are the people who we’re targeting. We’re opening up the door for them to do their business in a more efficient way.

These changes are driven by those conversations with lawyers who were just like myself, who were sitting across the table from clients or, quite frankly, who were sitting across the table from nobody because the clients were too busy to come in, they lived too far away, and it was too cumbersome for them to get their business done.

Some other issues in the estates area: A lot of people don’t know, but when you get married, under the current law, your will is automatically revoked by function of law. There’s a long history, and there was a real reason for that in its day. The story that I’m told—and I’m not an academic on this piece, but I’m going to relay what I was told.

The reason that a will is revoked on marriage is because if you go back a couple of hundred years, women couldn’t hold property. So when a woman got married to a man, the contract was between the man and the woman’s father. If the man had a will in place and he were to get married, it would wipe out the will. It would revoke the will because the new contract would take over. That leads to things like dower, which doesn’t exist in Ontario anymore.

There are historical reasons why they did this. It’s not appropriate anymore. It doesn’t make sense that the will is automatically revoked by function of law in the modern day and age. So we’re proposing a change in this bill that would repeal that

section of the law that revokes the will upon marriage, leaving in place any pre-existing will unless and until the testator takes action to make the change.

If passed, this change would protect people from being exposed to the risk of predatory marriages, which is a common issue: those situations in which marriage is used in order to disinherit others and to share in the estate. We have an aging population here in Ontario, and we want to protect people who might be vulnerable. This is a concern that was directly conveyed to us by the estates law practitioners on behalf of their clients. That’s where this came from. So we’re solving two things at once: We’re updating the law for reasons that were put in place that don’t make sense anymore, and we’re protecting people from predatory marriages.

We’re also proposing a change in this bill that would exclude separated married spouses from receiving an inheritance when the spouse they have separated from has died with or without a will. This would treat separated spouses similar to divorced spouses and would ensure that the law more accurately reflects the current relationship.

This was another area in the Accelerating Access to Justice Act in which we made an amendment at the clause-by-clause stage. We made a change clarifying what separation means in this instance in order to account for potential reconciling of spouses. We wanted no barrier to having spouses attempt to reconcile. It was submitted by the chair of the estates subcommittee of the Civil Rules Committee and was supported by a senior member of the estates bar and was supported by other stakeholders. We’re grateful for the input they have provided for this piece of the legislation.

Another important proposed change to estates law in the Accelerating Access to Justice Act is to allow courts to validate wills by adding in validation provisions. Currently, wills that do not strictly comply with all of the formal provisions can be found invalid by a judge, and the testator’s wishes—the person leaving the will—might not be honoured, even if the non-compliance was minimal. Giving the courts the power to validate wills that do not meet all the formal requirements would help to prevent this from happening and avoid unnecessary delays as a result.

Once again, I want to take a moment to thank the members of the estates bar for their feedback during our consultations last year. Their input has been essential to informing our work with the Accelerating Access to Justice Act and our continued efforts to move justice forward beyond the province’s COVID-19 recovery.

These types of changes open doors to further progress in our system. They give us even more opportunity to adapt, to update the way we do things and to ultimately evolve. Modernization is one of the many steps in helping us actualize an efficient legal landscape that makes it easier for people to manage their legal affairs. This is what accelerating access to justice is all about.

Now I’d like to turn to adjudicative tribunals. They play a critical and important role in our justice system as they resolve many types of disputes that can significantly impact the lives of Ontarians, while allowing individuals to avoid the lengthier and more complex processes in our court system. When we speak about access to justice in Ontario, we really can’t get far before mentioning the critical importance of adjudicative tribunals and the many Ontarians who interact with tribunals each day to resolve their legal issues.

Part of our commitment to accelerating access to justice in this province involves proposing changes to this system to ensure it works the best that it can. Just to give a sense of scale, there are about 150,000 tribunal files per year in Ontario. It spans everything from landlord-tenant to social benefit to tribunals you have never heard of, Mr. Speaker, because they’re fairly discrete and very focused. Then there are a series of land tribunals. As part of the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, we’re proposing to consolidate the five land tribunals into a single entity called the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Last July, the government created the Ontario Land Tribunals cluster to bring the five land tribunals under the leadership of a dedicated executive chair, Marie Hubbard. She’s had tremendous success in streamlining the tribunals’ processes and significantly reducing the backlog left over by the previous government. These tribunals include the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, known as LPAT, formerly known as OMB, formerly known as OMB2—it has had different names over time, but it’s currently known as the LPAT.

We also had the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Board of Negotiation, the Conservation Review Board and the Mining and Lands Tribunal. I think if I was to ask the members of the House to tell me the five land tribunals, even having just read them, they probably couldn’t repeat them. There are many of them and they do a lot of things that overlap with each other, so we brought these five land tribunals together as an operational cluster last July, but they remain separate entities. Some, like the Environmental Review Tribunal, work to ensure that environmentally sensitive lands can remain protected.

Others, like the LPAT, support the creation of new and affordable housing across the province while ensuring development proposals are consistent with provincial and municipal plans and policies.

These tribunals operate as well as they can, but, as you know, Mr. Speaker, land disputes can be complex. Some users currently need to appear before more than one of these tribunals to resolve any particular dispute. This process could work better, and so we vowed to improve this process to make it even more efficient and effective for Ontarians. That’s why we’re proposing to consolidate the five tribunals into a single tribunal called the Ontario Land Tribunal, as part of the Accelerating Access to Justice Act.

This single tribunal would have a single intake process and case management system which would help to reduce bureaucratic red tape and reduce the unnecessary overlap between cases. The proposed consolidation would not reduce or eliminate the hearing or appeal rates before the tribunal. We are also proposing changes to the expropriations process, and I would briefly like to explain what these changes would mean and how they would improve the system, if passed.

Non-binding hearings of necessity sometimes occur at the beginning of the expropriations process. The purpose of these hearings is to determine whether or not expropriation of an owner’s land is “fair, sound and reasonably necessary.” I should be clear here: These hearings do not make judgments on the overall wisdom of any particular infrastructure or any project. They simply exist to make recommendations back to the body approving the expropriation, and very few of them take place each year. The hearings are conducted by inquiry officers appointed by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

They are assigned to conduct hearings by a chief inquiry officer, who, in recent memory, has also been a lawyer from my ministry. Under our proposed changes, this function will be moved into the new Ontario Land Tribunal. Tribunal adjudicators, who are independent, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council following a competitive and merit-based process, will be assigned to conduct the hearings as necessary, instead of a member of my staff.

Elsewhere in the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, we’re also proposing to allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to create an alternative to these inquiry hearings for any and all expropriations to which the act applies. If the bill is passed, regulations could then be made to establish and govern a process for owners to provide comments respecting a proposed expropriation and for the approving authority to consider those comments and make a final determination regarding an intended expropriation.

This would provide for greater efficiency while ensuring fairness for owners and giving them a meaningful opportunity to be heard. We’re committed to consulting with the sector on these regulations in due course.

Additionally, we are proposing to remove minister’s appeals from the tribunal decision-making process. I’m going to say that again: We’re removing the minister’s appeals from the tribunal decision-making process. Currently, certain decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal can be appealed to the minister. These appeal rights are rarely used, but, more importantly, they jeopardize the integrity of the administration of justice. They are not arm’s length from the government, and they should be.

Tribunals are established to provide expert, impartial decision-making that is independent of the government. Allowing an appeal to a minister from a decision of a tribunal would detract from that and would be inconsistent with the objectives of a modern administrative justice system. Appeals to ministers also often unnecessarily prolong disputes and delay their final resolution. So not only is it a bad idea, it doesn’t work very well.

Such appeals can also create issues around tribunal independence and expertise, efficiency and certainty. The proposed change would not prevent parties from appealing final tribunal decisions to the court on a question of law as is currently the case.

On the issue of ensuring that the adjudicators continue to have the necessary expertise to consider the matters before them, it’s important for me to be clear here, Speaker: All tribunal members, including those currently on the Environmental Review Tribunal and the Conservation Review Board, would continue as members of the new tribunal when the change takes effect. This would ensure tribunal expertise is maintained on all types of land-based matters.

As is the case for adjudicators who presently serve on existing tribunals, appointments to the new Ontario Land Tribunal will still be governed by the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, which sets out minimum selection criteria for adjudicators including experience, knowledge or training in the subject matter and legal issues dealt with by the tribunal. The chair of the Ontario Land Tribunal would be mandated to ensure that the most qualified individuals with the highest personal and professional integrity are recommended for appointment as adjudicators.

The chair would be in the best position to assign adjudicators to cases before the tribunal, to ensure that they have the right mix of subject matter and legal expertise for particular matters.

Speaker, we have the appropriate checks and balances in place to ensure that the expertise of tribunal members will continue to be held to the highest standard after the land tribunals are consolidated. These changes I am proposing as part of the Accelerating Access to Justice Act support our government’s commitment to ensuring the tribunal system works as fairly and as efficiently as possible for Ontarians.

Elsewhere in the tribunal space, I would like to mention an investment we have made as part of our justice accelerated strategy which we announced a couple of weeks ago. This is a multi-year strategy which will mark the next

chapter of our ongoing efforts to break down barriers in the justice system and speed up access to services remotely, in person and online. As part of the launch of the justice accelerated strategy, we announced a $28.5-million investment in developing a tribunals case management solution for Tribunals Ontario that will help reduce delays and backlogs for Ontarians.

The new system will go far beyond just an online filing system. This is an end-to end-digital solution that includes digital case management, document management, mediation, online dispute resolution and a public-facing self-help tool. It will serve two functions. Firstly, it will serve as an online resource that provides free public information to help users understand their issues, provide advice and assist in moving their disputes forward towards resolution. Secondly, the new system will provide a solution that includes the ability to schedule, automatically generate key documents and provide opportunities for early resolution and online dispute resolution.

We have been working hard with Tribunals Ontario to get this system up and running, and I’m pleased to say it will be implemented first by one of the busiest tribunals, the landlord and tenant tribunal, as early as this summer, and will be introduced in phased implementation for the other tribunals to follow. We’ve based this system on a similar model in British Columbia, which is well recognized and well respected for the success they’ve had in the digital transformation of their own justice sector. We’ll benefit from their experience and build on their lessons learned.

I’m watching the clock, because I have a few more things that I would like to cover, but I just want to touch on tribunals in general. We’ll hear the opposition, and we’ve heard them at committee, and we’ve heard them in the House, with concerns about doing things in tribunals: “What are you up to?” and, “Why would you do that?” Well, Mr. Speaker, we have to do something, because it’s been ignored for 15 years by the previous government. Quite frankly, what we inherited needed a lot of attention. It’s something that I feel strongly about.

When I became the Attorney General—I’ll give you just one example. I have said before I came to government and I had a file folder of things that I wanted to tackle, and tribunals was one of them, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you the Ontario Municipal Board, as it was then, the OMB—I had a file. I don’t like to change government based on one file; this is not a unique situation. I had a file, an OMB file, somebody that wanted to sever some land and got municipal support, got county support, was dealing with the province, was dealing with all of these—it’s going to shock you, Mr. Speaker. This file went on for 10 years—10 years—in the OMB.

This was an individual who had a small business with 100 acres of land that wanted to hive off a couple of acres so he could sell the business to a successor for a service in a rural area that was needed. I don’t want to give too many details, Mr. Speaker, or I could get myself in trouble, but it was a totally logical thing, and the municipality supported it, the county supported. The province didn’t support it. They had—well, I wish I could tell you the reason; it is so ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. Ten years; this poor individual.

That’s why we have to do something about tribunals, because that’s not happening just in what was the OMB and what became the LPAT. People’s lives are on hold, if issues are held up—whether it be the landlord or tenant or otherwise—if those delays exist, people are not getting their day in court. The matters get worse, and they don’t get worse incrementally, they get worse exponentially, Mr. Speaker. If somebody’s in a situation that could be resolved in 90 days and it’s being resolved in nine months, the problem is that much greater; I think we all know that. That’s why we need to focus on tribunals.

That’s why we need to make it work better.

To have five separate land tribunals operating in silos really made no sense. We brought them together administratively last July, and if the bill passes we will bring them together functionally to work better for the people who are trying to access the system. I can tell you, under the leadership of Marie Hubbard—she is a force of nature, Mr. Speaker; I can’t even begin to describe it. She’s very efficient. She’s a real taskmaster with the adjudicators, making sure that hearings happen, that decisions get written, that people get their day in court and they get their decision so they can move on. She’s just doing a wonderful job.

I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about another part of our legislation being proposed—it’s another very important part—and it’s going to make it easier for French-speaking Ontarians to access the justice system in the province. As I previously mentioned in the House, there are a lot of differences in provincial legislation when it comes to access to justice in French, including the right to file documents in French. There is more to do, but there’s a lot being done.

We are proposing to harmonize these differences by expanding and guaranteeing the ability of francophones to file documents in French at all courthouses in Ontario for all matters, including civil and family. The changes would also ensure that French-language rights are upheld across the province no matter where francophones are accessing the court system.

Our proposed changes would add to Ontario’s work to increase access to justice for francophones, which also includes an exciting new action plan in North Bay. The North Bay Action Plan to Enhance Access to Justice in French builds on the success of partnerships with the Superior Court and Ontario Courts of Justice in Sudbury and Ottawa, and it’s designed to help develop new practices that can be implemented in North Bay and then across the province. These French-language action plans are powerful examples of how systemic change can take root and start to flourish more widely over time.

By expanding this work across Ontario, we’re laying the groundwork for a major shift in the way justice services are offered, especially in French-speaking rural and northern communities—and, Mr. Speaker, it’s long overdue. These are proposed changes that were supported by my advisory committee on access to justice in French, and we have engaged with AJEFO as well. The changes proposed in the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, if passed, would be key to supporting the long-term well-being and development of the francophone community in Ontario. This is an important step forward in making our services more inclusive and accessible for everyone in the province.

Now I would like to take a moment to talk about some of the family law sector, Mr. Speaker. The government is proposing changes that would allow the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to produce reports on specific issues, set out the views of the children or produce a report following a more comprehensive investigation. The office provides legal representation to children and youth across Ontario in court cases involving decision-making authority, parenting time and contact with children, child protection, civil litigation, estates and trust—quite a wide range, Mr. Speaker.

They also provide clinical reports for children involved in custody and access disputes. One of these reports is the Voice of the Child Report, which ensures a child’s views and preferences are heard as part of family law proceedings. Making all of these reports admissible would give children a stronger and more prominent voice in the court process.

We’ve also heard from parents and guardians that the monetary threshold for guardianship applications for children’s property was too low, forcing parents and guardians to take on additional legal fees to access relatively small amounts of funds. Our proposal under the Accelerating Access to Justice Act will amend this threshold so it would apply to money payable to a child under a court order, or a court judgement or intestacy—that’s without a will. If that amount is under the monetary threshold, these changes would allow a child’s money to be paid directly to a parent or guardian to hold for their child.

Another exciting part, Mr. Speaker, and this is something, again, that I came to government and am happy to be in a position to do something about. I want to take a minute to talk about the Public Accountants Council. Now, not everybody gets excited about accountants and accounting, but I am a lawyer and I get excited about things that others don’t get excited about. This is another change that has been long overdue in the accounting profession. We are proposing to dissolve the Public Accountants Council and transfer its functions to the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, also known as CPA Ontario.

In 2014, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario and the Certified Management Accountants of Ontario merged into a single body known as the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario. I’m just going to say that the CAs, CGAs and CMAs all became CPAs, Mr. Speaker; they came together. It’s kind of like what we’re doing with the land tribunal; we’re bringing them all together. That happened in 2014.

CPA Ontario requested that the Ontario government create legislation to support the merger, and so, at that time, my ministry launched consultations with CPA and other accounting bodies, and they also engaged the Office of the Fairness Commissioner. Then, in 2017, the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act was passed, which recognized the merger and the legal authority of CPA Ontario to regulate CPAs in Ontario, which seems logical.

To turn the page on these changes and write this final chapter, we have proposed these changes that will remove unnecessary duplication and streamline the oversight of this important profession. We’re going to make sure there is only one regulatory body instead of two.

Speaker, this bill is a part of a broader effort to move justice forward, and something that we’ve been grappling with during COVID. The justice accelerated strategy is something that is very important. It’s important to continue to drive change, to meet the expectations of Ontarians. We have built a multi-year strategy and will build a more accessible, responsive and resilient justice system. The justice accelerated strategy is our government’s plan to break down barriers in the justice system and speed up access to services in person and online by:

—implementing new technology and processes to meet modern expectations in 2021 and beyond;

—delivering the courthouse of the future;

—breaking down barriers to justice in rural, northern, and Indigenous communities; and

—driving innovation to address long-standing and novel challenges.

Earlier, I spoke briefly about our investment in a tribunals case management system that will revolutionize the way we manage matters online and in person. This is an example of the investments that justice accelerated will make possible. The justice accelerated strategy also includes continuing the modernization drive in our courtrooms across the province. This includes growing capacity for remote hearings in courts across Ontario. We’re investing in digital hardware. We’re investing in the deployment of additional audio and visual conferencing equipment in more than 70 additional courtrooms by next spring.

This new strategy will also deliver the courthouse of the future to Ontarians. This involves a shift in how we look at courthouse facilities that focuses on using state-of-the-art technology to manage demand and reduce the need for in-person visits as much as possible, and it involves using the spaces we have more effectively, and thinking smarter about how we build new courts in the future. In order to achieve this, Speaker, we need to keep giving the courts the tools they need to continue hearing these matters efficiently and safely.

Speaker, this is just a short overview of our justice accelerated strategy. With the courts and our other justice partners, we have developed so many exciting new ways to drive innovation in the sector, and there will be many more updates to highlight and share in the days and months to come. We will continue to deliver on the promise that we are not going back; we are moving forward. We will continue to demonstrate through unprecedented collaboration and innovation that justice accelerated is justice delivered.

I can see that I’m reaching the end of my time here, Mr. Speaker. Before I close, I would like to thank the stakeholders whose input provided the driving force behind so many of the proposals in the accelerating-access-to-justice legislation I shared today.

I’m going to list a few of them, although it is not all of them: the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, the Ontario Bar Association, the many regional law associations in the Federation of Ontario Law Associations, the Law Society of Ontario, the Ontario Crown Attorneys’ Association, AJEFO, the Assemblée de la francophonie working group on access to justice in French, the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, along with many other legal organizations and members of the bar.

Mr. Speaker, although I said I haven’t thanked all of them, it was very exciting to join for a brief visit with Jordan Atin’s law class at Osgoode and talk to them, the next group of lawyers coming forward into the system, about the innovations happening and what’s going to be there for them. They’re not even going to know; they’re going to read in history books about what we were doing a year ago because we’ve changed the system so much.

All of these people I have mentioned participated in the consultations, and I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the chief justices, all three of them: Chief Justice Maisonneuve, Chief Justice Morawetz and Chief Justice Strathy, who have done yeoman’s work in their areas to move the judiciary along with us while we built and changed the system. Their efforts and their collaboration, positively working together, are really, really remarkable. Although I have talked to every former Attorney General since I’ve been appointed, so I have some perspective—but I can tell you that the collaboration that I have experienced with the chief justices is absolutely remarkable. I really appreciate it.

Everyone participated in the consultations throughout the last year on ways we could make the long-overdue improvements in the area of estates law, as well as promote diversity and transparency in our provincial judicial appointments process.

I’d also like to thank the many partners in the justice system who are working with my ministry to respond and adapt with remarkable swiftness in order to address the challenges brought by COVID-19. Again, I really want to thank not just the chief justices but their teams as well, who demonstrated an unprecedented openness to solving both long-standing and emerging obstacles. Their collaboration continues to be invaluable, and I look forward to continuing to work together with them.

I’d like to thank you again, too, for the opportunity to discuss this important legislation, Mr. Speaker. Today’s proposed changes, if passed, would move more justice services online, reach more communities across Ontario and ensure the system works better than it ever has before.

If passed, the reforms in the Accelerating Access to Justice Act would ensure that judicial vacancies are filled faster so Ontarians can get their day in court with fewer delays. They would help our land tribunals work as efficiently as possible to resolve land planning disputes that address the housing supply across the province while balancing the needs of environmental protection and conservation. They would ensure that people looking to resolve their estates matters can get their important documents signed and witnessed while staying safe.

They would unify and clarify the regulatory process for public accounting in this province and close the book on changes that have been years in the making. They would support access to justice in French in communities right across Ontario. And these changes would help protect the best interests of children during stressful family law matters, ensuring the parents can spend less time and money in the courts and more time supporting their kids.

If passed, the Accelerating Access to Justice Act would break down barriers to justice, making our system more accessible for everyone, regardless of where they live and work in the province. Thank you, merci, meegwetch.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): We do have time for questions.

Mr. Joel Harden: Thanks to the Attorney General for his speech. I have a question, because there was one thing I didn’t hear my friend say in the speech, and that was legal aid. It strikes me that the income limit right now, even though it was increased a year ago for legal aid in this province, is $18,795 for an individual. Speaker, I just want to point out for the record, that is 70% of what a minimum wage worker in this province earns in a year.

I would love to see my friend entertain an amendment to this bill so we would have a big increase to legal aid, so we could get legal aid coverage to minimum wage workers, many of whom we called heroes in the pandemic—grocery clerks and people delivering the takeout to our doors.

My question to the Attorney General: Would he consider a massive increase in legal aid? I’m hoping we can hear that at the budget this week. Will you go to bat at cabinet for that?

Hon. Doug Downey: I thank the member for the question from a different speech I gave about six months ago. This is about making the system work better for everybody. This is about changing family law. It’s about protecting children’s voices in the system. It’s about land tribunals. It’s about a lot of things. It’s about making the system operate differently. As we engage in change, we’ve actually created muscle memory on how we engage with our stakeholders. We have changed how change happens in the justice system.

We’re open to talk about any number of things. It does not surprise me that the NDP member wants to throw money at something and that’s the solution. That’s not the solution to everything. Structural change, rule change, system change, investing in the tools to make it accessible for everybody is the kind of change that we’re bringing forward with this bill. I hope that the member will see the good reasons to support it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Next question.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I want to thank the Attorney General and his parliamentary assistant for the work they have done on this legislation. I know they have both been consulting widely as to why this is important.

Something I know both of you had talked to me about is that a lot of people are waiting for their day in court because there’s a significant backlog. A lot of that is because there needs to be vacancies filled so these people don’t have to pay endless money just waiting and they can just have their day in court imminently. Can the Attorney General expand on what he’s doing to fill some of those vacancies?

Hon. Doug Downey: Judicial vacancies come about for a variety of reasons. They can come about because of a retirement, and that is the easiest one to manage. The Chief Justice knows who’s likely to be retiring, gets an early heads-up, and can plan judicial resources accordingly. She’s very good about getting the right judges in the right place, and of course, you don’t want to dislocate families for no reason or have judges working too far afield to cover gaps.

But the retirements are the easy part. If somebody falls ill or, in good news, somebody gets promoted to the Superior Court—and actually I should say shifted, because it’s not necessarily a promotion; they’re different courts with different things to deal with. If they get shifted, that creates a vacancy. If it takes us six months to a year to fill that vacancy, that’s a courtroom not operating.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The next question.

Hon. Doug Downey: I appreciate the question. We have spoken of this before in terms of the judge in Algoma, the position in Algoma. I undertook in question period, one or two weeks ago, to raise it with the Chief Justice. The deployment of judges, as I have just said in the previous question, is under the purview of the Chief Justice. I don’t assign judges to particular locations. That is an active discussion, and I hope to bring some resolve back for the member shortly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The member for Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill.

Mr. Michael Parsa: Good morning, Speaker. Great to see you, as always. I want to thank the Attorney General and his hard-working parliamentary assistant for their efforts to improve the face of the justice system and to make sure that it’s more reflective of our province’s diversity. Constituents in my riding would welcome the opportunity to see the bench better reflect the diversity of our community. I’m wondering if the minister would share more about how this bill would ensure that judicial appointments become more reflective of Ontario’s diversity.

Hon. Doug Downey: I’ve heard some commentators, during this year and a half of consultation, say, “But we have the most diverse bench. The Ontario Court of Justice has the most diverse bench.” That’s great. We’re a gold standard. We all agree we’re a gold standard. But is it diverse enough? I would say no. We can do better. We can update for 2021, and that’s exactly what we’re proposing.

If you can’t measure it, you can’t change it, Mr. Speaker. That’s why I felt strongly about putting in measures that were not only brought to the desk of the Attorney General but were transparent to the public. That will create a dynamic that I think will help address the lack of full diversity on the bench. I look forward to being able to receive those numbers publicly and have others be able to opine on them as well. Again, taking a gold standard, updating it for 2021.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The next question.

Mr. Gurratan Singh: My question is as follows: The government has put forward the suggestion that the judicial appointment process, which is considered the gold standard for judge selection across the world, needs change to improve diversity. I’m looking here at a Toronto Star

article where racialized lawyers, including Black, Asian, South Asian and Muslim lawyer associations, have come together to say that this is actually not a step that’s going to increase diversity. It’s instead described as a power grab. To quote lawyer Nader Hasan from the Muslim lawyers association, “We see this as a power grab dressed up in the very thin veneer of purported diversity.”

Racialized lawyers did not ask for these changes to the judicial appointment process. Instead, they are ringing the bell, saying this could open the doors to a further partisan appointment of judges. How does the Attorney General respond to these racialized lawyers and their very valid claims that this could actually open up partisanship?

Hon. Doug Downey: I don’t recall those groups coming forward and asking for change to the law practice program that Ryerson put forward as an alternative to articling. I was the lead on that for the Ontario Bar Association, along with Chris Bentley, who was the former Attorney General at that time. So I spent a lot of work on that. It had the effect of creating pathways for people who might not otherwise have pathways.

I don’t understand the member’s point that in collecting diversity statistics—how that’s going to give me some political opportunity to do something, Mr. Speaker. Look, we have to measure it to change it. That’s what we have to do. That’s exactly what we’re proposing to do—and not just measure it to be put in a report on the desk of the Attorney General, but measure it so the public can see it. That’s how we make change.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Next question?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: My question is obviously for the Attorney General. It relates to the recommendations of the working group on access to justice in French. As you can appreciate, as the minister responsible for mental health and addictions, the stress, anxiety, and depression that are caused when someone can’t have those types of services in their own language obviously put a great deal of pressure on them. I’d like to understand a little bit better how the legislation builds on the recent announcement of the action plan to improve access to justice in French in the north.

Hon. Doug Downey: I really appreciate the question from somebody who is very knowledgeable in this area, not only as a practising lawyer but as the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. We know that it’s a very stressful time when you’re engaging in the court system, regardless of the reason you’re engaging. It is even more difficult if you can’t engage in the language of your choice.

We’ve made it possible to file in family and civil documents at any courthouse across Ontario. We’ve made it possible to receive counter service at any courthouse across Ontario. That is really a basic thing. I’m really surprised that the previous government didn’t take hold of that. When we do that, it allows people to operate in the language of their choice and takes away some of the stress that they’re encountering as they move into the court system.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The next question—and it has to be very quick, and a very quick answer. The member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: All right. It’s a quick question: Landlords and tenants have had experience with the new digitized program and a regional approach for the adjudicators that—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Ask your question, please.

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: The question is: What are you going to do about making sure that people have access to the Landlord and Tenant Board—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): The Attorney General for a quick response.

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’re going to fix it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Percy Hatfield): Thank you. You did have a little bit of time, because we’re a little bit early for members’ statements. That’s where we’re going to turn now.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Community services

Mr. Jeff Burch: Yesterday, I had the honour of joining Community Support Services of Niagara to deliver food to local seniors participating in the Meals on Wheels program. CSSN is a critical contact for seniors, families and caregivers. Thanks to them, families can go to work and rest assured that their loved one is cared for. By offering these supports, seniors are choosing to live in their homes longer and report better outcomes.

Just two weeks ago, volunteers delivering meals to a senior noticed their health had begun to deteriorate. The agency was able to connect with the family and suggest supports. Within a week, the volunteers noticed a remarkable turnaround.

At the height of the lockdown, CSSN doubled the amount of people using their services and the numbers of meals delivered. Despite the demand, Community Support Services of Niagara and other community support organizations have not seen increases to their base funding in over a decade. On a little bit of faith and a lot of determination, they’ve been able to respond to the doubling demand for their Meals on Wheels services and even expand to create a program to deliver groceries to seniors.

Speaker, incredible organizations like CSSN want to devote all of their energy to serving the community. As a consequence of chronic underfunding, more and more time is spent on fundraising.

COVID exposed the issues in our current practices, but it also highlighted the importance of others. I hope this Legislature uses the opportunity of this budget to properly fund Community Support Services of Niagara and help our seniors stay in their homes for longer, with more comfort and dignity.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: Last week, I had an opportunity to speak to many of my constituents in Barrie–Innisfil. Something they had talked a lot about is post-COVID recovery and what we are doing to get through it so that more people can be employed and they can have the dignity of a job. Time and time again, they’re sick of seeing handouts. They want to see a hand up. So, I was proud to tell them and discuss with them, and I want to update them in this Legislature today, what this government is doing on the skilled trades front and getting people back to work.

As you may be aware, we put in a COVID-19 Recovery Assistance Skills Plan, which includes retooling our Second Career program to support laid-off workers and investing in micro-credentialing, employment services and training programs, including apprenticeships. We’re dedicating funding through Employment Ontario skills training so that more people can get jobs that match their skills and that, of course, they can upgrade any skills they need. We’re also supporting workers to acquire in-demand skills through micro-credentialing, and that will be done through an online portal.

Of course, those students who are young and are looking to apply their OSAP money towards micro-credentialing can now do that.

But that’s not it, Speaker. We’re also simplifying the system. We’re investing in the tools grant so more people can get help with those tools they need. We’re investing in the corrections system so more people can be employed in public safety services and, of course, investing in more PSW training and supporting them through that and, for our young people, our future generation, investing in the skilled trades they’re going to need for their future jobs.

Speaker, by giving every person in Ontario the opportunity to reach their full potential, the province’s recovery will be swifter and more robust, setting Ontario on a path to a strong economic rebound.

Transportation planning

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This morning I asked the Associate Minister of Transportation to meet with my constituents who are represented by the group Save Jimmie Simpson. Since late February, my constituents who live along what will be the above-ground

section of the Ontario Line have been trying to secure a meeting with the associate minister to discuss the impact of the line and their dissatisfaction with Metrolinx’s feeble consultation process.

If consultation with Metrolinx were real, vigorous and resulted in improvements to the line that made it more compatible with the community, then the residents in my community would not be trying to meet with the associate minister, but that is not the case. So my constituents, through their group Save Jimmie Simpson, wrote the associate minister asking to meet to discuss their concerns.

This is a democracy. When people are not happy with the decisions or actions of bureaucrats, they know they have to go up the chain of decision-making to talk to the elected decision-makers. So far, they have simply been told to go back to Metrolinx.

They wrote, “We call upon you to consider our urgent fears for the health and well-being of our community. We would welcome an opportunity to meet virtually with you to discuss our issues and seek your advice as to the best ways to ensure our concerns are heard by the appropriate decision-makers.”

Speaker, in a democracy, citizens need to be able to meet with elected decision-makers. I ask the associate minister to meet with the citizens.

Réponse à la COVID-19 / COVID-19 response

M lle Amanda Simard: Les gens de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell ont été absolument extraordinaires durant cette période difficile, et j’aimerais prendre ce temps pour sincèrement remercier nos gens et tous ceux et celles qui continuent de travailler sans relâche durant cette pandémie.

Tout d’abord, à ceux qui ont perdu un être cher, je suis de tout coeur avec vous et votre famille.

À nos communautés—de Rockland à Bourget, à Hawkesbury, à Alexandria, à Marionville, à Maxville—merci. Je suis inspirée par le travail acharné et le dévouement de tant de personnes dans nos communautés. Vraiment, incroyable.

À tous nos premiers intervenants, médecins, infirmières et à tous ceux qui travaillent dans le domaine de la santé, merci.

À nos enseignants et travailleurs en éducation, merci.

À nos propriétaires de petites entreprises, merci.

À tous nos héros méconnus, nos chauffeurs de camion, nos employés d’épicerie, tous ceux et celles qui font évoluer notre économie et ont un impact sur notre train de vie de tant de façons, grandes et petites, merci.

Et à nos médecins hygiénistes, le D r Paul et la D re Etches, merci de constamment nous informer et de veiller à notre santé et sécurité, souvent de façon créative et avec beaucoup d’humour, pour nous remettre le sourire au visage.

The last year has been extremely difficult. Physical distancing, not being close to our loved ones, our family, our friends, takes a toll on us. Human interactions, real live ones, are essential to our mental health. But we will get through this.

Ce sont des mesures difficiles, monsieur le Président, mais nous avons vu ces mesures fonctionner. Même avec l’arrivée des vaccins, ces mesures sont de mise. Continuons d’être vigilants, de porter nos masques, d’appuyer nos petites entreprises, nos commerces locaux, et de socialiser virtuellement, tout en utilisant ce temps pour planifier nos sorties excitantes, une fois permises.

Greek Independence Day

Miss Christina Maria Mitas: I’m thrilled to be able to rise in the House and speak today in celebration of the bicentennial celebration of Greek Independence Day.

Every year on March 25 since 1821, Greeks around the world commemorate this day. This year is extra special for us as it marks 200 years since we liberated our country out from Ottoman rule by rising up in a war of independence.

This year, we celebrate with more fervour and passion than ever before—a very impressive feat if you are familiar with the passion and zest for life, the kefi, that Greeks have on any given day. We are so proud to come from a long line of fighters who stand up for their country, their culture, their religion, their way of life, and above all, for freedom.

In 1821, we committed to freedom or death—eleftheria i thanatos—and we meant it. This fighting spirit has stayed with the Greek people, both those living in Greece and those like me who are part of the diaspora. This day reminds us of our people’s accomplishments and encourages us to continue to stand for freedom, both in Greece and around the world. Not everyone lives in a free country; in fact, many don’t. Greek Canadians are especially proud to live in a strong, democratic country such as Canada.

I honour my ancestors today, and I commit to follow in their footsteps and do everything I can to safeguard the freedoms that we hold so dear. While Greece is free, and while Greeks around the world proudly and loudly stand for freedom and against tyranny and oppression, all people and countries can dream of freedom too.

Remarks in Greek.

Mental health services

Miss Monique Taylor: Regeneration Community Services provides services for people with complex mental health and addictions issues. The workers there are CUPE Local 4891. These are the residential support workers, mental health workers, addiction case managers, peer and housing support workers, maintenance, kitchen and housekeeping staff who keep the place running. Unfortunately, these workers might go on strike.

To keep up with the cost of living, these workers need the 1% wage increase allowable under the terrible Bill 124. Regeneration simply doesn’t have the funds to provide this modest increase and is asking for a three-year wage freeze. Staff can’t afford to keep falling behind.

In the aftermath of this pandemic, Speaker, we are going to see the need for mental health services rise in every community across Ontario. Experts are already calling it the fourth wave. This government must provide community mental health organizations like Regeneration the funds they need to ensure that they have a stable workforce and can deliver the much-needed services.

Ontarians will need mental health supports in the aftermath of this pandemic. The government must ensure that they are available by adequately funding these community mental health services. I have already provided the Ministers of Health, Labour and Mental Health a letter to explain this. I hope to hear back soon.

ProResp

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Recently, I met via Zoom with two key individuals from ProResp, a community respiratory therapy organization. I would like to thank Kim Johnstone, regional manager west, and Jennifer Demars, manager of the Chatham branch, for their valuable input. Both are registered respiratory therapists, also known as RRTs.

ProResp is celebrating their 40th anniversary this year. They are an essential service, with a staff of over 300, including 85 RRTs and 26 RT managers in 27 locations in the province.

What amazes me is the number 1,000. That’s the number of Ontarians who suffered from COVID-19 whom ProResp brought home from the hospital to recover in the safety and comfort of their own home. They know their clients are more susceptible and even more fearful of COVID due to their chronic respiratory illness. By working alongside the overworked doctors, nurses and respiratory therapists in hospitals across Ontario, patients can go home safely, thus lightening the load so others can focus on the most severe cases.

Through this pandemic, ProResp continues to conduct in-home respiratory assessments and conduct wellness phone checks of their clients while maintaining strong relationships with their in-home clients, long-term care, physicians, hospitals, retirement homes and hospices throughout Ontario.

Their motto remains, “We never stopped caring, and we never will.” Thank you, ProResp, and again, congratulations on celebrating 40 years of serving Ontario.

Home care

Mr. John Vanthof: I’d like to take this opportunity to make the House aware of the state of home care in certain parts of the province, especially Timiskaming–Cochrane.

I’d like to tell you a story about Jaqueline in Iroquois Falls. Jaqueline is in her eighties, and she qualifies for 15 hours a week of home care, but it’s actually not for Jaqueline; it’s for her son. He’s 60, and he has been bedridden for the last 20 years. Jaqueline takes care of her son. She qualifies for 15 hours a week; some weeks she gets one, some weeks she gets two, and when our office intervenes she gets a bit more—the reason being, the for-profit company cannot find PSWs, and as a result, Jaqueline is in crisis.

So now Jaqueline has taken it upon herself to hire PSWs herself, from her pension and from her son’s pension. And do you know what? The PSWs exist—because Jaqueline pays them a living wage.

That’s something we could learn from. The people who qualify can’t get it, and they have to pay for themselves—because they pay a living wage. Why doesn’t the private home care company do the same?

Lunar new year

Mr. Billy Pang: In February, I had the pleasure of co-hosting a virtual lunar new year celebration in my riding of Markham–Unionville with our member of Parliament, Bob Saroya. Lunar new year symbolizes prosperity and good fortune and is one of the most significant holidays celebrated by many Canadians of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent. Although we were not able to celebrate like in previous years, I was happy to co-host this virtual event with MP Saroya to bring our community together from the comfort of our own homes.

At this event, we were joined by over 300 attendees and honourable guests, including Senator Victor Oh; the leader of the official opposition of Canada, the Honourable Erin O’Toole; the Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Doug Ford; and fellow MPPs. I want to thank everyone who attended and made that night unforgettable.

Mr. Speaker, while most Ontarians welcome multiculturalism and respect one another, I want to recognize the rise in verbal harassment and physical attacks towards Canadians of East Asian and Southeast Asian descent, which significantly rose in our province and across Canada since the beginning of the pandemic. These actions should not be tolerated and should not be bypassed.

Our province was built on the backs of Ontarians from different cultures and backgrounds. And no one should walk down a public space in fear.

As a government, we will always condemn any form of racism, and we will continue to confront and stand against these hateful crimes.

Journée internationale de la Francophonie

M me Natalia Kusendova: Je suis très fière de prendre la parole aujourd’hui devant cette Assemblée pour célébrer la francophonie dans cette province. Samedi dernier, le 20 mars, a marqué la Journée internationale de la Francophonie, une occasion de reconnaître la place importante de la communauté francophone ici en Ontario et partout dans le monde.

Je suis particulièrement fière de mes collègues francophones et francophiles dans cette Chambre, ainsi que de tous ceux et celles qui s’investissent à apprendre la langue de Molière. Continuons à travailler ensemble chaque jour pour soutenir l’épanouissement de la francophonie en Ontario.

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

Shooting in Atlanta

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ve been advised that the Leader of the Opposition has a point of order that she wishes to raise, and I’ll recognize her.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I bring forward a motion to have a moment of silence because of the recent tragedy that occurred in Atlanta. It’s just the latest in a disturbing rise of anti-Asian racism that has only grown over the course of the pandemic.

Unfortunately, Canada has also seen an increase in anti-Asian racism. People are looking for us, as leaders, to stand with them in the fight against hate. I was really happy to hear the government member speaking about this very issue a minute ago.

I seek unanimous consent for the House to observe a moment of silence for the victims of the recent mass shooting in Atlanta, to condemn the disturbing rise of anti-Asian racism and hate crimes across North America, and to convey our collective commitment to aggressively fighting anti-Asian racism here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment of silence for the victims of the recent mass shooting in Atlanta, to condemn the disturbing rise of anti-Asian racism and hate crimes across North America, and to convey our collective commitment to aggressively fight anti-Asian racism here in Ontario. Agreed? Agreed.

I’ll ask members to rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. Members may take their seats.

Question Period

COVID-19 immunization

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my first question this morning is to the Premier. We have heard, disturbingly, that almost a third of seniors over the age of 80 in Ontario have yet to be vaccinated.

My question is, what is the government’s plan to make sure every senior over the age of 80 who wants a vaccination is able to get vaccinated?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: Speaking to the table the other day—we’re doing everything we can. We’re already at 71%. We booked over 190,000 appointments yesterday, which is a new record. Our goal is to make sure that we reach out to every single senior 80-plus to make sure we fill that gap. We also have mobile units going to areas which have a tremendous amount of seniors right across this province. We’re going to continue making sure we hit that threshold of 100% very, very shortly.

Everyone is doing a great job out there, doing the testing, so thank you.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the reality is that there are many, many seniors who are either unable to go to a mass vaccination site or are fearful of going to a mass vaccination site.

We’re hearing some pretty tragic descriptions of what folks are going through, and I’m going to share one with the Premier this morning. This is from Peter Trainor, the grandson of Susan Rochlitz: “My grandmother, Susan Rochlitz, a 96-year-old Holocaust survivor who is housebound and struggling with dementia, still hasn’t been vaccinated against COVID-19 because she can’t go to a vaccination centre. Somehow,” Premier “Ford [has not] figured out how to provide her with a vaccine at home, despite having had more than a year to figure out how to vaccinate disabled, housebound seniors.”

There has been a lot of time to plan for this eventuality. There has been a year that the government had to plan to vaccinate seniors. How can it be that seniors like Ms. Rochlitz are still unable to get vaccinated in Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, we’ve vaccinated over 1.6 million people, 300,000 people—again, leading the country, bar none—over 80 with their double dose of vaccine. We’re going to continue on moving forward on this. We’re doing everything we can to make sure we get into the homes and provide people with transportation as well, getting from their home over to the vaccination site, or the other option is the mobile units. I have all the confidence in the world we’ll have this up to 100%, hopefully in the next short while there.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, mass vaccination sites and confusing booking systems simply don’t work for most seniors—or for many seniors; let’s put it that way: for many seniors. As a result, we have literally thousands upon thousands of seniors who have been unable to get vaccinated here in the province of Ontario.

We have heard the science table, a while back, recommend mobile units to the government. We’ve seen family physicians jump on board as well for the mobile units. The Premier claims that there are mobile units on the roads, when we know that seniors aren’t getting those vaccines in their arms in a convenient and safe way at home.

So when will this government finally get its act together and make sure seniors over 80 get the vaccines that they need when they are wanting those vaccines?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: In fact, the government has planned for seniors and everyone else in Ontario to receive vaccines in a variety of ways: through hospitals; through mass vaccination clinics, mobile clinics, specialty clinics and also by primary care; and in some cases, if they’re homebound, by their home and community care nurses that are coming into their home. So that has been planned for. That has happened.

We have started the rollout in our primary care settings in Hamilton, Peel, Peterborough, Simcoe, Muskoka, Toronto and Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph. That is going to be rolled out further because we know that there are many seniors who have underlying health conditions, people over 80, who feel more comfortable going to their primary care provider in order to receive their vaccine and to understand, with their underlying health conditions, whether that’s safe for them.

As we increase the volumes of vaccines going into primary care centres, we will see more seniors going in to receive their vaccines there or, if they’re homebound, to make sure that a home care nurse will be able to deliver the vaccine to them after they have had a conversation with their primary care provider.

Health care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. But I have to say, we started receiving vaccines in this province at the end of the year last year. It is now near the end of March, and we still have many seniors over the age of 80 who have not received their vaccines. Shame on the government for not being ready to get those vaccines into the most vulnerable people’s arms in our province.

But my question is actually about another problem that we have with the COVID-19 pandemic, and that is the backlog of surgeries and the backlog of procedures that exist in our province. Last week, BC announced that, in fact, their backlog will be cleared by May of this year. It will be cleared by this summer.

When is the provincial government here in Ontario going to be able to announce that our backlog of surgeries and procedures has been cleared?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: We’re certainly aware of the backlogs of surgeries and procedures that had to be postponed during wave 1 and, in part, during wave 2 of COVID-19, but we have been dealing with that. Notwithstanding all of the pressures of COVID and the capacity levels in our hospitals, we have been working on those backlogs.

We have also invested up to $283 million to support additional priority surgeries, including cardiac, cancer and orthopedic surgeries, to allow for operating rooms to be able to operate and open during weekends and evenings. We’ve also invested more than $351 million for more than 2,250 new beds at 57 hospitals. We’ve initialized a centralized wait-list to be able to make sure that in every hospital, we can take advantage of any extra space they have.

So we have put considerable time and energy and money into dealing with this, and we will be able to ramp those up once more people have received the vaccinations and once the variants of concern have diminished. We’ll be able to do that even faster, but we are working on those backlogs now.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, almost a year ago now, back in May of 2020, is when British Columbia announced their plan for getting rid of the backlog of surgeries and procedures. In fact, they funded it very, very well. They hired something like 44 extra surgeons and, as I said, they put timelines together; they announced the goals that they have.

We have none of that from the provincial government here in Ontario. In fact, this government waited until the second wave was upon us before they even acknowledged that we had a problem with surgeries and backlogs. It’s really a big concern, Speaker, and now we hear from this minister that there are no targets, there are no timelines, and the amount of money that the government is talking about is wholly inadequate for the backlog that exists.

How long is it going to be before the people of Ontario have a clear plan of when that backlog, how that backlog is going to be dealt with by this government?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, of course there are targets and timelines to be met here, but we also have to recognize the fact that we are dealing with variants of concern that are putting more people into hospital because it’s much more transmissible, needing more intensive care beds and resulting in greater care than some of the other patients. So as we are trying to deal with the volumes of surgeries and backlogs, we also have to recognize that competition for that space. We need to take care of the people with COVID as well.

So it’s not possible to give a specific timeline, but I can certainly advise the member opposite, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we are working on that. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in creating over 3,100 more beds since this time last year. That’s six community hospitals. We’ve amped up the space and capacity. We have a centralized wait-list now to be able to make sure that we can take advantage of any space that’s available in any hospital, and we’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars in allowing for extra time for these surgeries and procedures to be conducted.

We are working on this, because as difficult and sad as it is for a family to lose a member due to COVID, it’s equally sad to lose someone due to cardiac or cancer lack of care, and we are very cognizant of that—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, what we need to recognize is that there are thousands upon thousands—hundreds of thousands—of Ontarians, some of whom are waiting with pain, with anxiety, with cancers that are spreading through their bodies, for some kind of signal from this government that they have a handle on the backlog crisis when it comes to surgeries and procedures. In fact, a bare minimum is a figure of 277,000 patients who are waiting right now.

One cancer patient said this to Citytv: “It’s frustrating, it’s terrifying.” Of course it is. And what is even more terrifying is that this government is not putting out any clear plan, no clear funding, no clear target about when these surgeries and procedures are going to be addressed. When will the government make a clear announcement and put the necessary investments in place to clear the backlog of COVID-related procedures, cancer surgeries and other health requirements?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, as the leader of the official opposition indicates, people are feeling frustrated. They’re very concerned. We certainly understand that. We know that many people have been waiting long periods of time for cardiac, cancer surgery, orthopedic procedures as well, and we want to make sure that they can receive those surgeries and procedures as soon as possible. We have spent over $2.8 billion in keeping Ontarians safe, planning for future waves of COVID-19, which is in order to deal with both COVID but also to deal with people who are waiting for those other surgeries.

Now, I think it’s important to note, Speaker, that people who have had very serious, life-threatening situations have been assessed and have been assessed every step along the way, so that if they need surgery immediately to save their lives or to prevent things from worsening very quickly, they are receiving those surgeries. But for other people, we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in order to speed up those surgeries so that people can get on with their lives.

Member’s conduct

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. Last week, a group of anti-lockdown protesters gathered in Sarnia in defiance of local public health rules and called on the government to overturn local COVID restrictions that were put in place to save lives and keep people safe. In response, the member for Sarnia–Lambton said he applauded the protestors. He applauded them. Despite COVID numbers spreading like wildfire in his community and pleas from the mayor and council for more support, the local member seems to be cheering on protesters.

My question to the Premier: Does he agree with his backbench member? If he doesn’t, will he ask the member from Sarnia–Lambton to apologize for the confusion that he has caused?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The question will be responded to by the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Sarnia–Lambton has been a strong member of this Legislature throughout the COVID pandemic. He has been very forceful in assisting us in making sure that this House is safe, that this Legislature is safe, that we bring forward legislation to keep the people of the province of Ontario safe.

I think all members, at some point in time, support people who want to protest, even if that protest is an incorrect protest in my opinion. Look, I have great faith in everything that the member for Sarnia–Lambton has done. I know that the member opposite knows that the member for Sarnia–Lambton is an honourable member who has served with distinction in this chamber. I know that he would probably appreciate that, and despite the fact that he’s been forced to ask this question about the member for Sarnia–Lambton, I know that he knows how good a person he is and how hard he has worked throughout the pandemic.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’ll unshackle you later, John.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It was an interesting wink I got from the House leader there.

Last week, as the local Conservative member was cheering on anti-maskers and anti-lockdown protestors in his community, the mayor of Sarnia wrote to the Premier pleading with the government to increase their access to vaccines and supports.

The Sarnia–Lambton area is currently in an active outbreak and is desperate for help, but the only response from the Conservatives—Mayor Bradley said he was surprised he hasn’t heard back from anyone in the Premier’s office yet. He even marked his letter “Urgent,” which made it even more confusing.

Speaker, he’s now sent another letter. Can the Premier confirm that he’s going to answer Mayor Bradley in his call for support?

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

Hon. Doug Ford: First of all, I want to thank the member for the question. What I recollect and what I’ve been told by the 444 municipalities—or mayors, I should say, and wardens—that I’m the only Premier in the history of this province who has given their cell number to every single one of them. There’s not a day goes by that I’m not talking to a half a dozen to a dozen mayors or wardens around this province. I’ll make a point of making sure I call the mayor down there and provide any support.

But in saying that, any mayor knows—and I’ve said it numerous times on calls with them—that they can give me a call, send me a message and I’ll guarantee I’ll get back to them. But I’ll make a point of getting back to him personally.

Long-term care

Mr. Michael Parsa: My question is to the Minister of Long-Term Care. After decades of neglect in which the previous government was unable or unwilling to add meaningful numbers of new spaces to long-term-care supply, I was pleased to see the Minister of Long-Term Care and the Minister of Finance taking a major step forward in long-term-care development in their announcement.

Speaker, I’m proud to be part of a government that is moving forward to repair and rebuild long-term care in Ontario. The investment of $933 million, on top of the $1.75 billion already committed, in 80 new long-term-care projects will lead to thousands more new and upgraded long-term-care spaces across the province.

My question to the minister is: What impact will this announcement have in my riding of Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: Thank you to the member for Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill for his question. These 80 projects will lead to an additional 7,510 new and 4,197 upgraded long-term-care spaces across the province. That’s major progress.

In the honourable member’s riding, this allocation alone has two new projects moving ahead. Mon Sheong long-term care has been allocated 288 new spaces to create a net new home through the construction of a new building in Richmond Hill as part of a campus of care. Mon Sheong provides culturally sensitive care to the Chinese community.

Chartwell Aurora has been allocated 128 upgraded spaces. This project will result in a 192-bed home through the construction of a new building in Aurora and will replace ward rooms with ones built to modern design standards in a new building.

I thank the member opposite—or the member here, right next to me, for his good work.

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

Mr. Michael Parsa: My supplementary is also to the incredibly hard-working Minister of Long-Term Care.

That’s great news in my riding, Mr. Speaker, and I’m sure my constituents are going to be incredibly pleased to hear it. After decades of neglect, it’s heartening to see our government being the one to fix the problem of long-term care in our province.

Addressing capacity and sorely needed upgrades is long overdue, and we all saw the dangers ward rooms pose during the pandemic. As the Financial Accountability Officer found in a 2019 report, the previous government built 611 net new beds between 2011 and 2018, so it’s crucial we catch up on this important work.

I’m wondering if the minister can tell us again: What will be the impacts of these new constructions and upgraded beds in York region?

Hon. Merrilee Fullerton: The good member is correct when he notes the previous government’s record. While the Liberals were content to build 611 spaces province-wide over seven years, our government will build 608 new spaces in this member’s riding alone. The projects across York region will create net new capacity of 2,974 spaces.

After years of neglect and indifference from the previous government, it will be this government that repairs and rebuilds long-term care in Ontario. The neglect of the previous government is stunning and set the stage for what we saw in this pandemic.

These new spaces and homes will give Ontario residents confidence that they can receive the care they need when and where they need it.

COVID-19 response

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: My question is for the Premier. Last week, Dr. Janet DeMille, our public health officer from Thunder Bay District Health Unit, called for Thunder Bay to become a COVID-19 hot spot.

My constituents are upset and angry, and they want this government to do something. Small businesses that have been shut for months are desperate. People are frustrated by the lack of vaccine appointments available.

Through you, Speaker: Will you, Premier, declare Thunder Bay a COVID-19 hot spot to get this situation under control?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: I thank the member very much for the question.

In fact, Thunder Bay has been a hot spot in the past, and we have allocated significant resources to assist in order to get the numbers down. There are now 30 assigned provincial case managers there who were sent to assist the public health unit in order to do the case management and contact tracing. We now have 90% of the cases are reached within 24 hours and 87% of cases reached within—sorry; within 24 hours, yes. The number of cases has gone down significantly, from 32 on Saturday to 27 on Sunday to 16 cases most recently.

So the numbers are coming down, putting Thunder Bay in the situation where they are, with respect to being in the grey zone, has been very helpful—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Response.

Hon. Christine Elliott: —with the assistance that has been provided by Public Health Ontario and others to help keep those numbers under control.

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

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: My question is again to the Premier.

Everyone wants hope. But for months, the COVID-19 crisis in Thunder Bay has been building. We had an outbreak in our local correctional facility that spread throughout our community, and now our jail is being packed again.

While our local health care front-line workers are keeping us safe, they are overworked and exhausted and need this government to do more.

With our regional hospital’s limited capacity, it makes sense to vaccinate as many people as possible. And yet, people over 60 are able to get vaccines in Toronto but not in Thunder Bay.

What is this government going to do right now to help the people of Thunder Bay?

Hon. Christine Elliott: In addition to the additional 30 case and contact managers who have already been provided to Thunder Bay, there has been a total of $2.7 million which has been invested in the Thunder Bay hospital, which has helped to add over 30 new beds.

I can certainly advise that we are planning to roll out the vaccine plan as we receive additional doses. We have not had significant volumes of doses until quite recently. We did receive 466,830 doses of the Pfizer vaccine yesterday. Those are going to be sent to the public health units based on their population and based on their need. So if there’s still a significant need in Thunder Bay, there will be additional volumes of vaccines that will be sent there.

They are available at mass vaccination clinics. They are going to be available through pharmacies. We have approximately 325 pharmacies right now in the Toronto, Windsor and Kingston areas. Those are going to be doubled across Ontario in the next short while. Anyone who is over 60 years of age can now receive the AstraZeneca vaccine at a pharmacy, and anyone 75 and older can receive the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine at a mass vaccination clinic. There will be other clinics—

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

The next question.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Roman Baber: My question is to the Minister of Education. Of all the harms inflicted by this government through COVID response, the greatest harm inflicted is on Ontario’s children. The minister forces kids to remain silent during lunch. The minister is making kids wear masks outdoors. Kids are afraid to cough in class because a teacher may report them. This government makes kids scared with daily TV commercials that if they hang out next to another child, someone may die.

Last week, I met with two parents from Etobicoke North. A Catholic school in the Premier’s riding has Plexiglas around the desks. At recess, each class is confined to a 20-by-50 box drawn on asphalt. From time to time, the teacher walks around with a two-metre stick, enforcing distancing. Kids who aren’t distancing lose their break and are told to go back inside for re-education. This is pure evil.

My question to the Minister of Education: Does he actually believe he is keeping kids safe? Or will he take responsibility for the harm he is inflicting on Ontario’s children?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: The greatest harm we inflict on children is when we close schools, which is why the Premier has been so decisive in keeping them open in this province.

Mr. Speaker, 99% of schools are open. We’re proud that we have leaned into and followed the public health advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health. We’re also pleased to see students in schools socializing and learning—for their own development and for their mental health, which I think is something that all members in the House would accept is a metric which we need to continue to be concerned about and focused on.

We’ve put in place a protocol with full investment, fully supported by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, with the aim of keeping schools safe; and I’m pleased. I think perhaps we would agree, the member opposite and I, that schools have been safe places for learning, contrary to the alarmist rhetoric of the members opposite. The fact is that 99% of schools are open today while we deal with the variants of concern; 99% of staff and students do not have an active case. The fact is, in our asymptomatic testing the positivity rate remains low. We’ll continue to follow the facts, the science, and keep these schools open in this province.

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

Mr. Roman Baber: I think the minister rehearsed an answer to a different member opposite. I’m saying that kids are not safe from this government in school, and we have not heard an answer from the minister.

Over the weekend, the Minister of Education was busy taking selfies while “catching up with seniors,” all while families of loved ones are denied visitation rights by his government. Shame on this government. But in last Friday’s news release, the government said that it will work with health officials to determine measures for “outdoor activities where the risk of transmission is minimized.”

Study after study is telling us that, with few statistical exceptions, kids are almost at no material risk of COVID. And even though the minister tries to take credit for everything under the sun, credible studies are telling us that children spread the virus far less than adults. I invite the members to read yesterday’s

article in the HuffPost on this topic.

So my question to the Minister of Education: If the risk of transmission is minimized during outdoor activities, then why does he force school children to wear masks outdoors? Will he commit now to repeal this requirement?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: We have followed the best medical advice with the aim of keeping schools open. That is why we have adopted the recommendations of the medical community. There is a consensus in the country; we’re not the exception to the rule. We happen to be the first in the nation to have adopted these protocols, to be fair, in the context of masking. All the provinces have a similar approach. In the context of outdoors, we have asked where distancing cannot be maintained, then masks can be worn. At the end of the day, what we’re trying to mitigate is the potential transmission of COVID.

Now, the truth is, as the Chief Medical Officer of Health has said, when we talk about cases per day “in schools,” the overwhelming majority, over 90% of those cases, have come from the community in the school. They were not transmitted in the school community, and therefore, it underscores that schools have been safe.

We’re proud of the fact that 1.5 million children are physically in a school. The remainder, the next half a million, are learning remotely online. Our province has set up a system of quality education both in-school and online, and that will continue under this government.

Child care

Mr. Michael Parsa: My question is to the Minister of Education. Earlier this month was International Women’s Day, a day where we all celebrated the achievements of women. It was also a day that highlighted the effects that the pandemic has had on working mothers and families, as well as the importance of having accessible and affordable child care. Providing care for children has statistically fallen on women more than men, leading to a reduced involvement by women in the overall labour force.

Would the Minister of Education explain how child care will be more affordable and accessible for working mothers and families to ensure they can truly be part of the economic recovery?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank my colleague from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill for the question, and yes, we do believe child care is critical to the restart of our economy. The government, the Premier and my colleague the Associate Minister of Children and Women’s Issues have been absolutely focused on ensuring that we create a system that is more accessible and more affordable, especially after 15 years of the former Liberal government where Ontario became the most or second-most expensive jurisdiction in the country for child care. That’s unacceptable for working people.

That’s why the province has initiated a program called Support for Learners where we put money directly in the pockets of parents—$900 million in the pandemic alone—to provide immediate relief to families who need it most.

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

Mr. Michael Parsa: Thank you to the minister for that informative answer.

We’ve certainly made progress by announcing the addition of 1,770 new child care spaces since the start of the pandemic. In 2020, our government invested over $2 billion, as well as enabled access to $234 million in federal funding as part of the Sa