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

February 25, 2021

42nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2021-Feb-25 (PDF)

L227 - Thu 25 Feb 2021 / Jeu 25 fév 2021

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 25 February 2021 Jeudi 25 février 2021

Orders of the Day

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

Members’ Statements

Farm education

Farmers in India

Places of religious worship

COVID-19 immunization

Heart Month

COVID-19 immunization

Coldest Night of the Year

Foreign-trained doctors

Recreational facilities

COVID-19 deaths

Question Period

Long-term care

COVID-19 immunization

Personal support workers

Natural gas pipeline

COVID-19 response

COVID-19 response

Natural gas pipeline

Tenant protection

Natural gas pipeline

COVID-19 immunization

Autism treatment

Land use planning

Unemployment

COVID-19 immunization

Deferred Votes

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

Housing is a Human Right Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur le logement en tant que droit de la personne

Business of the House

Introduction of Bills

Protecting Ontario Elections Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 sur la protection des élections en Ontario

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Black History Month

Petitions

Autism treatment

Environmental protection

Affordable housing

Life insurance

Child care

Orders of the Day

Natural gas pipeline

Private Members’ Public Business

Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, 2021 / Loi de 2021 permettant aux employés malades de rester chez eux

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers/Prières.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 24, 2021, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 245,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in my debate on this issue, I was talking about the Accelerating Access to Justice Act. I had a conversation with a lawyer yesterday. The lawyer said that lawyers in Ontario actually cringe when they have to read out the titles of the bills of this government in court, because the title of the bill is so often the opposite of what the bill actually does. This bill, I argued yesterday, called the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, is a further erosion of the legal rights and access to justice for the people of Ontario.

I’ll just give a couple of examples. This government has cut legal aid by 30%. They’ve cut legal funding, which means that the lowest-income—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m sorry to interrupt the member.

Would the conversations please cease or quiet down? I am unable to hear the member who has the floor, and he is the only member who has the floor at this time. Thank you.

Please continue.

Mr. Chris Glover: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This government cut legal aid by 30%, which means that the lowest-income Ontarians do not have legal aid lawyers available to represent them.

This is particularly important right now with the eviction blitz and tens of thousands of eviction hearings going on across this province. In these eviction hearings, there is little respect for due process. Some of the people being evicted, because they are low-income or because of language barriers, do not have access to the Internet, so they are not able to participate in the hearing in which their housing is being taken away from them. Many of these tenants are not bad tenants. Many of them are being renovicted by landlords who want to kick them out so that they can raise the rents on a new tenant.

Another example of the loss of our legal rights and access to justice with this bill is expropriations. An expropriation is when the government wants to take over your private property. Instead of accelerating access to justice, this bill reduces legal rights over expropriations.

In a previous bill, this government had taken away the right that people had to a hearing of necessity when their property was being expropriated. If the government said, “Hey, we want to take over your house and buy you out,” previously, the person whose property was being taken over could appeal for a hearing of necessity, and the government would have to justify before a judge or an adjudicator the reason for that expropriation. That right for the hearing of necessity has been taken away.

This is particularly relevant in my part of downtown Toronto, because the government has begun the expropriation of the first Parliament site, throwing into jeopardy years of public consultations and planning for a library and community amenities on the site.

Another

section of this bill that further erodes our legal rights is the combining of five tribunals into one. The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Mining and Lands Tribunal, the Conservation Review Board and the Board of Negotiation are all being combined into one tribunal. The purpose of these tribunals is that they are supposed to be faster and cheaper, and the adjudicators have particular expertise on mining or planning or the environment. They have particular expertise that you would not have if this went to a court before a judge.

But now, an adjudicator from the mining tribunal may hear a planning decision without the expertise, and so it undermines the very purpose of these tribunals. Although many people may not have heard of these tribunals, they actually are utilized by 100,000 Ontarians every year.

The other right that is being taken away in this bill is appeals to the minister.

Schedule 10 strips environmentalists and other Ontarians of the right to appeal a decision to a minister of the government. This right was most famously used in stopping the Spadina expressway, which would have put an expressway between the Allen expressway down Spadina Avenue to the Gardiner. It would have been a horrific scar through the middle of our beautiful downtown in Toronto. But the community was able to stop it through an appeal to a minister of the government. Now, this government is taking that appeal right away from Ontarians.

The final issue in this bill that I want to talk about is judicial appointments. This government is politicizing judicial appointments. Currently, judges in Ontario are appointed through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. It’s an arm’s-length process in place where associations of lawyers appoint judges. But with this legislation, the Attorney General, who is a member of the Conservative government and subject to the Conservative Party whip, will have the final say in judicial appointments.

It’s not just my opinion that this erodes the legal rights and the access to justice for the people of Ontario. There was an

article in the Law Times. The

article reads—and I will read it in part—“The Ontario government’s proposed changes to the Judicial Appointments Advisory”—

Interjection.

Mr. Chris Glover: To the member opposite, listen to what the Criminal Lawyers’ Association—what I’m reading here. Then, if you want to ask me a question about it, you’d be more than welcome.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Order.

Mr. Chris Glover: This is the article: “The Ontario government’s proposed changes to the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee undermine its independence and risk politicizing the judicial appointments process, say the president and a vice president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association.” Daniel Brown, the vice president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association says, “‘Our concern is that the independence of the appointment committee is under attack’ ... ‘This is an attempt to fix a system that wasn’t broken.’”

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): The member from Durham will come to order.

Mr. Chris Glover: “‘There was no difficulty getting highly qualified, highly diverse candidates on the provincial court bench. And in fact, this model of judicial appointments was the gold standard across Canada.’”

The Criminal Lawyers’ Association president, John Struthers, says, “‘This does not need fixing’ ... ‘It is a perversion and a corruption of the appointment process that everyone in the system opposes’ ... ‘Now, rather than those organizations having independent choice over their representatives, it’s ... subject to the AG’s approval,’ says Brown. ‘And so that’s something that undermines the independence of the committee itself.’”

The appointment of judges is such a crucial part of access to justice. The judges must be appointed through a non-partisan process like the JAAC that we currently have. When you politicize it, when the Attorney General, who is a Conservative MPP, makes the decision on who will and will not be a judge, you are undermining the access to justice for the people of Ontario.

For many years, this government has been eroding the legal and democratic rights of the people of Ontario. This bill is another step in that direction. It is depriving people of property rights through the expropriation sections by allowing a Conservative MPP, the Attorney General, to have the final say in appointments of judges. It’s also undermining our access to justice rights by further eroding people’s rights in tribunal hearings. By combining five different tribunal bodies, it is undermining our access to justice.

And by stripping environmentalists and others of the right to appeal a decision to the government, it is undermining our access to justice. Madam Speaker, I would ask that the government not pass this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. A reminder to all members to direct their comments to and through the Chair. The cross-talk will not be tolerated. All members will have the opportunity during questions and comments to get their voice on the record.

To that end, questions and comments?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you very much to the member across from Spadina–Fort York. Currently—he refers to it as JAAC, the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee—they don’t publish diversity statistics. The application form provides the opportunity for self-identification regarding diversity, but we have no way of knowing whether or not we are attracting as many diverse candidates as we could or should be.

The Accelerating Access to Justice Act proposed to make it mandatory that the JAAC publish detailed diversity statistics in their annual reports using information that applicants already voluntarily provide during the application process. By collecting these statistics, we have a chance to analyze, improve and even promote diversity on our bench.

Will the member opposite join our government and support bringing forward the changes that increase transparency surrounding the diversity of judicial candidates being considered? And if not, then I ask, why not?

Mr. Chris Glover: I’m fully supportive of the idea of increasing the diversity of positions of power such as judges in this province. But you don’t need to politicize the process. You can ask the JAAC to collect those statistics without giving the Attorney General the power to decide who is going to be a judge and who is not. It should not be a Conservative MPP who decides who will and will not be a judge in this province. That’s politicizing the process. It’s unnecessary to achieve the goal of increasing the diversity on our benches.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m really thankful for my colleague the member for Spadina–Fort York because he has done an exemplary job in dissecting the bill and relating it back to his constituents as to the impact of the content of the bill, which is obviously a large bill—it changes around 11 schedules, I believe—and has various ramifications for real, tangible access to justice on the ground.

I am concerned; he raised the point around the ability for the Attorney General to singularly appoint justices through that process. I wonder what the correlations are to the way that the United States does it. We know that the goal not only is to elect a partisan president but to allow that president to then nominate folks to the Supreme Court that stack the court. That’s always the game. How close are we getting to the formula that the United States applies?

Mr. Chris Glover: This is such a fundamental question about our democracy, the independent appointment of judges. It was foreseen centuries ago, when modern democracies were first being developed, that you need to have an independent judiciary that’s separate from the government, because if the judiciary is beholden to the particular government of the day, then the judiciary is no longer a system of justice. It’s a system of imposing the power of the government of the day on the people of the province and, in our case, of the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Ms. Lindsey Park: I do want to clarify, whether it’s a PC government, a Liberal government or an NDP government, it’s always been the Attorney General that appoints judges. That’s not a change. There seems to be some confusion about that.

Have you been supportive of the NDP Attorney General in the past appointing judges?

Mr. Chris Glover: The process used to be that the JAAC, the judicial advisory committee, would provide a recommendation to the Attorney General and the Attorney General would approve that. Now, the committee has been asked to provide six potential representatives and then the Attorney General will pick from the six. This gives the Attorney General much greater leeway to find somebody who supports their partisan views.

That’s why the criminal law association is saying that this system should not be imposed on the people of the province because it undermines the judiciary of Ontario, the independence of the judges in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions?

Mr. Faisal Hassan: Good morning. I would like to thank my colleague from Spadina–Fort York for eloquently addressing the problems we have with this bill. He talked about the impact of cuts to legal aid and how it affects communities like mine in York South–Weston and across the province.

I would like to ask my colleague from Spadina–Fort York, could you elaborate on the importance of access to justice, and not having a lawyer, not having representation, the impact that will have across the province?

Mr. Chris Glover: I thank the member for his question; it is just so important. These cuts to legal aid, the 30% cut to legal aid services across this province, has undermined the access to justice for the lowest-income Ontarians.

As I said in my speech, it’s particularly relevant right now because this government has launched an eviction blitz through the Landlord and Tenant Board across this province. There are thousands of people being evicted without access to a lawyer to represent them. Many of the people who are being evicted, because of language barriers, do not have an understanding of the process that they’re being subjected to. Some of them do not have access to the Internet, and these are online decisions. So they are being evicted without understanding or being able to have access to due process.

The member is absolutely right. The cuts to legal aid are having real ramifications for tenants and citizens across this province.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Good morning. The proposed legislation includes critical changes to help offices like the Offices of the Children’s Lawyer and the Public Guardian and Trustee to do very important work, particularly when we take into account that we’re in COVID right now. Will the member opposite join us in supporting the Offices of the Children’s Lawyer and the Public Guardian and Trustee by giving them the tools they need to help and protect Ontarians?

Mr. Chris Glover: One of the challenges with this government is every bill that’s brought here is an omnibus bill with multiple schedules talking about multiple different issues. So there may be something good in this bill, but it’s overridden.

In the opposition, we cannot support this bill because we do not want a partisan judicial appointment process. We do not want a further erosion of the rights of people to their property through an expropriation process. We want to increase people’s access to legal aid so that they have legal representation and due process when they are being brought before a tribunal or a court, so we cannot support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, I want to go back to the bill, titled Accelerating Access to Justice Act. I want to talk about legal aid. I say that because David McKillop, the vice-president at legal aid, reports that the bill, access to justice—he says the backlog “is a significant problem, there is no doubt” of that, of course. He went on to say that, “In recognition of this, Legal Aid Ontario is funding defence lawyers to attend more pre-trial discussions with judges and crowns in order to resolve cases more quickly....

“But the organization, which provides legal services to low-income, marginalized Ontarians, continues to face a significant projected budget shortfall, estimated at about $56 million in their next fiscal year.”

Can you speak to the fact that the bill says “access to justice” and then how legal aid, which provides access to justice, is far from giving people that justice they’re seeking?

Mr. Chris Glover: I think the actions of this government have to be looked at not as just this particular bill, which erodes our democratic rights and our access to justice, but as a whole. This government has consistently undermined our rights. I mentioned about the expropriation, the hearings of necessity. This one politicizes, and it’s not me saying it; it’s the Criminal Lawyers’ Association who are saying that this government is politicizing the judicial appointment process.

Previously, on September 12, 2018, this government voted on Bill 31 to strip Ontarians of their charter rights—I think it’s 5 and 7 through 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—in order to undermine and change the rules of the Toronto municipal election in the middle of the campaign period. This government has a horrific record of undermining the democratic and legal rights of this province. This particular bill is another step in that erosion.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Good morning, everyone. I rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill 245, Accelerating Access to Justice Act. Given my limited time, I’m going to focus my comments primarily on schedules 6 and 10 of the bill.

I want to begin by echoing the concerns that other members have raised in this chamber, who have rightly pointed out that in order to actually accelerate access to justice for everyone, we need to properly fund the legal aid system. Cuts to legal aid are actually accelerating barriers to accessing justice, and I would say it’s an issue that comes up repeatedly in my constituency office.

We also need to ensure that any technological changes to our justice system are accompanied by accommodations for those who may not have access to reliable broadband Internet or affordable technology. I’ve had many people reach out to my office, particularly in the last couple of months, with concerns about barriers to accessing the Landlord and Tenant Board during COVID for hearings, especially since those hearings relate to their possible evictions.

We should not be creating barriers for people to access justice, which brings me to schedules 6 and 10 of the bill. I’m very concerned that several proposed changes in these schedules will limit public participation and access to justice.

My first concern is that the bill removes the ability for non-party participation at tribunal hearings. The Environmental Review Tribunal in particular currently allows non-parties to make oral submissions at hearings; now this will be limited, if this bill would pass, to written submissions only. This undermines public participation in environmental and land use decisions. Many of these decisions affect people who may not be direct party to the hearing, and I believe the public has a right for their voices to be heard on these issues.

This also allows people who may not have access to legal representation to participate in hearings without cost barriers. I don’t want to see those changes take place in this bill.

Bill 245 would also allow tribunals to dismiss a proceeding if they believe that the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success. This, too, will limit access to justice. It does not accelerate access to justice, as the bill purports to do. Everyone deserves a right to a hearing.

My third concern is that

schedule 10 limits appeals to questions of law under the EPA, the Environmental Protection Act. This is extremely concerning, Speaker, because there will no longer be an avenue for the public to appeal on a decision on the basis of fact or policy. This means that people will not have the ability to appeal a decision they believe would have a negative effect on the environment or the health and safety of their community. Instead, the only mechanism for recourse would be to appeal to Divisional Court, only on a question of law. This will severely narrow the scope of what can be appealed.

My fourth concern is that the amalgamation of several tribunals into one Ontario Land Tribunal will result in a loss of expertise. The strength of having very specific tribunals, like the Environmental Review Tribunal, is the expertise in the adjudicators, so I’m confused about the rationale the government has for this amalgamation.

The government has stated that the changes will eliminate unnecessary overlap between cases, but this could have been addressed by amending the Consolidated Hearings Act to give a tribunal authority to consolidate multiple tribunals into one single hearing, without eliminating the individual tribunals. I don’t understand why the government is using such a drastic mechanism to achieve that objective when they have other means at their disposal.

Finally, since this bill makes significant changes to important environmental legislation, I believe it is essential that relevant parts of the bill be posted on the Environmental Registry for public consultation before it continues to committee. There are several changes with these schedules that will most definitely impact how decisions are made that affect the environment and the public’s ability to participate in defending their environmental rights, if this is not posted on the registry.

The Environmental Bill of Rights clearly states that any policy that may have “a significant effect on the environment” shall be posted for the public to comment on for at least 30 days. I believe that failure to post relevant sections of this bill on the EBR violates people’s EBR rights.

Speaker, I want to conclude by saying this bill continues a disturbing trend that started on day one of this government: to eliminate environmental protections that protect the health and safety of our community. That’s why I encourage members to oppose particularly the schedules that I have outlined. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Speaker, you will know that this legislation includes amendments to strengthen the work of the Public Guardian and Trustee in several ways. I haven’t heard any debate or focus on this important series of amendments by the members of the opposition or the independents at all.

Will the member from Guelph stand in his place and say whether he supports these amendments to the important work of the Public Guardian and Trustee? Yes or no?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question. Yes, of course, there are some aspects of the bill—schedule 2, for example, which I think you’ve just raised—that I would support, no doubt about it. But there are significant concerns with this bill that make me unable to support it.

I have focused my comments on two particular schedules, but to be honest with you, those aren’t my only concerns. Other members have raised concerns around the possible opening to the politicization of the appointment of judges, which concerns me as well. The costs outweigh the benefits on the whole, even if there are sections that I would support.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions?

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: Thank you to the member from Guelph for his comments this morning on the bill. I think that we share a concern. You mentioned the Landlord and Tenant Board and the problems that people are having accessing those mechanisms—with an eye on that we were told that they were going to help people access justice in there. I now have small landlords and tenants coming to me, saying that they cannot maneuver the system that is in place because of a lack of access to technology, or streamlining so severe that it has actually made access in the north terrible for folks.

I am wondering, in your area, how are people managing with these kinds of supposed access to justice?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question. An issue that’s coming up a lot in my riding, and it sounds like up in your riding in Thunder Bay and I would assume in other ridings across the province, is the lack of adjudicators, particularly at the landlord-tenant tribunal. I’ve had tenants and landlords complaining so this isn’t just one or the other; it’s literally both tenants and landlords complaining. If the government wants to accelerate access to justice, particularly at the Landlord and Tenant Board, hiring enough adjudicators to do that is important.

One of the concerns I have specifically in the bill, though, is that any changes to technology must be done in a way that provides access, particularly for those who don’t have the means to access certain types of technology or reliable broadband to access that technology.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions?

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I’m glad to hear the member is supportive of

schedule 2.

I wanted to ask him about the judicial backlog. We talk about accelerating access to justice and making sure everyone has their fair trial and due time. One of the issues that we have experienced is, of course, the massive backlog. That affects a lot of the environmental hearings that we need to hear because there is such a significant backlog. Often those individuals are waiting years upon years. Because of this particular legislation, it’s clearing the backlog, being able to have more of those environmental hearings.

What’s more is they just need to go to one table as opposed to wasting their time going to multiple tables, which causes delays and lots of expenses.

Does the member believe in clearing the backlog, allowing for those hearings to happen?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question. Most of the feedback I have been receiving about backlogs is actually a lack of adjudicators. If the government wants to clear the backlog, actually putting the resources in the system to have enough adjudicators to clear the backlog, to me, is the best solution.

Eliminating the Environmental Review Tribunal, in particular, but some of the other tribunals that are being amalgamated into a single one, means that we’re going to lose expertise—vital expertise. I outlined in my remarks that there are other ways that the government can address the issue around consolidated hearings without eliminating these vital tribunals.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Madam Speaker, it’s a pleasure to rise in the House today and add my comments to the second reading debate of Bill 245, Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021. I want to start by saying I have been very impressed with the team in the Attorney General’s office and the work they have been doing to improve things within our justice system.

Maybe my situation is unique, but in Sarnia–Lambton, my constituency office happens to be right across the street from the provincial courthouse. As a result, I often tell my lawyer friends we are often the first stop for constituents after they run into roadblocks at the courthouse. I’ve heard from many constituents and families over the years who have been really frustrated by the legal system, and for many reasons. That’s why I’m quite optimistic to work with the team in the Attorney General’s office.

Bill 245, the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, represents another big step, Madam Speaker, towards improving access to justice by modernizing complicated and dated processes that our justice system has had for too long. The changes presented in Bill 245 offer some simple changes that will help to create an easier, faster and more accessible justice system across all communities in Ontario.

Bill 245 builds on Ontario’s recent modernization breakthroughs in the justice system and presents urgent reforms to address delays in the resolution of legal disputes, both inside and outside of the courtroom. I for one think that the more things we can handle outside of the courtroom, the better.

Speaker, it’s hard to believe that we’ve been dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic for close to a full year now. We’ve all seen the widespread impact it has had. It’s given us all a chance to adapt and learn to do things differently, and the justice system should be no different. Bill 245 seizes on that opportunity and provides some much-needed support and relief in that sector.

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed nearly every aspect of life for Ontarians. For our government, it underscored the urgent need to change and modernize systems across every sector. In the justice system, COVID-19 highlighted that the old way of doing things needed a rethink or an important pillar of our democracy would be lost to many. Expanding the range of court and justice services offered online and finding ways for people to access those services closer to where they live was a priority for the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Madam Speaker, the breakthrough modernization initiative in this bill will transform how Ontarians access justice, including in more remote communities such as rural, northern, francophone and Indigenous communities, where you often have to travel further for legal representation. It will break down barriers in the province’s courts, tribunals, estates laws, family law and much more. This bill will bring about a more equitable and responsive system.

Every government ministry has faced new and unanticipated challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As I mentioned earlier, the team at the Ministry of the Attorney General has been particularly good at reading the situation and adapting to the situation. In fact, this is the fourth bill that he has introduced in the past 12 months. For those who may have forgotten already, two of the previous bills introduced by the Attorney General were Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020, and Bill 207, Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act, 2020. These were excellent bills that were passed by this Legislature and have now become law.

I was a particular fan of the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act. I’m sure every member of this Legislature understands the challenges that their constituents face with family law. The parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, the member for Durham, came to Sarnia–Lambton a few years ago and had some really great conversations with a number of my constituents, stakeholders and lawyers, all involved in the family law system. I just want to acknowledge how much I appreciated that. I know my constituents appreciate the fact that a lot of their feedback helped in the drafting of this bill.

I am just as confident that the changes proposed in Bill 245, the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, will receive a similar positive response from my constituents if it is passed into law. With Bill 245, our government has responded to the unique challenges presented by the pandemic with practical plans for change and a vision for an easier, less costly and faster justice system for Ontarians across this province. It drives forward continuous efforts to accelerate justice modernization with concrete action to remove barriers to the justice system.

One of the ways they did this was in the proposal to merge the five land tribunals—the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Board of Negotiation, the Conservation Review Board and the Mining and Lands Tribunal—into one single tribunal posted on the Environmental Registry. The main reason to do this was intended to help reduce delays and make the land dispute resolution process more efficient by creating a single forum to resolve disputes faster and eliminate unnecessary overlap between cases.

The expert non-partisan officials at the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks advised that the proposed consolidation would not have a significant effect on the environment and it would not reduce or eliminate hearing or appeal rights before the tribunals, and therefore did not need to be posted on the registry. The creation of the Ontario Land Tribunals is predominantly an administrative change that would build on the government’s commitment to create a more accessible, responsive and resilient justice system that resolves disputes quickly and fairly.

With Bill 245, our government has responded to the unique challenges presented by the pandemic with practical plans for change and a vision for an easier, less costly and faster justice system for Ontarians across the province. It drives forward continuous efforts to accelerate justice modernization with concrete efforts to remove barriers in the justice system. The people of Sarnia–Lambton, my constituents, demand and depend on a system that works for the people. I’m proud to support the work of the Attorney General, his staff and the PA, in co-operation with our justice sector partners, in seeing this bill through to this stage.

Madam Speaker, there are a number of sections of Bill 245 that have been discussed already by different members of this Legislature during the debate. I’m going to focus my attention right now on the changes in the bill that will update Ontario’s estates law.

I don’t like it when they print on both sides of the paper. I get mixed up more than usual.

Personally, I have never had the responsibility of being the executor of a will before, but my wife has, and I’ve seen first-hand how difficult and how complicated that action can be. So I was particularly interested to read in this bill the changes that are proposed. The parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General also did an excellent job in her remarks of explaining this

section of Bill 245. I am going to reiterate a number of areas that she emphasized because I believe they are of the utmost importance.

First, I want to speak specifically about the proposed changes in Bill 245 that will benefit seniors who may enter predatory marriages. This change will also benefit separated spouses who may forget to change their will to reflect their new relationship status.

Under the current law, if you have a will and get married, your will is automatically revoked upon your new marriage. Whatever you paid for it, it doesn’t matter; it’s not an accepted document anymore. That means if a couple walks into a lawyer’s office to make a will because they plan to get married, they actually have to draft up a special version of the will. I had never heard this before, so it’s good to know, everybody out there in TV land. It’s known as a will in the contemplation of marriage—too bad a lot of people haven’t put a little more contemplation into marriage.

Anyway, you’ve probably never heard of that—I certainly hadn’t—but that’s the way the law is written now. In Bill 245, the government is fixing this confusing rule. I think that’s great.

If passed, Bill 245 would repeal

section 16 of the Succession Law Reform Act—yes, okay—which automatically reforms the will upon marriage. This will provide more predictability to, say, a successful 30-year-old man or woman who has a will and later marries to ensure that the 30-year-old’s will will be in place once they marry and their wishes are respected. This will also help to address the issue of predatory marriages. That’s why I’m getting mixed up: They’re using the same lines there again.

With the proposed change in Bill 245, it will be an intentional choice of when and how you are to change your will, perhaps before marriage, or if you decide not to get married, but you’re purchasing major assets together—if you’re purchasing a car, your first home or another major asset with your significant other—maybe both your names are on the title of that new asset.

Under these proposed reforms, an inheritance to married spouses who are separated would also be eliminated in the same way that divorced spouses do not inherit. It’s a bit of another strange rule, but if you officially get divorced, then it’s understood that you probably didn’t mean for your will that you made while you were married to apply, and so your will automatically doesn’t apply. But if you are separated and never actually got divorced, or you never were married and separate, there’s no way that the will changes.

I know reading this, I’m thinking of a case back in my riding where this happened to an individual. He fully intended for a young lady who he raised as his daughter to inherit the bulk of his estate. He never changed his will. He died. The new wife and her children got most of the bulk of the estate. The girl, the young lady who he raised, was SOL, I guess, for want of another word.

This change will help to ensure that when someone passes away, their assets are going to go to the people that they truly intended them to go to. That is why we’re extending

section 17 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

Another major change in Bill 245 that will help the courts adapt to the changing circumstances in which people are doing wills is that the bill proposes granting courts the authority to validate wills that do not precisely meet the legislated formalities of a will.

Currently, there is something called a strict compliance regime. These are the very technical requirements that must be met when you do your will—all scintillating subjects this early on a Thursday morning. There are very technical requirements that must be met by you when you do your will. It’s deemed invalid if you do not meet those requirements. This is why we heard stories of people running around, meeting in parking lots and front yards, witnessing wills through windows in the middle of the pandemic. People were trying to follow public health guidelines and distance, but still properly meet the formal legal requirements.

With the proposed changes in Bill 245, we’re building in a new power for the courts to be able to validate wills that were not properly executed. This isn’t lowering the standard in any way. In fact, a judge will do their due diligence and ask for evidence of what that person intended and make sure what’s laid out in the will was the intention of that person. This is a new power that the courts don’t currently have or are hesitant to use. These are just a few practical changes that are included in Bill 245 that will arm Ontarians with tools to deal with their estate matters in a flexible way.

There are a number of exceptions, as well, to the elimination of the minister’s appeal from tribunal decisions—I’d like to get this on the record as there was a suggestion or an inference that loopholes existed for political influence in these appeal boards. The tribunals are established to provide impartial decision-making that is independent of government.

This proposal to eliminate appeals to a minister from decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal would be consistent with the objectives of a modern administrative justice system and with the other land tribunals whose decisions are not appealable to a minister. This is an important step forward to acknowledge the independence and impartiality of the tribunal and political decision-making.

Madam Speaker, there is so much to Bill 245 that is going to help improve our justice system moving forward. I’ll spend my last few minutes going over a very high-level

summary. As I mentioned earlier, I think the team working with the Attorney General has done an excellent job drafting this bill. I know I spoke with the Attorney General a number of months ago. He said at that time—and this is long before we’re here today—that COVID-19 has brought the justice system 25 years in 25 days because we were forced to make changes, forced to make improvements that would have never come up, because so many people who have a vested interest from all sides would have had no appetite for change. Change was forced upon us. Hopefully this will be far better for people.

If there’s something that maybe came out of COVID that in some small way could be positive, it could be these improvements to the justice system.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the team, with the Attorney General and his PA, the member for Durham, have done an excellent job. The Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021, would, if passed, transform the ways Ontarians access the justice system in the courtroom and beyond in rural, northern, Indigenous and francophone communities.

If passed, the Accelerating Access to Justice Act will:

—help fill judicial vacancies more quickly so Ontarians will be able to have their matters heard by a judge in a timely manner and within fewer days;

—permanently allow the virtual witnessing of wills and powers of attorney to make it easier for people to get these important affairs in order without the limitations of travelling to access these services in-person;

—promote the interests of children by giving children—I think this is one of the most important things—a greater voice in the court process and better focusing on resources of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer;

—create the Ontario Land Tribunal to reduce delays and make the land dispute resolution process more efficient by creating a single forum to resolve disputes;

—increase access to justice in French by expanding and guaranteeing the ability of francophones to file documents in French at all Ontario courthouses and for all matters, including civil and family law;

—modernizing estate laws, including changes that would help Ontarians resolve their estates quickly, efficiently and safely.

The other issue that was raised was about the appointment of the chair of the JAAC. The question was, are you allowing chairs in the JAAC to stay on as interim or indefinitely? Currently, the Attorney General can only designate a chair for a fixed three-year term, and that same person may serve as chair for two more terms. The government is proposing in this bill to permit the chair to be designated for a term of up to three years instead. The Attorney General would retain the ability to designate that same person as a chair for multiple terms.

This proposed amendment would align with the statutory language used for the chair of the Justices of the Peace Appointments Advisory Committee and the other statutory agencies. This change will facilitate the designation of a chair on a short-term basis when the position becomes vacant unexpectedly by, for example, allowing for a new chair to be designated from the existing committee members for a term that aligns with the remainder of their term as a committee member. Each committee member would continue to hold office for fixed three-year terms.

Madam Speaker, it would create the Ontario Land Tribunals to reduce delays and make the land dispute resolution process more efficient by creating a single forum to resolve disputes.

It would increase access to justice in French by expanding and guaranteeing the ability of francophones to file documents in French at all Ontario courthouses and for all matters including civil and family law.

It would modernize estates laws, including changes that would help Ontarians resolve their estates and other legal matters quickly, efficiently and safely.

Madam Speaker, there are a number of important changes in this bill. It’s really something that the Attorney General and his parliamentary assistant should be commended for. Everything around us has become more convenient and more accessible over the years, especially with COVID-19 forced on us.

When I was first elected 14 years ago, I don’t think I could ever have imagined the virtual world we are living in now. I didn’t even have a BlackBerry. I didn’t know what the word “Twitter” meant, and maybe some people wish I had never found out. I remember my first day here, in the Legislature’s dining room. A reporter from down home was here doing a story at that time, and he took a picture of my son showing me how to access and use my BlackBerry. Some people think maybe I never should have taken that lesson.

Anyway, just yesterday I was in a virtual meeting discussing line 5 with leaders from the government and the business community on both sides of the Canada-US border. Last week, I hosted a meeting with 75 different stakeholders, all interested in line 5 and its impact on Ontario, which we’ll hear more about later today—so if you’re watching today, tune in later this afternoon. Just a few years ago, it would have taken months to find a way to pull all of these people together for a meeting that would have had to travel. Now it can be done almost instantly.

Important documents like wills and powers of attorney can be signed and returned on your phone in an instant, as long as you’re following the rules. There’s no need to find time to head down to your lawyer’s office. I know your lawyers are glad to see you, but now we don’t have to do that. That’s no slag on the lawyers present.

Our government is committed to ensuring that Ontario is the best place to live and work anywhere in the world. If at some point you have to access the justice system, our system should be the model that every other jurisdiction aims to replicate. The growth and well-being of Ontario communities demands easier and faster access to justice and a justice system that works for all people.

I think the Attorney General and the parliamentary assistant have done terrific work.

I’ll wind up now. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your courtesy and understanding this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: We’ve seen in this Legislature time and time again—even recently, just a couple of days ago—through government agencies, where this government appoints failed Conservative candidates, donors, friends, insiders to government agencies.

My question to the member opposite is simple: When you are looking at politicizing the appointments of judges, when you are giving the Attorney General the unfettered ability to pick and choose who they want by endless lists of candidates till they get someone they like, how is it that the people of this province are supposed to believe, based on your history with government agencies, that you will not be appointing judges based on their political ideology or whether or not they have supported the Conservative Party in the past?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’m sure this wouldn’t be the only government that has ever been accused of that, rightly or wrongly.

Madam Speaker, I think the new bill calls for a minimum of six people eligible to be appointed, volunteered by that committee, submitted by that committee. Then, the Attorney General, in consultation with his staff and others, would take a look, narrow that down and come up with—I’m sure we’ve had some great appointments in the past.

I know the NDP government put forward people when they were in government, and I’m sure they were very honourable and served well.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions?

Ms. Lindsey Park: I enjoyed how you highlighted examples from your constituents.

I want to raise another example that an estates lawyer highlighted to me on how—I think we’re all aware—people aren’t aware sometimes of the formalities of doing a will. So this bill provides a bit more flexibility around that.

In one particular matter which this lawyer’s office became involved in, the deceased died while writing what he had intended to be a holograph will, benefiting his fiancé. The court found the document was not a will, because the deceased’s signature appeared at the top of the document, rather than the end after the dispositive provisions, and the judge lacked the jurisdiction to admit the document to probate because of Ontario’s strict compliance regime. A great-aunt from whom the deceased had been estranged inherited the estate as a result. This would change that.

Why is that a good thing? And have you heard similar stories in your riding?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you to the member for Durham for that great question. I know she has done a great job advocating for access to justice throughout this province. Like I said earlier, she was down to my riding.

Yes, I’ve heard of people—I mentioned the one case of a young lady who was more or less disinherited because I guess her father didn’t get around to changing his will. He thought everybody would do the right thing someday, but it didn’t happen. Nobody is ever ready to go, but some time it’s going to happen, so you had better plan ahead.

I’ve heard about wills that were written—a farmer got injured one time and he wrote what he wanted to happen, it’s sad to say, in his own blood on the fender of the tractor. He made a will out, and the fender of the tractor was submitted in the courtroom as evidence.

This will eliminate a lot of those kinds of things. I think it’s a great improvement on the system.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions?

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a pleasure to stand in my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin and to add my question to Bill 245. When I and the people of Algoma–Manitoulin hear words like “modernize,” “streamline” and “accelerate,” those are a lot of the terms we heard under the 15 years of the Liberal government, and the more and more that we’re here, I’m hearing a lot of this coming from this government as well.

My question to the member is on access to justice. Is the fact that there have been cuts from 160 adjudicators to 87 adjudicators going to help individuals? Is the fact that in northern Ontario the reality is that we don’t have broadband access going to help individuals? Is the fact that one third of the budget cuts to legal aid—is that going to help individuals across this province? And the fact that you’re taking away and you are consolidating five tribunals into one, which is going to bog down the system, which is going to take out a lot of the resources and expertise: Is that going to help people across this province?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you to the member for Algoma–Manitoulin for those great questions. I know about broadband shortages. Even though we live down in sunny southwestern Ontario, we have lots of parts of my riding that don’t have adequate broadband either, so I will certainly support what you say there with the improvements to broadband. We need all of that in all parts of Ontario. That’s something I’m glad the member brought up, because that’s something we’re working on with SWIFT and getting more money into all of the different ridings of Ontario to try to get people that last mile, to get them Internet.

But I think I did touch on the five tribunals. It’s the feeling of the expert, non-partisan officials at the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, who advised that the proposed consolidation would not have, in their words, “a significant effect on the environment.”

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions?

Mr. Jeremy Roberts: I appreciated the remarks from the member from Sarnia–Lambton on this important piece of legislation.

One of the things that I’m most excited about in this legislation is the move to make permanent virtual witnessing. This was something that our government brought in as a temporary measure as part of an emergency order during COVID, when we wanted to make sure that people weren’t going out and putting themselves at risk too often, but now we’re going to make this permanent. I think this is a huge step forward in making sure that government and legal services are more accessible to all generations, and pulling government, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

I wonder if the member from Sarnia–Lambton could comment a little bit on how this measure and others in this bill are going to really help his constituents.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you to the member from Ottawa for that great question. Yes, the virtual witnessing: I’m really happy to see us go that way. When we’re done COVID—hopefully sooner than later—and we stay with virtual witnessing, I’m sure this is going to be great in child custody cases, in domestic violence cases, other issues of violence where people could be intimidated, have been intimidated through their own fears of actually maybe coming into a courtroom—whether it’s children, women or men, even, who are maybe intimidated to come into the courtroom and face the accused.

So I think these types of things, if we move forward with these, that give people the option to appear virtually—I think it can only get better. It can only serve law reform in a better way.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further questions?

Mr. Faisal Hassan: I was just listening to the member from Sarnia–Lambton intently. I know that you will agree that access to justice is very important. Putting in barriers to access to justice—we have seen that many folks now are not able to have representation at the Landlord and Tenant Board and other access to justice. And also, cutting the legal aid support mechanisms—how are we going to improve? This bill doesn’t. If you look under

schedule 6 and 10, it does make barriers.

Accelerating justice is not access to justice. Would you elaborate how you would improve and make access to justice essential to this bill?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you to the member from York South–Weston for that great question. I always appreciate your comments and questions in the House.

Well, I’ll tell you, I think there can always be improvements to justice and legal aid in all of those forms. I have recently helped a family member of my own through the legal system, and I’ll tell you, if you don’t have the resources and you don’t have somebody behind you to help you, you’re in a lot of trouble, because I have seen this. I have seen it and experienced it myself, and a lot of friends of mine and that.

I would certainly encourage the ministry of justice and the Attorney General etc. to look at ways that we can work with the legal system, with the law reform, and to make sure that those types of things are available to every individual in this province—no matter their race, creed, colour or their sexual orientation—and make them all available to them.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents to talk about Bill 245, the Accelerating Access to Justice Act.

First and foremost, what’s in this bill is giving politicians the power to affect the appointment process in Ontario, so I want to clarify some information that’s coming from the government side of the House, some of the stuff they were glossing over when they were talking about how they were expanding the number of people to be presented at a time for potential appointment from two to six. They’re saying that would give the Attorney General the ability to have six people to choose from.

Surely that would eliminate the potential for failed Conservatives or any party candidate, for donors to be weeded out, for people who have historically supported that particular party in the past—surely that would eliminate that from happening, but that is not entirely accurate. That is not the entire picture, but this government doesn’t want to talk about that.

In this bill, they are giving the ability for the Attorney General to reject every single candidate that comes forward. So six come forward and the Attorney General says, “Nope, doesn’t align with my ideology.” Another six come forward: “Nope, haven’t run for us.” Another six come forward: “Nope, not supporters of ours.” And this cycle keeps going and keeps going and keeps going until the Attorney General finds someone who fits the bill perfectly and fits the narrative of the government.

So I want to be clear about that, because that’s not information that’s coming from the government side. They’re trying to tell people that by increasing the number of candidates that can be presented at a time, that somehow makes this less politicized or less partisan. In fact, what they have done is put a process in place that completely politicizes and opens up that process for political appointments, appointments made based on political ideology or political support of a particular party, whoever that may be in power at the time.

As I pointed out, we’ve seen two appointments this week at government agencies who have a long history of supporting Conservatives, a long history of donating to the Conservatives. One of them from my riding, Al Teshuba, actually ran federally for the Conservatives. I’m happy to say he was defeated by my colleague Brian Masse, who’s an incredible MP. But this government has rewarded him with an appointment. What we see all too often is that the people that they are appointing at government agencies have no background or qualifications when it comes to the appointment that they are being given.

Again, I go back to how can the people of Ontario, how can my constituents believe that the process they have now worked into, or are working to get into, the justice system of appointing judges is not going to be the same cycle that we’re currently seeing with them through government appointments?

Criminal Lawyers’ Association vice president Daniel Brown says this bill undermines the independence and risks politicizing the judicial appointments process. That’s not us as New Democrats saying that; that is the Criminal Lawyers’ Association vice president saying that. Instead of the law society, the Ontario Bar Association and the Federation of Ontario Law Associations having independent choice over representatives, it’s now subject to the Attorney General’s approval.

I go back to the issue that I raised at the beginning: the concerns from within the legal system around giving the Attorney General the opportunity to accept or reject whoever they want to, with the potential of them doing that in an endless cycle until they get somebody who fits their political purpose.

Speaker, I want to jump forward because I know that I have to watch the clock. Although I had 20 minutes, I know that we are running out of time before we go into members’ statements. So I’m going to jump forward to some of the concerns that I have heard from my constituents, issues they’ve had accessing justice prior to this bill coming in, issues that started under the previous Liberal government but have been made exponentially worse due to cuts brought in by this Conservative government.

I have heard from constituents—I’m sure we all have; I know the government members have, too—who are waiting years for a Social Benefits Tribunal hearing, all while continuously being denied access to social assistance. Let’s put that into perspective. People in this province with disabilities are being denied access to the income support they need because of the backlog and how slow it’s taking to get a hearing at the Social Benefits Tribunal, and yet this government in this bill is going to make that process even longer—even longer.

Instead of doing what they should be doing, which is increasing social assistance rates for those who are on social assistance and already live in deep poverty, explain to me how someone on $733 a month who would need access to a lawyer for a Social Benefits Tribunal hearing, or for any other issues, if they want to access a lawyer for any other issue, how they’re going to afford that when $733 a month doesn’t even cover their rent?

How is someone with a disability who receives $1,169 a month supposed to be able to cover rent and food and be able to put clothes on their back, purchase the medications that aren’t covered under social assistance and still be able to afford a lawyer to represent them at a tribunal hearing or in court? It’s not possible.

What this government has done is already taken a very vulnerable, marginalized group and made their living conditions worse for them, and now they’re going to deny them access to legal representation. That is what we see throughout this bill. We see that the racialized communities are disproportionately affected, we see women fleeing domestic violence disproportionately represented and affected, we see children disproportionately affected by this—all in a negative way. We see new Canadians, low-income people, people with disabilities who are all negatively impacted. The most vulnerable people in this province are the most negatively impacted by this.

I know my colleagues have raised this, but it bears repeating: This Conservative government, the Ford Conservative government, slashed legal aid funding by 30%, about $133 million. You tell me how that increases or accelerates access to justice for low-income people in this province, when you have slashed funding and their access to legal representation—the only legal representation that they can afford. It does not include well-funded and properly administered legal aid, which is widely seen as the bedrock in terms of access to justice; it certainly is on this side of the House. It’s not on that side of the House.

In fact, Speaker, it doesn’t even mention legal aid in this bill. I suggest or suspect that it doesn’t mention legal aid because this government has cut legal aid and they’re trying to hide the fact that, almost every step of the way, in every policy they bring forward and every bill they put forward, there is an attack on the most marginalized people in this province: racialized people, low-income people, people with disabilities.

Legal aid has significantly been cut by the Conservative government, which, as I said, disproportionately affects low-income and racialized individuals. Legal Aid Ontario was forced to cut services, and scores of defence counsel were driven out of private practice, leaving an unfilled access-to-justice gap. Now, explain to me, when you are driving lawyers out and there is no one to fill that gap, how that is creating better access to justice for the people who needed those legal aid lawyers.

Speaker, legal aid is an essential service, especially during a pandemic when the government is refusing to implement an eviction ban. Since the pandemic began, Legal Aid Ontario has approved payments for additional work such as bail hearings and case management meetings that are required as a result of the pandemic. But I want to be clear, under an already reduced budget, legal aid is running out of money. When they do, it will be catastrophic for the most vulnerable, marginalized people in this province.

Speaker, being cognizant of the time and that members’ statements are going to begin soon, I just want to say that, every step of the way, this government has said one thing and done another. They’ve tried their very best to make their deep cuts to our social safety nets, while trying to package it and put a pretty bow on top and say, “Look how progressive we are and look how much we actually care about every person in this province.” Yet you take that bow off the top, you open that package up, and it’s pretty ugly inside.

To the vulnerable people in this province who are being directly, deeply, negatively impacted by what this government is doing, on their behalf, I say: Shame on you. Shame on you. During a pandemic, especially, we should be working collectively. They like to say that we don’t work with them; the reality is, they don’t listen to us and they don’t listen to the people in this province. But during a pandemic, especially, we should be working as a collective to do everything that we can to lift people up, not to—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it is time for members’ statements. A reminder to all members as they come in to please be respectful of others who have the floor.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Farm education

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: For many students, visiting a local farm is a highlight of the school year. But it is a highlight that they had to go without this year.

If you can’t bring students to the farm, why not bring the farm to the students? That’s exactly what two Perth–Wellington families set out to do.

Amanda Twiss and her husband, James, of Mapletwiss Farm in Damascus, raise chickens, cattle and pigs. Their goal is to open a store on-site and offer customers the chance to see the farm and the animals. But the pandemic forced them to postpone this.

Instead, they have created a YouTube series called Fun Facts and Farm Chats. The project is intended to bring kids closer to the farm and closer to where their food comes from. The videos are based on the elementary-school curriculum. Their 10-year-old son Colton is involved as well, and I’m told he is quite engaged in raising their chickens.

Jess and Ryan Pfisterer, who also farm near Damascus, started Pfisterer Farm School. They also wanted to give young people a way to spend a day on the farm. Their one-minute videos are geared towards grades 1 to 3. Parents and teachers can use them as a resource. They also allow classrooms to “ask a farmer.” Each class can submit up to five questions.

It’s good to see the farm families in Perth–Wellington promoting agriculture and education. We take pride in our world-class farms and agriculture businesses. We grow some of the safest and best-quality food in the world, and I want to thank Mapletwiss Farm and Pfisterer Farm for bringing their farms to the classroom.

Farmers in India

Ms. Sara Singh: For months, farmers in India have been peacefully protesting against harmful agricultural reform bills that would have detrimental impacts to their livelihoods. These peaceful protestors, many of them seniors, have been met with brutal violence and have been detained, often illegally. Activists and journalists like Nodeep Kaur and Disha Ravi have been subjected to torture and other abuses by the Indian police.

As a great-granddaughter of a farming family from a rural village in Punjab, I am proud to stand in solidarity with those on the ground in India and around the world and members of the diaspora who continue to raise their voices against these injustices.

I want to thank organizations like KhalsaAid, United Sikhs and the Sikh Motorcycle Club for providing support to those protestors and helping to educate communities about these protests, one of the largest in human history.

I also want to encourage members of this House to also learn more about the protests in India and to understand how they too can raise their voices, because as Dr. King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” We all have a responsibility to raise our voices and stand in solidarity.

To the farmers in India: We are with you. We hear you. We see you. Continue on in solidarity.

Places of religious worship

Mr. Rod Phillips: During this difficult year, the people of Ontario have had to appreciate the things that truly matter in their lives. For many Ontarians, including many of my constituents in Ajax, religious faith and worship have been important, vital means to cope with the pandemic. In fact, according to Stats Canada’s national household survey, 75% of Ontarians profess some form of religious faith. In Ajax, that takes the form of 30 places of worship.

Churches, mosques, temples, synagogues and other places of worship have always been integral to the social fabric of our community in Ajax and in Durham region. In addition to worship services, those facilities operate food banks, charities, child care and other supports for the most vulnerable in our community.

Recognizing the crucial role that these religious institutions play in Ajax, like many members of this House, I’ve been working closely and regularly with local faith leaders to provide support and make sure that there is mutual understanding as they face the challenges of operating safely and providing spiritual, emotional and physical health support for our community.

Later this morning, I’m proud that, along with our faith leaders, I’ll be meeting with Dr. Robert Kyle, Durham’s medical officer of health, and Dr. Pepi McTavish, the associate medical officer of health, to talk about safety concerns and ensure that our faith institutions can continue to support our community. Working together with public health officials, we’ll continue to ensure that our places of worship can support Ajax and be a model across our province.

COVID-19 immunization

Mr. Wayne Gates: Yesterday, the Ford government announced that on March 15, residents can begin booking appointments for COVID-19 vaccines. Frankly, people are upset that they had to wait this long for that information. In Quebec and Alberta, seniors are already able to book their life-saving vaccines. The Premier blames the Prime Minister, yet other Premiers have been able to get vaccines for their residents.

Over 360 people have died in Niagara, and neither the Premier, the Minister of Health or anyone from the Ford government, including the member from Niagara West, has answered the questions the residents of Niagara want to know. So I’ll ask him again: Where exactly were our life-saving Moderna vaccines diverted to, and when can we expect our fair share sent back to Niagara?

Appointments don’t mean anything if residents in Niagara can’t actually get the vaccine. The vaccine is the only way we can safely end the Premier’s cycle of shutdowns and infections. This Premier has failed the people of Niagara when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The residents of Niagara are owed answers and their fair share of vaccines. The people of Niagara deserve to know if the COVID-19 vaccines they were promised and are now owed will actually be available for them when the vaccine hotline opens. And again, I’ll repeat: 360 people have died in Niagara of COVID-19, most in long-term-care and retirement homes.

Heart Month

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: We’ve just come to the end of February, which is Heart Month. COVID-19 has an impact on heart health in many ways. People with heart conditions can be vulnerable to more severe outcomes, and COVID may also cause damage to the hearts and vascular system of previously healthy individuals.

The pandemic may be discouraging some people experiencing heart disease or stroke in Ontario from seeking medical care. But this month, Heart Month, is a good reminder that our hospitals and health care providers are doing everything they can to keep patients safe.

It is a reminder that the risks of ignoring symptoms of heart conditions or stroke are far greater than the risk of seeking medical care you need, and it’s a reminder to make sure to keep your scheduled medical appointments and let your health care practitioner know if you’re experiencing any changes in your health, because every minute counts—and as the team at RVH reminds me, time is muscle. If you experience symptoms or you know someone who is having symptoms of a stroke or heart attack, please call 911 right away.

To mark heart health this month, I joined MPP Doug Downey, who invited me to join the heart-and-stroke month challenge by jumping rope for heart and stroke. I challenged Councillor Natalie Harris to do the same. This campaign will help the Heart and Stroke Foundation continue to make a difference in the heart health of all Canadians.

COVID-19 immunization

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning. Ontarians are waking up today to news that our province is not ready to deliver the COVID-19 vaccine and that there will be even more delays. Seniors over 80 won’t be able to book an appointment until March 15. Those in the 60-to-65 group, still at high risk, will have to wait until Canada Day. Essential workers are still waiting for cabinet to decide when they will get the shot, and while this government hasn’t even shared details about how people will be able to sign up, in Quebec and Alberta today, people are able to call or go online to set up their appointments.

We are in a race against time. Faster-spreading variants are taking hold now. We learned today that kids and staff at schools in my riding have been exposed to the variants. I spoke with a public health nurse yesterday here in Toronto who told me they are very, very afraid.

My constituents, good people like Linda Grobovsky, who I spoke with just minutes ago, are wondering what this government has been waiting for. Essential workers, seniors, small businesses cannot afford another make-it-up-as-you-go plan from this government. When will the Premier stop idling and shift this vital immunization campaign into high gear so we can save lives?

Coldest Night of the Year

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Well, everyone, if you hadn’t noticed, it’s getting kind of cold outside. It may be time to get those thick winter jackets out, those warm Canadian mittens and that nice wool toque that grandma knitted for you last Christmas—you know, the one that you haven’t had the chance to wear yet. But you want to make sure that you’re all prepared and bundled up for whatever the weather may bring.

But sadly, this might not be the case for everyone. As the weather gets extremely cold, many are left to fend for themselves on the streets, using whatever they can to keep themselves warm at night. Shelters are quickly reaching capacity as less fortunate people must line up early to get a warm spot to stay.

Chatham-Kent sees that struggle, and I stand here today to proudly talk about an event that made a difference in my hometown. On Saturday, February 20, NeighbourLink Chatham-Kent hosted the 2021 Coldest Night of the Year walk. In total, 21 teams and 135 walkers, to which I was the captain of our office’s team, set out to walk the usual five-kilometre route, following COVID-19 guidelines, to raise money and awareness for charities serving people experiencing homelessness.

I am pleased to announce that we raised over $49,000, which surpassed their initial goal of $30,000. This money can now be used towards NeighbourLink Chatham-Kent’s exciting initiatives to help provide free-of-charge food and transportation to local residents.

Even though the walk was on Saturday, anyone can still donate today by visiting the Coldest Night of the Year website.

Foreign-trained doctors

Ms. Doly Begum: Earlier this month, I met a young woman who is a trained doctor. She emigrated to Canada with a medical degree and since has faced immense obstacles, unable to practise as a doctor.

When the world was opening the doors for foreign-trained doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic, she and many other IMGs—international medical graduates—took the initiative to register so they could serve the people of Ontario on the front lines alongside other doctors, but were not able to do anything other than volunteer.

This young woman and her colleagues have been facing barrier after barrier while trying to find a way to work as physicians in Ontario. IMGs and foreign-trained physicians work day and night to complete their qualification exams, but the current system makes it almost impossible for them to achieve any validated experience that will take them to the next step.

This is not an isolated story. Many highly qualified and educated professionals come to Canada in search of better opportunities, for a better life and for the future of their children. Yet systemic barriers make it almost impossible to find work in their fields, and they end up working minimum-wage jobs despite working on the front lines, serving our communities.

Ontario is home to many immigrants and refugees who have settled here. We take pride in our diversity and our multiculturalism. Our government must work together to build a comprehensive strategy to support foreign-trained workers across all fields and ensure that we’re preventing brain drain and deskilling among immigrant communities across Ontario.

Recreational facilities

Mr. David Piccini: I was made aware of a truly remarkable story from my riding of a group of volunteers who are going above and beyond to make ensure people have a place to skate.

In today’s difficult times, places to go to get fresh air and exercise are so important. In Castleton, volunteers have set up three ice surfaces and a crokicurl rink for kids and families to skate on at the Castleton Sports Club. Many volunteers have made this possible, but I’d like to give a special shout-out to Jeff Turney, Stacy King and Bruce Bond, who routinely visit the rinks in the early morning, mid-afternoon and evening to make sure that the ice is okay and that there is flooding and maintenance of the rinks.

Community rinks like these are essential to life in rural Ontario. These volunteers arrive sometimes as early as 5:30 in the morning, putting countless hours in. The community sees the work they do and we honour it. There have been no issues at the rink. Folks respect distancing regulations, and the last one out turns out the lights. That’s the way we do it in small-town Ontario.

The rinks are located just beside Northumberland Hills Public School. Kids come to skate after school. It’s been going on for so long now that the older kids help the younger kids lace up their skates and provide pucks to play some pickup, and all is done while safely respecting public health guidelines.

The rinks are located, as I said, at Castleton Sports Club, a not-for-profit charity. I would like to thank all the volunteers, especially Jeff, Stacy and Bruce. Thank you for what you do for our community every day. We honour you; we appreciate you.

COVID-19 deaths

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the House to observe a moment of silence to pay tribute to the 120 Ontarians who have succumbed to COVID-19 over the past week.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Leader of the Opposition is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment of silence to pay tribute to the 120 Ontarians who have succumbed to COVID-19 over the past week. Agreed? Agreed.

Members will please rise.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for London West has a point of order.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion regarding the accelerated passage of Bill 239, the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, to help in the fight against COVID-19.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for London West is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion regarding the accelerated passage of Bill 239, the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, to help in the fight against COVID-19. Agreed? I heard a no.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

Long-term care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question today is for the Premier. Speaker, when families were losing their loved ones to COVID-19 in long-term care, the Premier promised that they would get the answers they deserve through a commission that the government established. That commission heard from Dr. Williams on Monday.

Two days before his appearance, the commission received 217,000 documents and 2,000 pages of handwritten notes from Dr. Williams—two days before his testimony. The notes were heavily redacted and Dr. Williams’s testimony was interfered with constantly by his lawyers, who were trying to, I guess, protect Dr. Williams from providing the information that people deserve.

If the government and the Premier really wanted to get the answers for Ontarians, if they really respected them, why does this look like a stinking cover-up?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdraw, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. The question has been placed.

Minister of Health to reply.

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you, Speaker. In fact, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, quite the opposite: We set up and allowed the commission to operate because I know there are many families that have inquiries. They were wondering what happened during the course of the COVID situation thus far. They want the answers, and we want them to have the answers.

This is a truly independent commission that is doing its work. Dr. Williams did appear before the commission. However, there were some concerns with respect to some of the entries in some of his documents related to a cabinet decision that it was the impression of counsel that they needed to be protected and not released. However, the matter did go before a mediation. It was determined that all of Dr. Williams’s documents should be submitted, and they were.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, unfortunately, Ontarians are going to keep wondering what really went wrong with the government’s response to COVID-19 in long-term care, because this commission is not getting the information in a timely fashion that they deserve. They were promised all information would be available. That’s what the Premier promised. The Premier, instead, dumped 217,000 documents on the commission a couple of days before Dr. Williams’s testimony. His notes have been heavily redacted. Lawyers have intervened at every moment of Dr. Williams’s testimony. Why is this government trying to prevent this commission from doing the job that Ontarians want and need them to do?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Well, in fact, the commission has been provided with the documents. Dr. Williams’s documents were not heavily redacted; they were provided in full. Dr. Williams provided his evidence. He has answered all of their questions. We have provided all of the documents the commission has requested.

Yes, there are 217,000 documents, because a lot has happened in the last year, as we’ve been dealing with COVID-19, across very many areas, and so that is something I know the commission is dealing with. But the reality is, we didn’t sit on our hands in dealing with it. We took action on a number of fronts. There are many documents, and they have all been produced.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Everybody in Ontario has watched as this government has stonewalled this commission, not providing documents in a timely fashion, and now 217,000 documents all of a sudden being dumped on the commission, and the government refuses to expand the length of time this commission has to do its work. It is absolutely shameful. In fact, one of the commission lawyers said this: “It is a gargantuan task, almost impossible” to get through all those documents.

Redacted notes from Dr. Williams, lawyers surrounding Dr. Williams not giving the commission the opportunity to properly question him: What is this government trying to hide from the people of Ontario?

Hon. Christine Elliott: Thank you, Speaker. Our government has been absolutely open and transparent with the people of Ontario since the day this pandemic started.

Dr. Williams was given free rein to say whatever he wanted to say—and he did—in front of the commission. He produced all of his documents. His documents were produced not redacted. The commission has all of the information they need. Documents were presented quickly to the commission.

There is a large volume of documents to deal with because a lot, as I said before, has been done. But we have been open and transparent. We have nothing to hide. We have had frequent representations by Dr. Williams and/or Dr. Yaffe before the public and before the media twice a week. We have press conferences where Dr. Williams also appears. We have modelling that’s presented by Dr. Brown and Dr. Sander. We have dashboards that we produce to the public on a regular basis, online.

We are producing everything that we have—

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

The next question? Once again, the Leader of the Opposition.

COVID-19 immunization

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier, but I do have to say the only way that they can pull the knife out of the back of Ontarians is by extending the commission’s time frame and allowing them to do their work.

But now I want to talk about yesterday, when we saw the Premier—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdraw.

Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about yesterday. As seniors in our province are anxiously awaiting their chance to get a vaccine, the Premier stood in his place yesterday and suggested that somehow we’re leading the country when it comes to vaccinations. I can tell you that that information is not actually accurate.

In fact, today we see the Quebec portal opening, and seniors are registering for their vaccines. In Alberta, of course, their portal opened yesterday: 25,000 Albertans were provided an appointment, and they’re getting their vaccines come next week.

In fact, the information the Premier provided is not accurate. We’re actually seventh out of all the provinces when it comes to the vaccine rollout.

My question to the Premier is: Is he prepared to correct his record, give the people of Ontario the respect that they deserve—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. To reply, the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: I know the challenges when it comes to math with the NDP, but there are a million tests altogether; we’ve done 600,000. I think everyone that can do math on this side—that’s 60%. We have 38% of the population.

I love how they compare it to other provinces here. First of all, I love the Premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney. He’s working his back off. They have four and a half million—

Interjections.

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

Restart the clock. The Premier can conclude his—

Hon. Doug Ford: They have a population of four and a half million. We saw what happened out there: The system crashed. Now my great friend, François Legault, who is one of the best Premiers out there—they haven’t even done one single second dose. We’ve done over 250,000 second doses.

We are leading the country in vaccinations. But, Mr. Speaker, we’re focusing on the most vulnerable: the long-term-care patients, the seniors, the hard-working health care workers that are out there. We have to get them vaccinated first.

Do you know what the problem is, Mr. Speaker? We need the vaccines. That’s—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, across our country, it’s a race: The race is on between vaccines and variants, and in our province, the variants are winning. That is something that is really troubling to the seniors of our province.

In fact, when our vaccines are being slow-walked out the door when the government can’t seem to get it together, here is what Dr. Samir Sinha says: “With variants of concern that are circulating around and becoming the dominant strain, we’re really worried that we’re going to lose a lot more older people along the way.”

Does the government actually have any information about the number of seniors whose lives are at risk because this government has delayed the rollout of the vaccines until the middle of March?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, thank goodness our government took action when it came to the airports, where the variants were coming in by the truckload. If it wasn’t for us, there would be more variants. So thank goodness we stood up the testing at the airports and we made sure we worked hand-in-hand with the federal government, which we appreciate.

But again, Mr. Speaker, when you don’t have any ammunition, you can’t go to war. The ammunition is the vaccine. We need the vaccines. As soon as we get more vaccines, we’ll make sure that we get people vaccinated. We’ll start with 80-plus, which some areas are going to be starting because of the great leadership in the public health units.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, here’s what matters to Ontarians. We have the highest number of COVID cases right now: 10,500. Ontario has the second-highest number of deaths across the country: 6,893. And of course, tragically, 3,739 of those deaths were in long-term care.

Here’s the problem: 96% of COVID deaths are happening with people who—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Please stop the clock. Come on.

Restart the clock. The Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ninety-six per cent of COVID deaths are with people over the age of 60. They are the most at risk of catching COVID-19 in the third wave. The variants are here.

The question to the Premier is, with the COVID-19 variants amongst us, with the fact that the Premier has reopened this province too quickly, with the fact that the vaccines have been delayed so egregiously, how is this government going to make sure that people get the vaccine they need? Does he have a backup plan to ensure that people have the vaccines?

Hon. Doug Ford: Thank you for the question. Through you, Mr. Speaker: Those are some numbers from that side. Now, I’m going to tell you the real numbers here.

The real numbers are, we’re leading North America—any jurisdiction our size—with the lowest cases per 100,000. We’re leading Canada, with the exception of the small Maritime provinces, in the lowest cases. I’ll read them out once again: Per 100,000 people, Ontario is at 68. Those are staggering numbers—68. Canada’s average is 80. My great pal over in Saskatchewan—it’s 121 compared to our 68. Alberta, which you were talking about, is 103 compared to our 68. Quebec is 93 compared to our 68. BC is 92. Manitoba is 87. Our great friends out there in Newfoundland—they’re doing very well considering the outbreak. They’re at 67.

Again, Mr. Speaker, outside of the smaller Maritime provinces, we are leading North America in every category, from testing to vaccinations. We are the leaders here in Ontario because of the great work we’re doing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Opposition, come to order.

The next question.

Personal support workers

Ms. Sara Singh: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier told personal support workers in Ontario that he really hoped he could give them a raise, but that at the end of the day these things are just simply not up to him.

Well, PSWs in communities like Brampton are wondering when they’re going to see a permanent pay increase. Speaker, if the Premier is not the one in charge, who is?

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker: For the first time in Canadian history, we are hiring 8,200 PSWs. For the first jurisdiction in North America, we’re going to have four hours of care. For the first time, we’re seeing rapid builds. We’re building thousands of beds. Compared to the Liberals—I think it was 600 they barely scraped by in 15 years. We’re doing more in a month than they were doing in 15 years.

We’re going to continue building long-term care. We’re going to make sure we enhance long-term care and improve the disaster we inherited from both the NDP and the Liberals. And we’re going to end up hiring a total of 27,000 PSWs and nurses to fix the problem we inherited.

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

Ms. Sara Singh: Speaker, through you to the Premier: Hiring them is one part of the solution. There is a retention issue because these are precariously low-paid employees. So if we don’t address that, we’re going to see this issue continue on in the sector.

Yesterday, the Premier also said that he is being lobbied every single day by PSWs who are asking him to keep his promise and follow through with the raises that they’ve been promised for almost over a year now, but he still continues to say that’s not up to him.

Again, to the Premier, since you’re clearly not the one making the decisions over there, who is? And when are these PSWs going to get the permanent pay raise they deserve?

Hon. Doug Ford: Actually, through you, Mr. Speaker, I’m going to correct that statement, if I can. I’ll be lobbying everyone on this side. Yes, it’s up to us, but guess what? For 15 years, they were underpaid. They never got a raise until we stepped up to the plate and gave them a $3-an-hour pay increase. We will keep that $3—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The opposition has to come to order.

Premier, conclude.

Hon. Doug Ford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We were the ones—after years of neglect, decades of neglect, we’re the government that stood up and we’re giving them a $3-an-hour pay increase. And we will keep that: We will make sure they are properly paid until we can attract more people to this great profession.

They’re absolute heroes. I backed those PSWs—and they all know it—from day one. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition might want to visit one of these long-term-care homes and see the reaction I get from the PSWs and the nurses when I go in there. I love them and they love us.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Since certain members are completely ignoring my requests to come to order, as if I wasn’t standing here at all, completely ignoring what I’m saying, we’re going to move to warnings.

The next question.

Natural gas pipeline

Mr. Robert Bailey: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: Premier, I am once again honoured to rise in the Legislature to speak to you about an important topic to my constituents—and to all Ontarians, in fact—the future of line 5.

The impact of a line 5 shutdown would be truly devastating not only for Ontario, but for Michigan, Ohio and Illinois as well as Quebec. A line 5 shutdown puts at least 15% of northwest Ohio’s fuel supply at risk as well as more than half of the jet fuel supply for the Detroit Metro Airport. Line 5 supplies 65% of the propane demand in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and 55% of Michigan’s state-wide propane needs. The light crude transported by line 5 feeds refineries in the upper Midwest and in eastern Canada.

Speaker, can the Premier please share with my constituents and the House the importance of the Ontario-Michigan partnership and the need to continue to work together on line 5 and energy infrastructure projects on both sides of this border?

Hon. Doug Ford: I want to thank our great member from Sarnia–Lambton for continuing to fight on the line 5 issue.

I first want to take the opportunity to highlight the positive aspects regarding our relationship with Michigan economically, and the energy sector as well. Michigan is Ontario’s largest export market in the US and the largest source of imports, Mr. Speaker. It is Ontario’s largest two-way trading partner in the US, with $82.3 billion in total two-way trade. Close to 600,000 jobs in Michigan depend on trade and investment with Canada.

Michigan continues to be a major importer of Ontario electricity. These are big numbers here: In 2020, close to half of Ontario’s energy exports were sent to Michigan. That’s 9,835 gigawatts compared to what we received off them, only 26 gigawatts, so it’s good that we’re exporting our energy down there.

But, Mr. Speaker—

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: My supplementary question is back to the Premier as well. Premier, as we have discussed, Enbridge’s line 5 crossing at the Mackinac Straits is a line which has been in service without leaking since 1953. That is a track record of success and responsibility by everyone involved. For more than 65 years, line 5 has delivered light oil and natural gas liquids that heat homes and business, fuel vehicles and power industry in the Great Lakes states.

In May 2016, during the Obama administration, the United States Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the federal regulator in charge of pipeline safety, commissioned an extensive safety review that found no serious problems with this operation. In June 2020, a follow-up report concluded that a reported displaced anchor placed no threat to the pipeline. If people know about these enhanced measures, would anyone favour a total cessation of line 5 activities as opposed to, say, fortifying potential weak points to further reduce the risk of a leak?

Speaker, can the Premier please share what impact the decision of closing line 5 would have on the working people in my riding and in the Great Lakes states, Quebec and Ontario?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, I would like to thank the member. The member is 100% right, Mr. Speaker, about the negative impacts this decision will have on the working people of Ontario and Michigan.

James Williamson, a steamfitter in Sarnia, said that the pipeline’s potential closure could impact workplaces like his. It would essentially shut down not only his work but all the reciprocal jobs around the region. He also mentioned that three of his brothers also work in the petrochemical industry and would be out of jobs on line 5 if it’s shut down, Mr. Speaker: “It would require us to travel and move our families”—lift their families up and move them out of the region—“to maintain ... income.”

Do you know what’s amazing, Mr. Speaker? Never in the history of this province has the pendulum ever swung so far. We now are the representatives of the hard-working private sector unions. And thanks to the Minister of Labour, the relationship he’s built up with the steelworkers, the steamfitters, the drywallers—

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

COVID-19 response

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: My question is for the Premier. There are multiple serious outbreaks in Thunder Bay schools. Four, so far, are now shifting back to virtual learning. Lakehead board trustees have voted to ask for all schools to go virtual. Teachers, education workers and many others have done everything they can, but the situation is getting worse by the day.

Unfortunately, our warnings and suggestions have been ignored—things like capping class size and more testing. When is this government going to start listening so we can keep Thunder Bay students safe and in school?

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, there is a high rate of community transmission taking place within the community. We are going to follow the public health advice, the medical officer of health’s recommendation when it comes to keeping schools open. That is the mission of the government.

But as we have said since before school reopened in September—I think what is the consensus, I’d hope, in this House—the risks within our community are reflected within our schools. It actually underscores the imperative of keeping transmission down and keeping our guard up as a province as we deal with variants of concern.

In the context of Thunder Bay, we have deployed additional investment—over $5 million for that board alone—in the context of COVID: for more hiring, for more staffing, for more cleaning. We’ve also mandated masking down to grade 1, requiring a stricter protocol before a child enters a school, and likewise the staff in the context of their screening. And, obviously, asymptomatic testing is expanded and accessible within schools right across the north, including in Thunder Bay, as we speak.

We’ll continue to be informed by the best medical advice to keep students safe and our staff safe, and keep the community rates down so that we can keep our schools open.

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

Ms. Judith Monteith-Farrell: My question is, again, for the Premier. I’m glad the minister mentioned community spread, because Thunder Bay advised this government a month ago that there is a state of emergency when it comes to COVID, but this government’s lack of investment continues even to this day. This ignoring of the urgency in Thunder Bay affects all of northern Ontario. When the Thunder Bay Jail had an outbreak, there was a very late response. This government failed.

I have advised this government again and again about the limited capacity of our health care systems to handle this kind of crisis. Now, as my caucus colleague the member from Kiiwetinoong has said, the COVID outbreak in Thunder Bay is threatening the people of Neskantaga, who are battling crisis after crisis.

What is this government doing for the people of Thunder Bay? This is an emergency. Why are we dragging our feet?

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

Hon. Christine Elliott: I can certainly assure the member opposite that we are watching the situation in Thunder Bay very carefully. We are aware that there is significant community transmission. We have put extra resources there. In fact, we’ve put in over 20 more assigned provincial case managers and contact tracers. We are receiving the tests in accurate time frames; in 97% of cases, we receive the reports back within 24 hours.

We have already invested over $2.7 million to the Thunder Bay hospital to create 30 more beds, and we are watching the situation very carefully now. As a matter of fact, I spoke with Dr. Williams about it yesterday, who is in regular contact with Dr. DeMille, the local public health manager, and that is something where we are receiving recommendations from Dr. Williams tomorrow upon receipt of data tonight, to determine where it needs to be placed and whether the emergency brake needs to be applied there or what else should happen. So we are watching the situation very, very carefully and supplying extra resources to help Thunder Bay deal with the situation.

COVID-19 response

Mr. Roman Baber: My question is to the Premier. For a year, the government is saying that it is listening to the experts. It isn’t. Speaking to practising doctors off the record, the majority will tell you that broad lockdowns are medical insanity. Focused protection is what’s needed.

Instead, the government is listening to public health career politicians; public health doctors driven by ideology; bureaucrats, many of whom have not seen a live patient in decades, pretending that they fully understand the predicament we’re in; the same people who try to prevent the consumption of sugary drinks, now with unlimited power, believing that they can reorder humankind, ruining millions of lives with impunity, with deadly implications.

My question to the Premier: By now, the Premier cannot deny that the lockdowns are deadly. Health, mental health, isolation, desperation, devastation—he knows it. Everyone in this House knows it. So if it isn’t about politics, if the health and safety of Ontarians is his first priority, and since we now know that lockdowns are deadly, then why are we still in lockdown?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I think the question really speaks for itself. We’ll continue to listen to the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of Health of the province of Ontario and those of the medical officers of health in the 34 public health units across the province. We actually, unlike the member opposite, value their opinion. We value the hard work of our medical professionals. Be it the nurses, PSWs or our doctors, they’ve done a great job, and we’ll continue to follow their advice.

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

Mr. Roman Baber: Speaker, the government House leader is talking about public health experts, but how about privately, or in open letters in the Post in May or in the Star in early June or in the Globe in July and then in the Sun in November, where dozens of practising doctors wrote to the Premier, publicly begging for a balanced approach?

How does the Premier not hear the suffering of millions of people? Why is he tone-deaf, especially now that everyday Ontarians are no longer afraid to speak, no longer afraid of the politically correct mob, or afraid to say that the lockdown is deadly? Can the Premier hear the millions of Ontarians pleading for some sort of normalcy, pleading to let their kids be kids again, pleading that he lets them work again? Now that we can all admit how deadly the lockdown is, why isn’t he listening? Why is he continuing to imprison us? Is it because of politics?

Is it because ending the lockdown now would amount to a devastating admission that everything he knowingly did since the summer was a deadly mistake?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a member of the opposition who voted in favour of every single initiative that this government brought in with respect to battling the COVID pandemic, in March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December. He, in the opposition, supported every single one of those measures.

Unlike the member opposite, we value the work of our health care professionals, and we’ll continue to be guided by them. That is why we’ve had the results that we have in the province. We are not going to let up fighting COVID-19 and keeping the people of the province of Ontario safe.

Natural gas pipeline

Mr. Robert Bailey: Speaker, through you and to Associate Minister Walker: I know that our government is working around the clock to help our economy recover from the unprecedented impacts of COVID-19. As public health units across this province transition back to the COVID-19 response framework, more Ontarians are going back to work.

Unfortunately, tens of thousands of workers in my riding and across this province face uncertainty because of a decision made by the Governor of Michigan to threaten to shut down Enbridge’s line 5 pipeline. Can the Associate Minister of Energy please tell this House what this government is doing to defend these energy jobs in my riding and across this province?

Hon. Bill Walker: I want to thank the hard-working member from Sarnia–Lambton for that important question and for his leadership on this critical file.

Last week, our government heard from concerned stakeholders in the Sarnia–Lambton area during a round table discussion about the potential impacts of the line 5 closure. One of them, Ross Tius from Local 663 of the plumbers, pipefitters and welders union, told us, “The lifestyle of Local 663’s members would be drastically changed. On average, this industry and its construction partners put $300 million to $500 million per year into the local economy. With Nova Chemical’s $2-billion investment here,” line 5 is critical “to keeping this Sarnia-Lambton community going.”

Mr. Speaker, as the hard-working member from Sarnia–Lambton said, 30,000 Ontarians and their families depend on the continued safe operation of this pipeline. I’m proud that our government, under Premier Ford’s leadership, is fighting them every step of the way.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I appreciate the minister’s and this government’s efforts to support the hard-working people of my community.

Mr. Speaker, line 5 is absolutely critical to our local economy and also critical to the energy security of our province and this country. Preventing this shutdown requires a Team Canada and, in fact, a Team North America approach. I’m grateful that the Premier and ministers have been working with the federal government and with our neighbours across the border to resolve this issue. Could the minister further expand and tell us how important it is for us to be in this together?

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you again for the question from the great member from Sarnia, Mr. Bob Bailey.

Mr. Speaker, the member from Sarnia is absolutely right. For our government, the line 5 issue is above politics. It’s all about people. If the Governor’s decision to shut down line 5 stands, it’s not just the people of Sarnia–Lambton who will feel the impact. People and businesses across Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Michigan itself, Mr. Speaker, will suffer. That is why we all need to be working together.

I hope that the official opposition will join us in expressing their support for the many unionized jobs and the non-unionized jobs that will be lost as a result of this decision. I encourage them to join us in speaking up for those workers in today’s take-note debate. But regardless, I want to assure the member that even if they don’t, we will continue to do so on this side of the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll remind members to refer to each other by their riding name or their ministerial title.

The next question.

Tenant protection

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the Premier. Agnes von Mehren lives at 103 Avenue Road, in a building owned by corporate landlord Hollyburn. In the last five years, tenants at 103 Avenue have had to pay for two above-guideline rent increases. And now, this corporate landlord has applied for another 11.3% increase, largely for cosmetic renovations that not one renter asked for.

Many low-income tenants live in this building, including seniors who are on fixed incomes. They fear they will be forced out of their homes and will have to struggle to find another affordable place to live, in the most expensive city in Canada, in the middle of a pandemic.

The tenants at 103 Avenue Road want to know: What is this government’s plan to stop unfair rent hikes in the middle of a pandemic?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant, the member from Milton.

Mr. Parm Gill: I want to thank the member opposite for that question.

Mr. Speaker, since the very beginning of COVID-19, our government has called on landlords and tenants to come together and be reasonable with each other, and landlords and tenants across the province have shown the Ontario spirit by doing just that.

In that spirit, our government is stabilizing rents for Ontario’s 1.7 million rental households, so the vast majority of families won’t see a rent increase this year.

We thank the many landlords and tenants who have been co-operating throughout this challenging time.

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: Back to the Premier: Today’s report from RenovictionsTO found that above-guideline-increase applications have gone up 250% in the last six years, and over 84% of these applications are made by corporate landlords intent on maximizing their profit.

Many renters across Ontario are already having a very hard time paying rent because they have lost their job, through no fault of their own, during COVID-19.

Continuing to allow massive rent increases in a pandemic will result in economic evictions. It will force people to crash with friends, to look for another home or even risk homelessness. This will increase the spread of COVID-19, and it will lead to more preventable deaths.

When will this government start helping struggling renters instead of corporate landlords intent on making a profit in the middle of a pandemic?

Mr. Parm Gill: From the onset of COVID-19, our government has introduced a number of measures to protect and support tenants, and any suggestion otherwise is completely false.

Last summer, we passed the Protecting Tenants and Strengthening Community Housing Act, which mandates the Landlord and Tenant Board, LTB, to consider whether a landlord attempted to negotiate a repayment agreement with tenants before resorting to an eviction for non-payment of rent during COVID-19. This measure promotes repayment agreements over evictions for non-payment of rent, and aims to maintain tenancies.

Last October, we introduced a rent freeze, so the vast majority of Ontario’s 1.7 million tenants will not see a rent increase in 2021. This is in effect from January to December of this year.

La situation demeure urgente, et avec l’arrivée de la pandémie, le contexte demeure difficile, mais ça s’est maintenant transformé en crise.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I appreciate the question from the member opposite—appreciating that the challenge of French-language educators has been with the province for well over a decade, but this government has resolved to fix it. That’s why, through negotiations with the teacher unions and AEFO, the French teachers’ union, we agreed to create a working group of boards, of the union, of the Ministry of Education. That group has concluded their work.

I’ve just received a report, which provides a series of recommendations on how we can strengthen the hiring, both from the retention of French-language educators in the province of Ontario—the recruitment of them, both internationally and domestically, through the various colleges of education in the province of Ontario. We know this is an issue. It’s a multi-pronged approach, working in collaboration with the Minister of Francophone Affairs, as well as the Minister of Colleges and Universities, to incent more individuals to teach within our schools.

We’re very proud when it comes to the funding of French-language education. It’s the highest levels ever recorded in Ontario history under this government, and that will continue under Premier Doug Ford.

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

Le groupe de travail que le ministre a mentionné a effectivement déposé son rapport avec des recommandations pour répondre à la demande à l’échelle provinciale, aux besoins actuels et futurs. Est-ce que le gouvernement s’engage à fournir le soutien financier nécessaire pour la mise en oeuvre de ces recommandations?

L’hon. Stephen Lecce: Nous allons continuer notre travail avec nos partenaires francophones de l’Ontario.

We very much appreciate the necessity to continue to support French-language education. The member is right: We do see growth; 2020-21 estimates 1.6% enrolment growth for French-language education, which I think underscores the valued proposition that French-language education has offered to the province. They’ve really been ahead of the curve when it comes to digital pedagogy, online learning and quality education. We’re proud of that. It’s why this government increased investments in French-language education by 4%, the largest increase noted to date in the province. It’s also why we convened the working group.

Now, I assure the member, who I know in good faith is very committed and very concerned about the matter, that we will be able to hire more French-language educators, working with our international partners. The parliamentary assistant and I have met with a variety of consuls general internationally to understand how we can create a pipeline of recruitment to fix this problem once and for all and ensure French-language students have access to quality teachers in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The next question, the member for Sarnia–Lambton.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Natural gas pipeline

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a three-peat.

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you for acknowledging me. This question is to the Associate Minister of Energy.

Last week, several US states were forced to declare states of emergency in the midst of this winter’s cold snap. For example, the governor of Michigan declared a state of emergency on February 22, citing—get this—a propane shortage. Similar propane shortages in 2014 resulted in widespread price-gouging and safety concerns, both in this province and in Michigan. But the governor’s decision to shut down the line 5 pipeline can only make things worse. Many Ontarians in rural areas rely on propane to heat their homes in the winter and dry their crops in the summer.

Can the associate minister please assure this House that ensuring energy security for this province and Michigan is the top of mind for our government?

Hon. Bill Walker: I want to thank the member for Sarnia–Lambton, aka PMB Bob, for the question and his great leadership on this very critical, important file.

Members may not know that line 5 supplies all of the feedstock to the Plains Midstream facility in Sarnia. Shutting down line 5 would shut down that critical facility, as well as the Plains facilities in Michigan, leading to price hikes and massive propane and butane shortages on both sides of the border.

We want to avoid this potential crisis, and this is one of the key reasons that our government has been so focused on this issue. We continue to meet with industry stakeholders, union leaders, representatives from the state of Michigan and others to advocate for the continued safe operation of Enbridge’s line 5 pipeline.

I can assure the member from Sarnia–Lambton that protecting our energy security is top of mind and that we will never stop fighting for the hard-working people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you to the associate minister for that.

Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned that the closure of line 5 would lead to supply issues that would result in everyday Ontarians paying more for home heating oil, more for gas in their cars and more at the grocery store for groceries delivered by truck.

Can the associate minister please tell us more about the specific ways in which a line 5 closure would negatively impact affordability for Ontarians?

Hon. Bill Walker: Thank you again to the hard-working member. Without a shadow of doubt, I can assure him that we will do everything in our power.

Propane is only one of the products produced in Sarnia’s refineries that Ontarians use every single day. Lin