It’s an honour again to be able to stand in the Legislature and speak to important legislation that has come before this House.

I want to thank the Minister of Red Tape Reduction for the incredible work and advocacy that he has put into this legislation today and for leading off the debate in a vigorous manner to ensure that all members in this House hear more about the important work that’s happening.

I also want to start by acknowledging the incredible work of the team at the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction, those who have spent a great deal of time in the past and present and going forward reaching out to community stakeholders, hearing from people, from businesses, and from all those who are involved in ensuring that we are reducing red tape in a responsible and respectful way here in the province of Ontario. And that’s exactly what this legislation intends to do.

I also want to acknowledge and thank my beautiful wife, Keri, who I know is watching the debate this afternoon. I have to say, there are not always people who take the time to tune in to the Legislature on a Monday afternoon to watch a discussion about red tape—but Keri is, so I’m very thankful for her.

I’m also thankful to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to important legislation that builds on a strong foundation. The foundation that we as a government have worked on over the past four years and are continuing to work on is a foundation that aims to make life better and more affordable for families and for job creators here in the province of Ontario. That’s why I’m proud today to be speaking to Bill 46, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act, 2022.

I’m proud to be part of a government that is committed to attracting good jobs and investments right here in Ontario, and they’re doing that by making it less expensive, faster, and easier to do business here.

Since June 2018, when we formed government, we have reduced the total number of regulatory requirements that businesses must comply with by 6.5%, a not insubstantial number, especially when you consider the tendency—as people may have heard—of governments to grow the number of regulations and to increase the amount of red tape, as opposed to reducing it. So it’s no small feat to not only curb the tide against job-killing red tape but in fact to pull back some of those onerous and burdensome regulations that I’m sure we all hear about from our constituents.

Since that 2018 election, when we made a commitment to Ontarians that we were going to take swift action to move forward on this crucial file, to save businesses in the province of Ontario some $400 million by March 2022, we stepped forward and we took action. And we didn’t just meet that goal of a $400-million reduction by March of this year—no, we didn’t just meet it, we didn’t just strive to hit the bar; we strove to go beyond. In fact, we exceeded that goal by well over $170 million—incredible savings for the people and businesses of this province.

Our red tape reduction measures today are saving businesses, they’re saving not-for-profit organizations in each and every one of our communities, they’re saving municipalities where we all live, school boards where our children go to school, colleges and universities, the hospitals—the things that we rely on—the community and social services that each and every one of us as taxpayers and the people who we represent care about. We’re saving them—listen to this number—$576 million, not just once, but in annualized savings. That means, each and every year, as we move forward, hundreds of millions of dollars in savings for the people of this province. Achieving this was no easy task. It took leadership. It took leadership from Premier Ford. It took leadership from Minister Gill. It took leadership from so many others. It took leadership from so many members in this House who came together to support good legislation throughout the past four years that—wait for it—cut red tape, something that we were elected on, as a commitment in the 2018 election.

Going forward, we are continuing to demonstrate our commitment to cutting the burden on businesses, cutting red tape.

When we came to office, there was a broken system here in the province of Ontario. We inherited a broken regulatory system from the previous Liberal government that meant that Ontario had a reputation as one of the most difficult places to do business in North America; frankly, in the world, you could argue. But don’t just take my word for it, Speaker.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, an organization that advocates for our job creators here in the province of Ontario, estimated that at the time we took government, red tape was costing every business in Ontario $33,000 every single year, $3,000 per year higher than any other province or territory—a 10% cost premium just for doing business here in the province of Ontario. That was absolutely unacceptable.

That’s why our government took action. It’s why, since 2018, Ontario introduced and passed eight red tape reduction bills and nine red tape reduction packages, consisting of more than 400 individual measures to reduce burdens. These changes have included changes to regulations, to legislation, to policies, all with the common goal, as Minister Gill spoke about, of making it easier for people to live, to work and to do business here in the province of Ontario, while simultaneously protecting health, protecting workers, and protecting our vital environment.

And yet, despite all that work, despite all the effort, our province continues to face big challenges. We’re facing continued supply chain disruptions, some of which started during the COVID-19 pandemic and were exacerbated by that pandemic. We have seen seismic shifts in habits as people change their demands and as businesses have had to change to evolving situations. There are ongoing labour force disruptions, and these are beginning to impact both day-to-day life and, frankly, here in Ontario as well, our economy. In fact, nearly two thirds of Ontario businesses reported that their supply challenges got worse in the past year, and more than one third of businesses said that labour-related expenses or obstacles will continue to limit their growth.

Speaker, we know that governments can and must play a supportive role in reducing the red tape that can inhibit supply chains and ensuring that we have a well-oiled economic machine here in the province of Ontario. We need to solve challenges like those seen in the labour market, and one of the best ways we can do that is by continuing the efforts that we’ve already made so far to reduce red tape.

That is why we’ve brought forward this legislation. It’s why Bill 46, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act, contains 28 measures that will strengthen Ontario’s supply chain, support farmers and agri-food businesses like those in my riding of Niagara West and in so many ridings across this great province, grow our labour force to ensure we have people who are able to meet the careers of today and tomorrow, make life easier for people and for businesses by making it easier for them to interact with government—ensure that government works for them—and ensure that Ontario also remains competitive in the global economy.

This bill, if passed, will continue our ongoing work to streamline and modernize Ontario’s regulatory system across multiple areas of government and across multiple sectors of our economy. I’m confident that this proposed legislation will lead Ontario to more economic certainty, confidence and stability. It’s going to help ensure that our province continues to be competitive in the global market.

I want to take a few moments, before I delve into some of the specifics of this legislation, to also reflect on some of the past initiatives we’re building on with the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act.

Our government’s first red tape reduction bill was in the fall of 2018, when we passed the Making Ontario Open For Business Act. It established, for the first time in Ontario’s history, the rights of workers to take up to three days off for personal illness, two for bereavement and three for family responsibilities. This also addressed the backlog in Ontario’s skilled trades—a huge area of concern—by replacing Ontario’s outdated, old-fashioned model with a 1-to-1 journeyperson-to-apprentice ratio for every trade in which ratios apply. This change allowed us to better align Ontario with other provinces and territories.

Then, we continued. We built on that work by introducing, in April 2019, the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, with 31 actions to cut red tape in 12 different sectors, along with regulatory changes. The legislation cut business costs, harmonized regulatory requirements with other jurisdictions, ended so many unnecessary duplications, and reduced barriers to investment. And we weren’t done that year.

In December 2019, the Legislature passed the Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019, which was part of a broad suite of changes, with 80 actions to cut red tape and modernize regulations, making life easier for families and businesses.

Interjections.

The member for Niagara West.

Absolutely. This legislation contained support for so many different sectors: agriculture, trucking, construction, forestry, mining. It streamlined and consolidated rules and requirements for quarries, for farming, for waste management, and created a one-stop shop for trucking safety and emissions inspections and hydroelectric dam approvals—the nuts and bolts of those people, those hard-working men and women, who ensure that the goods are able to get from here to there, and those who keep the lights on.

We weren’t done. In July 2020, even in the midst of a challenging pandemic, we were able to bring forward the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act. It was the first step in our government’s plan for growth, renewal and recovery. It was designed to get crucial infrastructure projects built faster, while positioning Ontario as a modern regulator. To help address infrastructure backlogs for businesses and communities, this act cut red tape by also streamlining and modernizing the environmental assessment processes. Through this change alone, approval timelines for some projects that had been as high as six years were cut in half, to three years, and a greater number of important infrastructure projects can move forward because of this legislation. In fact, there are projects that are under way today because of the changes that act made.

To reduce delays for sewage and stormwater projects, crucial in all of our communities, that act was updated to also provide a single consolidated environmental compliance approvals process for low-impact municipal sewage collection and stormwater management projects. This change is allowing simple, routine changes by municipalities, such as alterations, extensions, enlargements or replacement projects, to be preauthorized so that construction can start without needing separate approvals for each and every single project—as there was before.

In addition to helping people and businesses in the construction sector, this act made it easier and faster to update the building code, to ensure that we’re reflecting the changes that are needed. Streamlining the building code development process, supporting harmonization with national construction codes and allowing Ontario to respond faster to the needs of the construction sector helped keep more people working and communities operating safely across this province during what was a very, very difficult time.

In November of the same year, 2020—a year I’m sure few of us will forget—the Legislature passed the Main Street Recovery Act. This was part of Ontario’s Main Street Recovery Plan, which was supporting small businesses and modernizing rules that would help them innovate and pursue new opportunities. The purpose of the bill was to support the small and main street businesses, the ones that are in each and every one of our communities—in Fonthill, in Fenwick, in Campden, in Jordan, in Vineland, in Beamsville, in Grimsby, in Smithville, in my riding of Niagara West—that fuel our economy and bring life to our communities.

One important measure in the Main Street Recovery Act, 2020, was making sure that 24/7 truck deliveries to retailers, restaurants and distribution centres were permanent. There had been temporary changes that had been brought in to keep store shelves full through the first wave of the pandemic, when many retailers were experiencing low supplies.

And you know, Speaker, one of the important changes that we made, as well, was that, from this act, we allowed an increased diversity of products to be sold at the Ontario Food Terminal—a very appropriate mention, given the important announcement that was made there this morning by the Minister of Agriculture and Minister Gill. Of course, thousands of small businesses, including independent shops and restaurants, rely on the terminal for their supplies, so this was a crucial measure to ensure that Ontario’s agri-food economy was supported.

We brought forward three red tape reduction packages to better support small businesses in 2020.

In December 2020, the Legislature passed the Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2020, which strengthened Ontario’s economic recovery and supported businesses. Changes included requiring gas and electric utilities to adopt Green Button technology so utility consumers could better understand their energy consumption and reduce costs. It allowed single traffic studies for an entire specified highway corridor or area to reduce duplication and enable developers to get shovels in the ground faster. It made it easier to get environmental information that home builders needed by moving from a manual paper-based process to a much faster digital delivery platform—as well as cutting red tape for inter-community bus carriers to improve transportation options in rural communities and in northern Ontario, making it easier for workers and families to access more transportation options.

Last year, in June 2021, the Legislature passed the Supporting Recovery and Competitiveness Act. This comprehensive package that contained over 90 legislative and regulatory actions helped position businesses for new opportunities as the economy reopened. The bill launched innovative pilot projects that supported our autonomous vehicle industry, brought more ServiceOntario services online to make life easier for people accessing services, and supported the not-for-profit sector and other corporations by allowing them to hold virtual meetings. It also removed the requirement for high school students to submit paper-based forms on community involvement activities. By allowing students to submit this important diploma requirement activity online, we’ve saved time and frustration for students and administrators alike. It’s a great example of a simple fix that just makes sense, and it shows how regulatory modernization and burden reduction can really benefit all Ontarians.

In December of last year, the Legislature also passed the Supporting People and Businesses Act, 2021, which made it easier for people to become volunteers by providing free police checks. And it laid the groundwork for licensed restaurants and bars to extend their outdoor patio spaces last year, when they needed it most. I heard from many small businesses, especially in the restaurant and service sector, that really appreciated that change. It also enabled additional supports and a simplified application process for the Second Career program—a program that helps those looking for employment train for occupations that are in high demand.

Speaker, the Fewer Fees, Better Services Act, 2022, introduced in February, was our eighth red tape reduction bill. The package brought financial relief to millions of Ontario vehicle owners by removing the requirement for and providing refunds for licence plate stickers and renewal fees. It gave drivers in Durham region a break by removing the unfair tolls on Highway 412 and 418, an issue long advocated for by the member for Whitby—tolls that were unwillingly imposed on those communities by the previous Liberal government. It also began the process of establishing a single window for business, including the development of service standards so businesses will be able to know how long it will take them to get the information they need from government, as well as the Building Ontario Business Initiative, which will strengthen supply chain resiliency and provide Ontario businesses with greater access to public procurement opportunities through the Supply Ontario agency.

Finally, in the 2022 budget, we responded to calls by the CFIB to track burden reduction for citizens by committing to cut more red tape to support individuals—and I know that this is a passion for the Premier and for our whole team at the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction, including Minister Gill. We are starting to track these achievements. Beginning in September 2023, the government will ensure that we are tracking every reduced administration burden for citizens and publicly reporting on this progress, to ensure greater accountability and reduced regulatory and administrative burdens.

Speaker, as I’ve already talked about, the reductions that we’ve brought forward as a government and as a team have saved Ontario businesses, since 2018, over half a billion dollars each and every year. And while we’re proud of these savings and the impact that they will have on Ontario’s competitiveness, we know that there is more work to do.

Smart, modern regulations that can improve how people go about their lives and that can make it easier for them to interact with important public services are important. That’s why, through the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act, we continue to update regulations and reduce burdens in ways that save people time and money.

Speaker, I can’t stress enough how many people and businesses in Ontario have benefited from our efforts to reduce red tape and administrative burdens since 2018.

Dennis Darby, the president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said, “Unnecessary, duplicative processes and red tape can plague all critical elements of doing business in Ontario—from hiring, to building a new facility or exporting. It has been refreshing to see the government of Ontario set a specific objective for regulatory burden reduction—$576 million over the last four years, and then meet that objective.”

Nadia Todorova, executive director of the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario, said, “RCCAO commends the government of Ontario for continuously working to streamline and modernize regulations and facilitate economic competitiveness in the province.”

Ryan Mallough of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said, “Great to see” the government’s “continued commitment to reducing red tape! Positive measures in the package on going digital/streamlining processes. Great to see they’re pushing the red tape portal....”

That reminds me of an important point. In recent months, both the Minister of Red Tape Reduction and myself have been consulting with stakeholders. We’ve been trying to help identify and solve the burdens that they face while operating their businesses. I hosted a series of round tables focused specifically on addressing the challenges in Ontario’s supply chain. That work helped inform the important measures in the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act.

But we’re always looking for new ideas and solutions to make Ontario a better place to live, work and start a business—and we know that people and businesses are those who are best positioned to bring forward lasting solutions. It’s why we’ve relaunched the province’s red tape reduction portal, which can be found online at ontario.ca/redtape. Go there with your ideas. It’s a quick and easy way for people to share their concerns, ideas and, most importantly, solutions directly with our ministry, the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction. I also encourage all members in this House to share this link with their constituents and gain that feedback.

The 28 initiatives in this legislation will bolster Ontario’s competitiveness, build a stronger supply chain, support agri-business, shore up our workforce, and make it easier to interact with government by cutting red tape.

I now look forward to hearing from the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, who will speak about the Grow Ontario strategy within this legislation and the other measures in this package that will build a stronger agri-food supply chain.

I want to thank both my colleague the Minister of Red Tape Reduction as well as his parliamentary assistant, the member for Niagara West, for all the great work that you have done. It’s a pleasure to partner with you on this important piece of legislation, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act. This bill and the items that it represents are yet another example of our government’s commitment, if you will, as well as our concrete action, in making sure that business is easier in Ontario.

You can’t mention business in Ontario without recognizing our province’s agri-food industry. The agri-food industry in this province is a $47-billion sector, and it supports one in 10 paycheques across this province. Ontario’s food and beverage industry is the largest manufacturing sector. You simply cannot grow our economy without recognizing that when our provincial economy is growing, that translates into growth in our agri-food sector as well.

I’ve said for some time that the future is bright for farming and our agri-food industries across this province, and I look forward to seeing how we, as a government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, continue to remove hurdles and barriers to allow our farmers and our agri-food businesses to grow.

I would also like to recognize that we have a labour shortage in this province and limited processing capacity, and it has made our overall supply chain a little bit challenging. But I have to tell you, there is such desire to realize efficiencies, and there’s such desire to grow Ontario. We are all working across ministries to make sure our agri-food sector is second to none and churning on all cylinders.

We’ve seen first-hand, over the last couple of years, delays in things like computer chips for tractors, or delays in the delivery of equipment for dairy parlours or even inputs for crops. That impact is significant, so we need to take a look at our supply chain and determine how we can best build in resiliency.

I might dare suggest, as you’ve heard time and again in this House: A made-in-Ontario solution is the best route. How are we going to sustain that solution? By cutting red tape. That’s why it’s such a pleasure to join the debate today.

Across the province, farmers, industry, government and the 750,000 Ontarians who are proud to go to work each and every day in our sector share a commitment to make sure that we have a bright future, as I mentioned before, and that we have the proper supports in place.

Based on the leadership of Premier Ford, as a government, we’re working together to take steps to cut red tape. The fact of the matter is, we are saving the agri-food sector already over $3.5 million and countless hours of unnecessary paperwork, and that has been incredibly well received to date.

As of today, speaking in this House, I can tell you with absolute certainty that we’ve launched thoughtful and timely programs to continue the reduction of red tape, to continue our efforts to support farmers to be outstanding in their field, and to support our agri-food businesses to be processing the most nutritious, safe and greatest-quality food not only in Ontario but across Canada, throughout North America, and around the world. Just earlier today, I heard farmers saying that we set the standard. I really feel that through this red tape legislation we continue to push the envelope in the spirit of setting standards as well.

Something I’d be remiss if I didn’t touch on is the manner in which our government was very dexterous and had the ability to move swiftly, and that’s with regard to how our supply chain was impacted by the supply of fertilizer—and not only the supply of fertilizer, but the soaring prices associated with that limited supply. We moved in a very exact method to address that and to introduce and incent people to come forward with made-in-Ontario solutions. Our government is investing $2 million in a fertilizer challenge to support, as I mentioned, made-in-Ontario solutions so that we’re shortening the supply chain, bringing those much-needed goods closer to our farmers, and incenting industry at the same time to increase and develop new fertilizer options, alternatives and, most importantly, new technology.

It’s targeted investments like these that are helping to set the Ontario food sector apart from other jurisdictions, but more importantly, it’s setting our sector up for success.

I want to take a moment to recognize some of the growth that we’ve seen in this sector. For example, in farm tax receipts there was an over 5% increase in 2021, and the total value of capital on Ontario farms has grown by about 40% since 2016.

We’ve seen increases in crop production as well, year over year. For instance, let’s take a look at corn production. The average bushel per acre of corn produced in 2002 was 113; by 2004, it was 131. Last year, in 2021, the average production in terms of bushels per acre for grain corn was 175; that was up from 167 in 2016.

I’m smiling because, through new technologies and new best practices, our production around the province is increasing.

Within the last couple of weeks, Ontario Pork visited Queen’s Park, and it was awesome to hear one of Ontario Pork’s provincial directors talk about his average of corn harvest this past year. In eastern Ontario, that gentleman harvested more than 200 bushels per acre in corn. That’s phenomenal for eastern Ontario. We are adapting our technology to soil types, we’re adapting our technology to growing seasons, and we’re adapting because the world needs Ontario to be its most productive.

As far as trade goes, it’s also interesting to note, in the spirit of talking about Ontario Pork, that Ontario’s pork farmers are sending their products to 41 different countries—41. That’s phenomenal. Over 70% of all produce grown right here in Ontario greenhouses gets exported.

Again, the world is looking to Ontario to continue the path we’re on, and by reducing more red tape and introducing opportunities for more efficiencies through the embracing of new technologies and adopting new strategies, we’re going to continue to grow.

It leads me to touch on the amazing work that the MPP from Chatham-Kent–Leamington is doing as parliamentary assistant to OMAFRA. He is strongly rooted in our greenhouse industry.

To give you an example of how we’re shortening supply chains and thinking about the produce that Ontarians value year-round, we’re now seeing, through the adoption of new technologies, the production of strawberries, right here in Ontario, year-round, and they do taste really good. We challenge people to beat that flavour.

Seeing new innovations in the greenhouse sector is just one example of how we’re moving the bar and setting new standards, because there are so many opportunities in this province.

As I recognized before, there are ongoing challenges facing the sector, like concerns with processing capacity and labour shortages. They’re top of mind for me, and we hear about them time and again from our stakeholders. But our government will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder—and we will do our part to ensure the future is full of opportunities to shine a spotlight on the amazing careers that can be realized through Ontario’s agri-food sector. Whether it’s computer science, soil science or working hands-on on a farm, there is an opportunity for everyone.

That’s why I’m so pleased to have released, just this morning, along with my colleague the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, our Grow Ontario strategy, which is part of the fall red tape reduction package. We’re supporting this effort by debating the bill today. I have to tell you, this morning was a great success. I want to thank all the stakeholders who joined us at the Ontario Food Terminal for this great news. The Minister of Red Tape Reduction and myself were joined by another amazing MPP, the MPP for Etobicoke–Lakeshore, because the Ontario Food Terminal is located right in her riding. It’s one of the largest food hubs in North America. They want to grow, and so we’re going to stand with them and make sure that, by reducing burden and reducing red tape, they can help their vendors grow and, by extension, grow the terminal as well. This is important because Ontarians absolutely need to have sustained confidence in our food supply, and the rest of the world is looking to us as well.

Our Grow Ontario strategy aims to build that consumer confidence even more, support farmers and Ontario’s food supply, drive research and innovation, and, most importantly, grow a strong workforce in the spirit of strengthening our supply chain. This strategy has been informed by voices throughout the sector, starting last year, and I really value the input from our farmers, our stakeholders and all of the players throughout our supply chain, because they’ve taken a lot of time—from our food summit through our innovation summit and all the round tables in between, voices were heard and voices were respected. We’re going to act on their asks in terms of reducing burden, in the spirit of reducing red tape, so that they can continue to grow.

From grain farmers in my neck of the woods, the counties of Huron and Bruce, to pork farmers in Perth and Wellington counties, to beef and dairy producers in northern and eastern Ontario, through to the fruit and vegetable growers in Northumberland, Essex, the Holland Marsh and Niagara—the list could go on and on, but I’d be remiss if we didn’t note that we also are strong and need to look at barriers and red tape that need to be reduced for our food and beverage manufacturers throughout the GTHA, as well. The informative discussions that we had helped to create our vision in Grow Ontario for what our sector can be.

The strategy is divided into three pillars. The first pillar is our plan to strengthen agri-food supply chain stability. Our goal is to increase the production of food grown and prepared in Ontario by 30%, and our farmers and our stakeholders are telling us this can be done. We’re also going to be looking to increase food and beverage manufacturing by 10% and boost Ontario’s agri-food exports by 8% annually by 2032. As part of that pillar, I’m pleased to share that our government will also be opening applications for the $10-million Food Security and Supply Chain Fund to provide investments for projects that will help secure the supply chain from disruption. Again, that is a program that was informed by consultation, and it too will be well received. I look forward to receiving people’s interest as a result. At the end of the day, we’re taking action to open up international markets with the goal of ensuring there is a stable supply chain, both domestically here in the province of Ontario, and across Canada, North America and globally for Ontario’s agri-food sector.

A few weeks ago, I had the honour of speaking at the Toronto Global Forum, an international conference that brings together leaders in industry to foster dialogue on national and global issues. The theme of this conference was the new economy, and one of my very first messages to this forum was that the Ontario agri-food industry always has been and always will be a cornerstone of Ontario’s economy. Without farmers, processors, veterinarians, transporters, grocers and everyone else along our supply chain, Ontario would not be the economic powerhouse that it is today. And I’m working closely with the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade to open up international markets for Ontario’s agri-food industry.

Our second pillar is our plan to increase agri-food technology and adoption. By advancing technology and innovation, we will continue to make the lives of those in our agri-food sector easier and support new best practices. And in my recent travels, I’ve been lucky to see this pillar already in action, I dare say, in the spirit of the future of farming. And what will the future look like under this pillar? It’s one where autonomous vehicles are able to step in and give farmers the data they need to make decisions not only for their soil but for their crops, like we saw at Canada’s Outdoor Farm Show; one where students like the ones at Durham College are learning how to grow commodities like lettuce and garlic vertically to enable more abundant operations in urbanized areas—and we also saw how Ontario has become the clear leader in agri-food business and operations.

Our third pillar responds to a challenge that I have heard about over and over again, no matter what the commodity or sector is. That final pillar is our plan to attract and grow Ontario’s agri-food talent. Our goal is to increase total agri-food sector employment by 10% by 2032; increase awareness of the amazing, modern, high-tech agri-food careers and opportunities for mentorship and hands-on job training; and support efforts to increase, for example, veterinary capacity throughout the province.

We heard at a recent round table that our Premier participated in that labour is a top concern across the sector. Chris Conway of Food and Beverage Ontario said, “Labour is our top priority. Despite concerted recruitment efforts by food and beverage processors there are not sufficient people working in our sector today to even maintain the status quo. Unchecked, this labour crisis will worsen as we face a record number of retirements in the next five years. We need to recruit and retain thousands of new employees to ensure Ontario families have a reliable supply of food and beverage products.”

I’m pleased to stand with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to help realize that opportunity to attract new people to our sector as well.

The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

You’re welcome.

Speaker, we’re taking action—like the launch of a labour campaign and new training opportunities across the province.

We will also be taking steps to increase the number of large animal vets in Ontario, which leads me another initiative included in this fall’s red tape reduction package.

The outdated Veterinarians Act is one that has limited our province for a while now, and it’s time to bring it into the 21st century, so that farmers and pet owners alike are able to access the care their animals need. We have launched consultations to modernize and reform the Veterinarians Act, and I’m very pleased that our colleague and friend from Elgin–Middlesex–London is going to be leading those consultations. He will do an amazing job. I want to share with you that it’s very important that we do not keep outdated legislation holding back vets and vet techs from being able to work as effectively as possible across this province. That’s why the consultations to modernize the Veterinarians Act are very important at this time.

Our goal is to introduce legislation that, if passed, would equip vets and registered vet techs with the tools they need to meet today’s demands. For instance, our veterinarian on our farm is just a text away, and that’s invaluable. It gives us confidence in how we care for our livestock as well.

I think there’s much to be said about this amazing piece of legislation introduced and being debated today. The Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act is another example of how our government is standing with our agri-food sector and building an even stronger, more secure sector that Ontarians can have every confidence in.

Another thing is modernizing a really important piece of legislation that talks to how we allow custom feeding amongst feeder cattle co-op members. To quote Jack Chaffe, president of the Beef Farmers of Ontario: “The proposed change to the ministry of agriculture and rural affairs act is a positive step that will help create new opportunities for business activity within the feeder cattle loan guarantee co-operatives”—or, as I know it, feeder finance—“reduce risks to lenders, and provide custom feeders with access to competitive financing.” This is so important as we try to attract new people to that sector, especially young and new farmers alike.

We’re also proposing changes to the Animal Health Act, which will allow a minister such as myself to take immediate action to protect animal and public health on the advice of the Chief Veterinarian for Ontario in response to an animal health crisis, much like we faced with the avian flu situation.

I want to quote the chair of Chicken Farmers of Ontario, Murray Opsteen. He said, “The health and safety of animals in our care is top priority for Ontario’s chicken farmers. This proposed amendment to the Animal Health Act will enable us to have greater confidence that during an animal disease emergency, our flocks and the Ontario food supply are protected.”

Speaker, at the end of the day, it is such a pleasure to see ministries, under the leadership of Premier Ford, working hand in glove, because reducing red tape and reducing barriers is what businesses in Ontario need. It’s our government that has been listening. It’s our government that is standing up every session—fall and spring—to continue to reduce red tape in this province. And because of that, our businesses will be stronger.

Thank you.

The member from Barrie–Innisfil has a point of order.

My thanks to the member for Whitby for being such a strong voice for his community and for asking this question.

When I think about some piece of this legislation that really applies to my riding—and specifically, the diversity that he’s referring to, where I have urban cores alongside quite rural areas, of course bordering two Great Lakes—I think about the changes to the Veterinarians Act. When the Veterinarians Act came into effect, people didn’t have as many pets as they do nowadays, but they had a lot of farm animals and they had a lot of horses that they used for transportation and for various reasons. One day, vets in my riding are treating important pets to people and their families, and the next day, they’re on a farm, treating in an industrial type of setting, to make sure that we’re eating safe food. The changes that we’re bringing forward in this act will update and modernize that act to ensure that we’re reflecting the changes in Ontario and the needs of animal welfare.

We saw labour disruptions impact our supply chains, and we’re taking action to make sure that doesn’t happen again, but we’re doing so in a way that protects our environment, protects workers, and protects the health of the people of this province, and we’re going to keep doing that.

I want to thank Minister Gill and Minister Thompson for joining me at the food terminal in Etobicoke–Lakeshore for your announcement this morning. Thank you for coming to the great riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

My question is around animal health preparedness and what the minister was talking about with veterinarians. With my vet bills, I might as well have a whole farm, because my dog is at the vet so often. When you are talking with veterinarians—I’m just wondering if you are planning on doing some consultations. And what do we plan on getting out of the consultations, if there are any? What I’ve been hearing is that there are not a lot of vets. We’re lacking veterinarians, and we’re also lacking vet techs. Will these consultations and these changes help get more people into that field?

My question is for the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, and it’s specific to schedule 2.

Earlier this fall, a number of lawyers from every law firm in the city of London sent a joint letter to the Attorney General about the crisis in civil litigation trial backlogs in London. Trials of over two weeks have been told that there’s no prospect at all of being heard until 2024. As the minister would know, these civil cases affect many of the business concerns that you are supposed to be interested in: business disputes, banking, bankruptcy, employment and labour, contract disputes, property disputes etc. Those lawyers called for the appointment of two more Superior Court justices in the region and two more justices in London.

Is schedule 2 the answer to London’s crisis and court backlogs—to increase the time for retired former provincial judges to serve?

I want to thank my honourable colleague on the other side for that important question.

I do want to highlight the fact that our minister, the Attorney General of Ontario, obviously has been doing a tremendous, tremendous job over the last four and a half years modernizing our justice system.

I’m sure the member opposite would understand that the previous Liberal government, for 15 years, and the mess they left us with—obviously, it does take a little bit of time to clean all of that up. I would also point out the fact that we all know that the opposition spent most of those 15 years supporting the Liberals’ inaction on a lot of those items.

As I mentioned in my remarks, the province we inherited when we formed government in 2018 had the largest regulatory burden in the province. So, yes, we are working each and every day diligently, and we are working to address some of the challenges that—

It’s an important question about the consultation. Absolutely, consultations on any changes that our government proposes to introduce are a big part of our mandate. Her question is related to the consultation to do with the veterinarians. Of course, we will be holding very comprehensive consultations, and I hope that each one of our colleagues in this Legislature can play a role in them. Any input that can be provided, whether it’s from stakeholders or whether it’s from industry leaders, is always welcome. We always look forward to it because, ultimately, individuals who deal with situations on a day-to-day basis are obviously the best ones to provide us input so we can get the best bang for the buck.

Pursuant to standing order 7(e), I wish to inform the House that tonight’s evening meeting is cancelled.

I listened intently to everyone.

I’d like to pose my question to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, who stated, regarding corn yields in the province—I believe they’re averaging 200 per acre, which is great, but we lose 319 acres a day. If you take 365 times 319, you get 116,435 acres. If you multiply that by the bushels of corn, it’s 23,287,000 bushels per year that you’re losing. If you multiply that by boxes of Corn Flakes, it’s over 1.2 billion a year that we’re losing in boxes of Corn Flakes. Does the government think that’s a significant loss in food production capacity in the province of Ontario?

We obviously recognize, as a government, as all Ontarians do, the value of the WSIB. It’s one of the largest insurance organizations in North America. But we know that it’s important to ensure that more dollars are always being able to go to the workers and not to administrative burdens. That’s why reducing the administrative burden for the WSIB will also enable them to work more efficiently and to create an agile system that is better able to cater to the needs of workers here in the province of Ontario. Codifying the WSIB’s long-standing operational practices is going to eliminate any operational confusion that might have come about between employers, workers and service providers alike.

While these changes are coming into effect—they’re going to align WSIB’s operational practices, but no substantial implementation steps are going to be required to support these amendments. It’s really going to ensure that we’re reducing some of those redundancies and codifying the practices that exist.

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—

The member for Toronto–St. Paul’s.

With regard to the government’s bill, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act: I see that the government has tinkered with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. I’m wondering if the government’s bill has any changes that will actually help protect the 50% of injured workers who we know are living in poverty. I’m wondering if this bill actually brings back any of those billions of dollars of “WSIB surplus” into the hands of injured workers, as opposed to billion-dollar corporations.

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.