It gives me great pleasure to welcome TVDSB trustees Sherri Moore, Lori-Ann Pizzolato and Arlene Morell. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I would like to thank Leadnow for collecting these petitions.

“For Meaningful Climate Action Withdraw Bill 23.

“Whereas our planet is undergoing significant warming with adverse consequences for health, for agriculture, for infrastructure and our children’s future;

“Whereas the costs of inaction are severe, such as extreme weather events causing flooding and drought;

“Whereas Canada has signed the Paris accord which commits us to acting to keep temperature rise under 1.5 degrees Celsius;

“We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario to withdraw Bill 23 and to create a new bill to meet our housing needs that is compatible with protecting the greenbelt, creating affordable housing in the current urban boundaries, and meeting our climate targets.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my signature and deliver it with page Yusuf to the Clerks.

It’s an honour to rise today to speak on behalf of the official opposition on the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act. I will say it’s interesting timing—that this bill is coming forward at this current time, since in recent memory we’ve seen attacks on democracy, attacks on the environment, dramatic overreach with suspending the charter, and a continuation of the devaluing of female-led professions under this Conservative government. To me, it’s really no wonder that they’re trying to change the channel with this legislation. They’re trying to change the conversation. It’s almost as though they’re undergoing some sort of image rehabilitation with Bill 46. I suspect that this is the purpose of the bill entirely.

It seems as though there are some acceptable measures contained herein, but, as always with this government, there’s a great deal missing and so much lacking. It’s almost as though they recognize that there are issues but they actively choose not to solve those issues. It’s like they’re applying Band-Aids, sometimes expensive ones. For that reason, I find some of the suggestions a little odd.

Before my consideration today, I want to turn to the comments from the honourable members across and also take a look at this government’s backgrounder.

The backgrounder says, “The Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act builds on the government’s strong track record of reducing red tape which since 2018 has saved businesses, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities, universities and colleges, school boards and hospitals $576 million in net annual regulatory compliance costs.”

This government, through this legislation, is claiming to be helping municipalities, but instead we’ve seen them weakening municipalities, with Bill 23 and Bill 39. It’s going to cost the city of London alone $97 million—because of some of the actions of this government.

What I’d like to add to debate today is a letter from the strategic priorities and policy committee from the city of London. They recommended that council endorse the position of calling upon the province to refer the proposed legislation, Bill 23, to the Housing Supply Action Plan Implementation Team, the HSAPIT, to allow the necessary time for a fulsome review to mitigate the potential of unintended consequences, and to find solutions to improving housing affordability across the province that meet local needs. That would be a way in which this government could respect municipalities—not jumping all over them with Bill 23 and allowing minority rule.

This government also claims that they’re helping non-profits in their backgrounder, but they’ve caused chaos for non-profits, with funding cuts, a lack of consultation, and general neglect. Transfer payments with non-profits amounts to tinkering around the edges. These organizations need provincial support, they need provincial respect, and they need provincial funding, not simply a portal.

Back in 2019, it was reported that the changes that the Ford government made with non-profits caused tremendous upheaval. In fact, 30% of non-profit agencies said they faced funding cuts. They’re operating in a climate of growing uncertainty and volatility. The report also read, “Organizations aren’t just worried about having their funding streams cut, but also the speed and uncertainty of the decision-making process, as well as the lack of information, details, and engagement with the sector by the provincial government.” Cathy Taylor, executive director of the Ontario Nonprofit Network, said the speed at which the changes were made, the government’s reversals on some changes, and the financial cuts, together, made it difficult for non-profits to operate. Speaker, 30% of non-profits saw their budgets cut.

So we see them, through this legislation, claiming that they’re supporting non-profits, but to support non-profits, you need to also support them with funding; you need to listen to them; you need to implement the changes that they need. A portal is simply not enough.

Also, quite strangely and ironically, this government is claiming to support colleges and universities in their backgrounder to Bill 46. Ontario has the lowest post-secondary funding in all of Canada. It would have to be raised by 46%, not to be first; just so that Ontario would not be in last place. If this government does want to support post-secondary education, as they have said, I recommend that they make sure that their operating costs are covered by at least one third; right now, it’s 30%. It’s ridiculous.

Also, this government, at a time when we see hospitals in absolute crisis—we see the five major public sector health care unions coming to speak to the minister and her refusing to speak to them—is claiming that it’s helping hospitals cut red tape. Red tape is not what has this system in crisis. What has the system in crisis is pieces of wage-suppressing legislation like Bill 124 and the continued disrespect of female-led professions such as health care workers. We’ve seen overt attacks and a stubborn ideological reluctance to repeal a bill that has driven nurses out of the profession in droves. We also have seen a reluctance of this government to implement a true health care human resources strategy. It’s shocking that they’re claiming to help, when they’re denying hospitals and health care workers the help that they’re calling out for at this time.

Furthermore, in the hospital sector, we’ve seen really penny-wise and pound foolish ways of spending money. We’ve seen that hospitals have to rely on temporary workers because of the lack of human resources, the lack of nurses who are willing to take those jobs—spending up to 550% more on temp nurses, who aren’t going to be able to deliver the same quality of care as somebody who is in that institution, someone who spends their day in and day out to build those relationships. And it’s really a form of privatization. It’s a stopgap that we’ve seen this government allow to continue—one that I think is absolutely unconscionable. It makes one wonder whether this is just simply another means for this government to increase the level of privatization in the health care system. They want to make a system that is going to be in absolute crisis—even worse—so the people will have no other options but to pay out of their pocket to get the health care they require.

This government could also really make sure that they’re making great improvements to the wages of health care workers across fields. We know, in the Auditor General’s report—nurses are paid vastly differently, whether it is in home care, whether it is in hospital, whether it is in long-term care, so that has made such a crisis in all of those different fields. It means that people don’t want to work in certain vital parts of our health care system. That’s a shame, because we need to make sure that there are people across all the different areas.

When people get the home care that they need, they’re less liable to go to the emergency room. Because the home care system is largely privatized, they don’t care about people’s wages. They care about profits. That is the mandate of our home care system. They’re looking to squeeze money wherever they can, and that amounts to a lack of care and a lack of respect for the nurses and health care workers who do such a phenomenal job caring for people where they should be: in their own homes.

What I also find very strange, and the reason I started off with the backgrounder, is that I also see the news release that this government posted—and what I find very, very interesting about that is that in their news release, they don’t say the same things, and I find that very curious. It has to do with one hand saying one thing and one hand saying something else. In the backgrounder, they claimed to be supporting non-profits, post-secondary education, hospitals etc., but in the news release, they only talked about businesses. It’s like they didn’t want the media questioning them about their lack of support for non-profits, for colleges and universities, and for hospitals, so instead, they left all that out. It’s like there’s one story for the media and another for the chamber.

We also heard members opposite go on quite a bit about the Ontario Small Business Support Grant. I know all members in this chamber who worked through the pandemic understand what a disaster that was for so many different businesses. So many people applied. They would receive information one day, then they would receive different information, then they would find, often, that they were turned down for reasons that they were never given, and there was no appeals process for them to indicate that this was a mistake. On the opposition benches, we brought those forward to the government. Sometimes we could get results, but a lot of times there were people who were let down. One of the questions that we still have is, has the minister undertaken a review of this program, as the Auditor General has recommended?

We also take a look at the Ontario Together Fund. A contract worth $1.8 million was awarded to a company with known fiscal risk, and they went bankrupt eight months later. There were also perceived conflicts of interest that have never been addressed by this government with the Ontario Together Fund. The CEO of a company that received $2.5 million was a member of the ministers’ COVID-19 vaccine task force, as well as an additional staff member from that company who sits with Minister Fedeli on the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council—

Thank you, Speaker.

Like the members of the government before me who were talking a great deal about all the wonderful things about the Ontario Small Business Support Grant—I find it only fair that we delivered an accurate portrayal of what people experienced, who were denied support when they needed it the most.

At this point, I will dig into each schedule of the act itself.

Schedule 1 amends the Animal Health Act. It allows the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, upon the advice of the Chief Veterinarian for Ontario. to issue a response order effective for up to 72 hours to address urgent hazards threatening animal or human health. I think this is something that makes a great deal of sense. It means specified biosecurity measures restricting the movement of live or dead animals or related products or waste material. I think this is something that is easily supportable. There is a vital relationship between animal health, human health, food safety—one that we can’t deny. The livestock and poultry sectors have been increasingly concerned, not only about the risks, but also the costs that happen with outbreaks, whether it be African swine fever or avian influenza in poultry, and I think what is necessary here is a timely and effective response. As I said, Bill 46 is a curious assortment of a whole bunch of largely disconnected issues—but ones that are not entirely unsupportable. I think this schedule will help to safeguard supply chains, and it will also mitigate the risk to human health and animal health. It makes a great deal of sense, listening to the Chief Veterinarian for Ontario.

As we approach schedule 2, the Courts of Justice Act, it’s interesting, because it extends the allowable time of service for retired former provincial judges serving on a part-time basis from 50% of full-time service to 75% of full-time service. I think this is an important thing, because we do need to clear the backlog in our courts as quickly as possible. But what I remain concerned about is that this is a band-aid measure, and it’s an expensive band-aid measure. It’s not necessarily going to clear the backlog. And what does it pose for the future? What is the long-term goal of this measure?

I want to thank the member for London West for bringing up the very important letter that a number of London lawyers wrote to us in September 2022, and I want to add their words to my debate today. They indicated that vacancies were unfilled and it’s an untenable situation. What they also told us was that London stands alone in the province in failing to hold civil trials at all until the fall. It’s absolutely unconscionable, when you think about matters of Family Court—some motions in court had to be cancelled. What is also deeply concerning is that the regional senior justice has declared in a ruling that ready trials of over two weeks have no prospect of being heard until late 2024. Even the Ontario Court of Appeal criticized this time frame, and they criticized what was happening in London. So I urge this government to also listen to that letter—because the Attorney General can make the recommendation to the Chief Justice in order to make sure that we have the judicial appointees we need in the city of London.

As I’ve said, this in and of itself is simply a Band-Aid. We need to make sure that we are hiring more judges full-time—ones who will be there for the duration.

It’s curious to me, as well, that they’re looking at a single issue within our justice system and they haven’t looked at some of the other actions. If you’re interested in clearing the backlog right now that is in our court system, you could reinstate funding for legal aid. That is something that helps the legal system function.

We also need to fix the backlog at tribunals. It’s curious to me that we see the Landlord and Tenant Board only hearing matters of above-guideline rental increases, when we know it is a system that is not working for anyone on the housing spectrum.

Schedule 3 turns to the Juries Act. The schedule provides that a person’s jury questionnaire may be obtained, completed and returned electronically—finally. It’s nice to see this chamber moving in a modern fashion. It makes a great deal of sense.

I would like to make some recommendations on changes to the Juries Act—because we have seen some changes, but we need to see yet more representation on Ontario’s juries, because the opportunity to be judged fairly by a jury of one’s peers is a foundational tenet of the criminal justice system.

There was a Toronto Star-Ryerson School of Journalism—at the time—investigation, back in 2018, that found that juries did not represent the people we serve accurately. They found that there needs to be more of a fair representation of the diverse communities in which we live. Some of the reasons that was not happening was that Ontario is an outlier—it stands alone as a province that does not compensate anyone for jury duty until after 10 days. By law, employers, as you know, must give people time off work if they’re called for jury duty, but they don’t have to pay them. That can be such an obstacle for people who have intersectional identities, people who are racialized, people who are possibly subject to precarious work, people who are working contracts, people who are self-employed—if they are unable to serve, it makes one wonder about justice itself. So, as we take a look at schedule 3 and the Juries Act, we need to make sure that we’re not simply modernizing it in the way in which they can indicate their availability; we also need to look at the ways in which we are asking people to serve. I think it’s important to note that only asking people who are on property tax rolls is one way of excluding folks, which is deeply concerning. Someone who might be a spouse, someone who might be a renter, someone who might be a boarder, someone who might be a student—they would all benefit from serving on a jury but simply have not been asked.

As we turn to schedule 4, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act—it exempts feeder cattle enrolled under the feeder cattle loan guarantee program from section 3 of the Innkeepers Act. The Innkeepers Act currently gives stables a lien on boarding livestock, which has the effect of preventing cattle co-op members from feeding other members’ cattle, and it really does make the program less effective than it ought to be. It is something that I think is easy to support. I think people should not be upset about it. It will prevent custom feeders from having a lien on the cattle, and it will prevent them from being able to seize and sell cattle for unpaid services. Custom feeders will still have the normal legal process, so taking this away won’t be something difficult. It will, however, remove the burden on producers, it will strengthen our supply chain, and it will make the beef industry more competitive. So I think the amendment to schedule 4 is something that makes a great deal of sense and is imminently supportable.

I’d like to turn next to the Grow Ontario strategy. It is indicated that it is to increase production and consumption of food grown in the province by adopting new and innovative technology. This is a matter where we seem to be changing the channel, because we’ve seen a tax on the greenbelt; we see it being cut up; we see it going, in a very curious way, to developers who had only bought it in recent memory. They bought it just a short while ago as an investment piece of property, and it has gone up exponentially to tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars. And yet, now, what we see in this legislation, Bill 46, is suddenly appearing as though it’s supporting our agri-food industry.

This government is talking about investing in technology. It’s talking about innovation. But that’s only going to be a drop in the bucket when you compare the reduction of the greenbelt, when you see watersheds—when you see developers claiming that they can replace natural areas, it’s just simply impossible. It’s shocking to me that this is even being considered in this House.

Ontario is losing around 320 acres of prime farmland per day, and over the last 35 years, Ontario has lost almost a fifth—it has lost 2.8 million acres of its farmland. And yet, in 2022, we’re talking about this government chopping up the greenbelt.

You cannot re-create a wetland, despite developer claims. You will not have the same biodiversity. You will not have the same ecological impact and effect.

We’ve also seen weakening of conservation authorities, those experts who are able to advise. That’s deeply, deeply concerning. Yet we have the Grow Ontario strategy trying to change the channel.

I turn to schedule 5, the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act: It makes a technical amendment and defines the minister as “the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, or ... executive council” for the purposes of the act. The repeal of subsection 11(1.1) would allow for the injection of CO₂ into geological formations as a type of carbon capture—a long-term, permanent underground geological storage of carbon dioxide in deep bedrock formations. The changes under schedule 5 are to allow that action. It’s almost the inverse of fracking, where widespread agitation of geological rock formations or shale is done in order to access natural gas deposits. The proposal seems to narrow the prohibitions here to only projects that are also engaged in the recovery of oil or gas.

In the government’s discussion paper, they state that in response to the evolving energy needs and priorities over time, Ontario businesses have been interested in pursuing new underground geological storage projects that may share the same space as oil, gas and salt resources but were not contemplated when those regulatory frameworks were developed. Schedule 5 allows for those carbon injections in association with oil and gas recovery. The ERO claims that this change, right now, is environmentally neutral. I do look forward to more environmental stakeholders at committee providing their concerns and what they would like to recommend in terms of schedule 5.

Schedule 6 concerns the Ontario Energy Board Act, and it clarifies that proponents of projects that are exempted from the requirement to obtain leave to construct from the Ontario Energy Board may apply to the board for an expropriation or the authority to cross a highway, utility line or ditch. Again, this is a housekeeping regulatory change.

Schedule 7 concerns the OSPCA.

Just recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Humane Society of London and Middlesex, which is doing phenomenal work. They’re looking at expanding. They have a really brilliant plan, and I would love to invite some government members to come see what they are doing as they expand. They’re looking to work in collaboration with Fanshawe College, with veterinary technician programs.

Also, this government needs to take a look at the lack of veterinarians who are available in this province now and make sure that we are providing some incentives or expediting that process—because, quite frankly, it’s becoming a real difficulty in this province, at this current time.

The majority of my comments today are surrounding schedule 9. Now, I will unequivocally say that I am thrilled that the WSIB will be relocated to London. I’ve said that on the record many times.

I’m also pleased to report to this House that I have been talking with different stakeholders, and I understand that there has been more communication with the relevant agencies—because the last time when I introduced remarks about the WSIB, there had not been any communication whatsoever, Speaker—so I’m quite thrilled about that.

But when we see this tinkering around the edges of WSIB, there is little help for those workers. There’s little help for people who need to access those benefits. It seems to me that—I wonder what’s behind this as well, because right now, we’re talking about a property that is in downtown Toronto that is 75% owned by the crown. Its size is 60,000 square feet. It’s at Front and Simcoe Streets. It’s a hugely coveted and very lucrative real estate deal. Some have even suggested it might be worth in the neighbourhood of $600 million.

Now, I would also like to ask this government what their plans are for that location. Do they wish to address the current issues that are facing our province by converting that into affordable housing, into supportive housing, into something that will really meaningfully address some of the major issues within our province right now? I’m not certain. I think, as well, we also need to take a look at WSIB processes themselves, because WSIB has been in trouble for so many years.

I’d like to read on the record today something that I think the government could easily adopt. This was introduced by the MPP for Niagara Falls: “Section 43 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act ... is amended by adding the following subsection:

“‘No earnings after injury

“‘(4.1) The board shall not determine the following to be earnings that the worker is able to earn in suitable and available employment or business:

“‘1. Earnings from an employment that the worker is not employed in, unless the worker, without good cause, failed to accept the employment after it was offered to the worker.

“‘2. Earnings from a business that the worker does not carry on.”

This, Speaker, has to do with the WSIB’s penchant for engaging in the process of “deeming,” or deciding that somebody is able to do what is known as a “phantom job,” a job that did not exist, but one that they are content to tell people—their doctors—that they are able to do.

I also, in my discussion of WSIB, want to talk about the whistleblower report that exposed WSIB’s interference in medical care. This was from the Ontario Federation of Labour, in which doctors alleged that injured workers are revictimized by the compensation system. In this report, called Prescription Over-Ruled: Report on How Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Systematically Ignores the Advice of Medical Professionals, it included six registered psychologists and many other medical professionals and injured workers who came forward to share similar stories about the WSIB’s failure “to heed medical advice regarding readiness to return to work, insufficient treatment, blaming ‘pre-existing’ conditions for ongoing illness, or using independent medical reviews which proclaim patients to be healed, despite the evidence of treating practitioners.” It’s quite a shocking exposé, Speaker, and this was in 2015. We recently had the seven-year anniversary of that report.

In this, I’d like this government to please take note: “‘The red tape is tangling up legitimate claims and preventing injured workers from getting the coverage they need,’ said Sudbury-based rehabilitation psychologist Dr. Giorgio Ilacqua. ‘Behind every claim is a real person, with a family that has been turned upside down by a workplace injury. They deserve immediate and consistent care, not bureaucracy and red tape.’”

The title of this bill is reducing red tape to build a stronger Ontario. Dr. Giorgio Ilacqua suggests that WSIB is regularly engaged in red tape, in denial, in telling people that they could do a job that doesn’t exist.

Part of this was the work of Dr. Brenda Steinnagel as well. She filed a lawsuit against her employer and the WSIB, alleging that she was fired from a clinic that she worked for because the WSIB requested it, because she refused to change her medical opinion to the one the board wanted to hear. In the statement of claim, Dr. Steinnagel says, “In a desperate effort to reduce claims paid out, WSIB” has “been conspiring to deny legitimate claims in a shocking display of arrogance and corruption.”

Also in Prescription Over-Ruled, they state, “Ontario’s compensation system is mandated to provide wage loss benefits and health care benefits to workers who are injured on the job. By law, injured workers are barred from commencing lawsuits for their work injuries and must instead seek benefits from the WSIB. Legally, workers are entitled to treatment from the health care provider of their own choosing.”

This is important, Speaker, because back when the WSIB was formed, workers gave up their rights to sue their employer because the WSIB was going to be there to help them. The WSIB was going to be there to assist them. Instead, it has become a completely different system.

Major stakeholders have also come out discussing what is happening at the WSIB, and there are grave concerns. The Canadian Medical Association—and this goes as far back as 2007—raised concerns about workplace-injury-related costs being shifted to the public system. The WSIB, in denying people their claims, leaves no one to support them except for that person themselves, with their inability to work, and the public system. It’s a foolish, foolish thing.

The report cites the then WSIB president and CEO, David Marshall, who bragged and boasted that the WSIB now pays for results and not process. We end up paying the tab for the WSIB not doing the correct job. Many of the people who have been injured at their workplace and are unable to work will often rely on the Ontario Disability Support Program or sometimes even worse. Then, as we know, it takes quite a long time as well to access even those benefits.

I would like to add into the record here today Karen’s story, from Prescription Over-Ruled. Karen’s name has been changed: “Karen was an active young woman with an exceptional employment record when an accident at a mine seriously injured her shoulder and head. In the years since, it has been a constant struggle to acquire the physical and psychological therapy her medical team says she needs, and the wage loss benefits she should be entitled to.

“Before her accident, Karen was active in a number of sports and hobbies. She enjoyed horseback riding every week, and was involved in training dogs for competition. She was also part of a competitive mine rescue team, a very gruelling sport that requires intense mental and physical stamina. Her co-workers and supervisors have often noted that having her on the crew is good for morale, and she says she has received positive letters of recommendation from every employer she’s ever worked for.

“In June of 2013, Karen was driving a truck in the mine. As she was stepping out, her overalls got caught on one of the steps, causing her to lose her grip and fall, landing hard on her head and her shoulder.

“After her accident, Karen developed nausea, headaches, dizziness, muscle strain, anxiety, and depression. She has been diagnosed with a number of conditions, including traumatic head injury, cervical strain, neck and shoulder injury and ‘concussion-related mental impairments.’ A whole range of treatments were suggested by her health care team, including medication, physio, massage and therapy with a psychologist. It was suggested she would benefit most from a gradual, WSIB-sponsored return to her pre-accident job. When many of these treatments were not offered, she did the only thing she could and tried to return to work. Her attempt to go back was short-lived, though, as she was unable to successfully complete the tasks she was assigned, and many of her symptoms began to worsen. Still, the WSIB interpreted her effort to return as a sign that she was capable of employment, and cut off her wage loss benefits, even though several health care professionals had indicated she should not be working due to dizziness and muscle damage.

“Karen has had two previous head injuries, but had recovered from both and was living a normal life when her mine accident happened. Even though the evidence shows that her current symptoms arose only after the newest injury, the WSIB claims that her diagnosed symptoms are the result of”—ready for it, Speaker?—“a ‘pre-existing condition.’ In response to the request from her psychologist, the board said they began reviewing Karen’s file in April 2014. Despite multiple requests from her medical team and seven letters written by her legal aid lawyer (none of which received a response), no decisions have been made. The fact that no decisions have been made means that Karen cannot move through the appeal process. Karen is therefore stuck in limbo, and has been forced onto social assistance.”

This limbo is completely unnecessary. This is yet more red tape that has been created by the WSIB. If this government was true to their word with Bill 46, they would truly look into it.

The report also talks about the inadequate services offered by the WSIB because approval for services can take months when patients’ needs are often immediate. Also, treating physicians’ referrals for psychological therapy are often denied, even in dire situations. The WSIB will refer an injury claimant to a specialist but will not fund sufficient time for a proper assessment and report. The WSIB also demands frequent progress reports that it will not pay for and the recommendations of which are frequently ignored.

I can go on and on about how the WSIB does not stand for workers. Despite medical opinions to the contrary, the WSIB often attributes illness or injury to pre-existing conditions and refuses to fund benefits or care. What’s also concerning is that they don’t listen to the doctors who are actually seeing the person in-person. The WSIB will often seek second opinions from their paper doctors, who simply look through the file; they don’t ever meet the patient. Dr. Brenda Steinnagel alleged that the WSIB inappropriately pressures these doctors to deliver dishonest reports so that they can avoid paying benefits.

It then goes and pressures workers to return to work, even when their treating doctors recommend that they need more time to heal. And if those workers have well-meaning attempts to return to work, they are used against them as evidence that they are employable and healed even when those attempts fail, which, of course, results in a loss of benefits.

I recommend that all members read this report. It is absolutely shocking. It also has greater impacts in the world at large for so many people. If people have work-induced disabilities, they frequently suffer mental health concerns that are elevated after their injury and the stress of dealing with this board and the way in which they stonewall and ignore people.

I was recently dealing with a constituent. We’ve tried, again and again and again, to get a hold of a human being at the WSIB, and it is near impossible. If that weren’t bad enough, many doctors—it’s already difficult enough to find a health care practitioner, but many of the health professionals refuse to take on WSIB claimants as their patients. Do you know why? Because they know that their advice is going to be ignored and they know they’ll be unable to provide the care that they know the patients need. That should be a huge, huge concern.

Some of the resolutions for this government and the recommendations, and this goes back years:

—have Ontario’s Ombudsman launch a formal investigation into WSIB’s treatment of medical advice, particularly the way in which health care providers’ professional advice is not considered and the lack of explanation offered;

—collect and make public statistics on how often injured workers’ health care providers’ advice is disregarded;

—create a protocol that regulates rapid response time for requests from the injured workers’ health care team. For example, requiring a decision within 48 hours when an urgent request for care is submitted to the board;

—eliminate the use of so-called paper doctors who render decisions about care without ever meeting the patient;

—give proper weight to the opinions of the medical professionals who know the injured worker best, their own health care team.

The problems at WSIB are many, but I also want to now discuss a new organization who are quite a phenomenal group of people, the Occupational Disease Reform Alliance. They have also said that they went to make changes to WSIB system. This is from Sylvia Boyce, who’s the USW District 6 health and safety coordinator: “Workplace illnesses can affect anyone—from cancer, respiratory disease or hearing loss. The challenge with occupational disease is that people who are sick may not connect their symptoms to exposures they had at work.”

This can often be a very tricky one. It’s bad enough that—we heard stories like Karen’s when she had a legitimate fall, when she injured her head, when she injured her shoulder and when her own doctor was talking about this injury itself. When we take a look at occupational disease, it can be a little bit more nebulous. I’d like to commend the ODRA for all of the work they’re doing. It’s not just based on someone’s opinion. They also continue, “The demands are simply compensation for occupational disease claims when workplace patterns exceed levels in the surrounding communities, expand the list of diseases presumed to be work related, use the proper legal standard, not scientific certainty, and expect that multiple exposures combined cause disease.”

It makes a great deal of sense. I know that the minister will be speaking and apologizing in, I believe, two days’ time to folks who were exposed in the McIntyre Powder Project, so I think these are vital changes that need to happen within WSIB.

I’d like to also add the voice of Robert Storey. He is a labour scholar, and his father died of an occupational illness. It’s heartbreaking. His father was a drill press operator at International Harvesters in Hamilton and he used a white cutting lubricant that was revealed to be a carcinogen. He used it for about 34 years, and I believe that he died very, very quickly after he retired, which is such a shame. You work your entire life to get ready to enjoy that time with your family, to pursue your hobbies, to pursue the things you love, and then you pass away.

Storey points out, quite importantly, that the WSIB system was set up in 1915 and it was set up with the principles of Sir William Meredith, often known—he was a former chief justice and author of the Meredith Principles. At its conception, it was believed that workers should get payment for as long as their disability lasted. Those are principles that I don’t believe are upheld to this day. We see so many examples of workers who are denied, workers who are caught up in red tape, workers who are rejected, ignored and denied the benefits that they require, and this dates back also to the 1990s. I think we can all remember Premier Mike Harris and one of his snitch lines, his hotline, where citizens could go phone in and report that they thought injured workers were taking advantage of the system. It’s shocking. It is shocking, Speaker.

I’m glad to see that the WSIB coverage will be extended, but we have to make sure that the coverage itself—that there is a system change, that there is an understanding that this has gone from an organization that was established to protect the rights of workers and to assist workers when they need it, and it’s become something quite different.

Rose Wickman, who is a former UNIFOR president who was at Ventra/Pebra Plastics in Peterborough, Ontario said, “Workers gave their lives for these companies, and the WSIB is ignoring [them].”

Now, on occupational diseases, Bob DeMatteo says, “The WSIB has a legal obligation to conduct investigations into occupational diseases, and it’s not doing its job. Where is the concern for human health? They’ve been so lax in not recognizing the health effects of things like metalworking fluids and a whole series of toxic exposures, and have not altered or lowered the Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) to reflect the science, and need to invoke the precautionary principle in the face of scientific uncertainty, and to ensure more stringent enforcement of exposure standards.”

DeMatteo goes on to say that “there’s a sense in which there is more interest in protecting the companies on a financial level than making sure that these workplaces are safe and healthy.”

I see my time is beginning to run out, Speaker. I’d like to also point out to this chamber that the Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association have joined in the campaign pushing for changes to the WSIB system. They’ve joined with the Occupational Disease Reform Alliance. Now, the ODRA comprises miners who inhaled the McIntyre Powder, as I said, between 1943 and 1980, as well as construction workers at the Weyerhaeuser pulp and paper mill in Dryden, steel mill workers in Sault Ste. Marie, and former employees of now-closed Neelon Casting, which made brake parts in Sudbury.

Doug McLennan, who is the president of Local 162, said that “firefighters fought for and received the benefit of presumptive legislation for occupational cancers.” Even though these are the people who are going into the most dangerous places—places any other one of us would run from—they’re being denied. They’re being denied by the WSIB, being denied by the organization that is supposed to support them after they’ve been exposed to so many different carcinogens and have, unfortunately, engaged in the fight of their life—which should be fighting cancer, but instead of fighting cancer, they’re fighting WSIB.

“All too frequently these claims are denied by WSIB”—and this is what McLennan has said, this quote—“despite evidence of the multiple toxic exposures these firefighters faced while doing their jobs.

“We must see WSIB expand the list of presumptions and ensure they are more broadly applicable to all workers.”

So the ODRA has made four demands to the Ministry of Labour:

“(1) Grant entitlement for occupational diseases when they exceed the level circulating in a community.

“(2) Use available evidence of occupational disease in the workplace—including that gathered by workers and communities—as the standard for evaluating claims.

“(3) Expand the list of compensable diseases that are presumed to be work-related, and possibly using the firefighters presumption list as a template.

“(4) Recognize claims diseases resulting from multiple exposures, carcinogens and irritants, rather than focusing on a single exposure or occupation.”

As I begin to finish off my remarks, I think it’s important that we take a look at the intended consequences, at what this legislation could potentially do.

We’ve heard that the WSIB is frequently wrapping people up in red tape.

I also want to add comments from the former labour critic, when they were in opposition, from February 2014. They indicated: “As we know”—by the way, I’m glad to see you, Minister McNaughton—“Bill 146 is a large omnibus bill. In my opening, I talked about the different acts that are going to be altered because of this bill. Certain elements tend to get lost in the broader reform context. I respectfully, again, submit that this has happened in Bill 146.

“We are reminded of the comments of an opposition member and former leader in this Legislature a number of years ago in response to a government omnibus bill. I’m going to quote this former political leader:

“‘I have a real problem with omnibus bills. I’m not going to be able to deal with my problems in the last two and a half minutes I have. There is just so much in this bill. It should not be presented as one, large omnibus bill. I’m beginning to think this government only knows about omnibus bills. It’s not just that we can’t deal with everything in the course of the debate of the evening, of the day. It’s because the omnibus bills—the parts we miss, the parts we couldn’t debate, the parts that the public wasn’t aware of—come back to haunt us.’”

He finishes his quote by saying, “That’s from Hansard, on November 19, 2002. That was the member, back then, for Thunder Bay–Atikokan, the former leader of the Liberals, Lyn McLeod.”

He then goes on: “Speaker, going back to Bill 146, to schedule 5, and what this bill will actually achieve: I would say, agreeing with former Liberal leader Lyn McLeod, that this bill could come back to haunt us, will come back to haunt the government of Ontario, the WSIB and, ultimately, the taxpayers and the people of Ontario.”

Those were Minister McNaughton’s words when he was the official opposition labour critic, upset about omnibus pieces of legislation.

Here again, we have another piece of omnibus legislation that tinkers at the edges. It has an opportunity to reform some vital institutions, such as the WSIB, but it really falls short. It is such a shame.

We also take a look at its inability to address one of the most pressing issues in Ontario right now, which is our health care system, which is falling apart at the seams, which is in a terrible crisis.

In London, just recently, as I’ve introduced to this chamber, the Children’s Hospital sent out a notice letting parents know that surgeries that children had waited for for a ridiculous amount of time were now being cancelled because of capacity, because of the inability to have enough people.

We’ve seen announcements from this government about investments in hospital furniture, in hospital buildings, but not in the health care human resources that we need.

I think my feelings on this Bill 46, Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act, are largely agnostic. There are some things in here which are good and some things in here which I think need a little bit more scrutiny, but overall it’s not entirely negative.

I will say, though, that the sum total effect of Bill 46 seems to be a desire to change the channel; a desire to distract; a desire to possibly not acknowledge what the actual issues facing Ontario are but instead to change things up in the media, to undergo an image rehabilitation.

As we look at the stated intention of this government, when we look at the backgrounder, when we look at the news release, it’s shocking that they would talk about their strong track record. I would say that they have a strong track record on denying small businesses the grants that they needed to survive COVID. They have a strong track record on underfunding not-for-profit organizations and leaving them to deliver vital, life-saving services without support. I would say that they have a strong record on literally just putting municipalities in a bigger financial hole than ever before.

Universities, colleges, schools, hospitals—do any of them think that this government has a strong track record of supporting them?

Speaker, I think this government, whether it’s through schedule 4, to try to distract from the fact that they are covering up the greenbelt, to distract from the fact that they are taking ecological land which cannot be replaced due to its biodiversity and its importance in our ecosystem—and are trying to pretend that’s not happening. It’s like a magician saying, “Look at this hand, not this hand down here.”

We have the Grow Ontario strategy, but this government hasn’t addressed that we’re losing almost 320 acres of farmland per day or that we’ve lost 18% of our total farmland.

Lastly, I just want clarification. What is this government planning on doing with its asset—what is it going to do with that 60,000-square-foot WSIB headquarters? Are you going to do the right thing? Are you going to convert that to affordable housing? Or are you going to reward some private developer who has smiled at you nicely? Are you going to give them a sweetheart deal? Does it depend on who is in the backrooms? These are all questions people in Ontario deserve to know.

I also want to remind this government, in their desire to sell off public assets—many of the biggest companies in the world cannot exist without a balanced ratio of assets and revenues. It’s not prudent, in the long-term way, to sell these off.

So many of these in this bill—I see some band-aid solutions; ones that aren’t terrible, but ones that aren’t good for the long term.

I hope that this government will listen to the recommendations of many people who have been crying out for years for cutting the red tape that is the WSIB—finally supporting workers who deserve respect, who deserve health care, who deserve to be treated fairly. These are people who went to work and who did not choose to become injured.

Let’s stop the prejudgment that WSIB often has on people. Let’s make sure people can live their best life, their healthiest life, by giving them the supports that they need when they’re injured at work. Let’s stop shutting them out.

I thank the member from Scarborough Southwest for her important question.

Yes, access to justice is vital across our province. It’s so unfortunate that we see some attempts at improvement within Bill 46 and yet we’ve also seen a government that is cutting legal aid. I remember attending the opening of the courts, and never before have I seen Chief Justices and people who are in positions of legal authority condemn a government so strongly because of their dramatic cuts to legal aid. Those cuts to legal aid meant that so many people who are refugees, people who are new Canadians, were struggling with access to the courts, and it has caused an overall problem. We need to do more to make sure that our courts function as effectively as possible.

I’m an animal lover myself. I think that says a lot about you, as well, as a person.

Access to justice is critical. Frequently, when we hear this government talk about pieces of legislation that the opposition voted against—it’s because they often include that poison pill. They include things that we cannot possibly support. You hide that poison pill, often, within some reasonably decent measures.

We’ve also been recommending hiring more adjudicators to the Landlord and Tenant Board to make sure to clear that backlog, because access to justice is vital to a functioning democracy.

The evidence has clearly been shown, through numerous reports, through the Ontario Federation of Labour, through the Ontario injured workers support network, that when people are denied the support they deserve, the supports they require, not only do they have a physical injury, but they will also have worsening mental health conditions, and I think it’s no wonder. You go to work; you’re going to provide for your family. Nobody asks to be injured, and they need that vital support. They need somebody to recognize that they’re not just making up some story. Instead, the WSIB does the exact opposite. It’s in the claims denial business. It’s trying to look at its bottom line. It’s the difference between publicly delivered health care and privately delivered health care. What is your mandate? Is it care or is it profit?

I’d like to thank the member from Simcoe–Grey for his very important question.

The supply chain is absolutely vital.

I’d like to return to the comments from the member from Ottawa Centre. He mentioned the occupation. Earlier, we saw this government completely stalled as the Ambassador Bridge was occupied. We saw this government refuse to call a provincial emergency and refuse to acknowledge that there was $300 million of vital trade going across that bridge every single day. There were so many workers who were sent home because their employer could not pay them. There was no work to do.

I think your comments about the supply chain with beef farmers are important, but I also think this government needs to walk the walk when it comes to actually standing up and making sure that we have not only the rule of law but that we have vital trade.

The example that happened at the Ambassador Bridge went on far too long and was absolutely unconscionable. It impacted so many families, and it should never have happened.

You are absolutely right; we have heard that the Landlord and Tenant Board is only meeting for above-guideline rent increases, when there are so many other issues.

I hear from tenants, of course, who have great concerns with their landlords. I also hear from landlords who are saying it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong in this scenario the Landlord and Tenant Board is completely stymied. It is completely unable to function correctly. That needs to be addressed. It is not addressed in Bill 46; it ought to be. We need to hire more adjudicators.