It’s disheartening to see changes in schedule 9 to WSIB while the government is still allowing long-standing gaps for injured workers. Again and again, workers and worker organizations bring up deeming, a practice that allows the WSIB to reduce wage loss benefits based on deemed earnings from a job the injured worker does not have.

My question is to the member opposite: Why is this government not taking the solutions proposed by the member from Niagara Falls to stop the practice of deeming?

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair. It’s my first time in the House when you’re there.

I want to say, it’s always a pleasure to stand in my place in Ontario’s Legislature on behalf of the good people of Waterloo and bring their perspective to the floor.

This is an interesting piece of legislation, in some regard, Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act. I’ve had a little bit of time to review some of the stakeholders that have actually provided some feedback. This is from OSPE. They say, “This act, if passed, will implement measures to strengthen provincial supply chains”—this is an interesting component—“make government services easier to access, and boost Ontario’s economic competitiveness.” I’m going to focus on the competitiveness piece, because I do see this government moving in a direction which actually runs counter to the competitiveness piece.

And I will say that the “working with Indigenous partners” component—and I think that it was really powerful this morning when our member from Kiiwetinoong schooled the Minister of Municipal Affairs and said you can’t call Indigenous people “our people.” They don’t belong to us, and it’s an important reminder that language really does matter in this place.

On the assessment from OSPE: A component of Bill 46 is working with Indigenous partners. “The government will work with Indigenous businesses and communities to better understand and address barriers to accessing government business support programs and procurement opportunities.”

I found that this is pretty important. I don’t know if you remember, but I’ve recently become very fascinated by procurement because it can really drive the economy. It can diversify the economic opportunities of folks across the province. Yet the government, as I mentioned, sort of runs counter to this philosophy. We heard this morning the member from Kiiwetinoong challenge the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and say, “Listen, First Nations people have not been consulted on Bill 23.” So you have a red tape bill that says you’re going to listen and you’re going to work with Indigenous peoples and then you have a massive, damaging piece of legislation, like Bill 23, on which you didn’t even bother to consult First Nations people.

This is the letter that the Chiefs of Ontario wrote to the government and wrote to the minister. This just actually happened on November 23, so just late last week. It reads, “The Chiefs of Ontario express their full support for First Nations leadership in their opposition to Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, due to its clear violation of First Nations constitutionally protected, inherent and treaty rights and its inevitable adverse environmental impacts on First Nations ancestral and traditional territories.”

It goes on to say, “The government of Ontario’s tabling of Bill 23 is a blatant violation of First Nations’ inherent, domestic, and international rights over their ancestral and traditional territories.” This is a direct quote from Ontario Regional Chief Glen Hare. “Bill 23 will inevitably harm Ontario’s environmental heritage and weaken land and water environmental protection.”

So you have to wonder why the government bothers to put a very symbolic schedule in Bill 46 when your actions speak louder than a red tape bill ever will.

This letter goes on to say, “First Nations have been given no opportunity, nor the adequate capacity to be consulted regarding the tabling of Bill 23 and its significant changes to Ontario’s legislative and policy landscapes. It is deeply concerning to the Chiefs of Ontario that the mandate of the Indigenous Affairs Ontario (IAO) office, which is to ensure collaboration amongst ministries engaging and consulting with First Nations on policy and legislative changes, continues to be unfulfilled.”

We would be very supportive of a piece of legislation which actually solidified and embedded a respectful relationship with Indigenous peoples in Ontario.

The letter from the Chiefs of Ontario goes on to say, “Unilateral legislative and administrative changes within Bill 23 without consultation or engagement with First Nations are unacceptable and an abuse of power.” Abuse of power—this is from the Chiefs of Ontario. “The unprecedented steps taken by the government of Ontario to violate existing treaties and their will to systemically sell off resources will have dire consequences for First Nations and future generations.”

Then it goes on to say—and this follows the questioning of our member from Kiiwetinoong this morning: “First Nations are not stakeholders; we are sovereign nations and are entitled to proper consultation based on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ... and mutual respect.”

Then, finally, just to close this loop of inconsistency of the PC government in Ontario: “The government of Ontario can no longer avoid its duty to consult with First Nations by delegating responsibilities and obligations to municipalities, developers, and project proponents. The government’s requests for after-the-fact commentary from First Nations regarding the conception of Bill 23 do not discharge the crown’s duty to consult. To move forward, First Nations require a clear commitment from the government of Ontario to honour its duty to consult and to honour, respect and uphold First Nations’ inherent rights and jurisdiction.”

They have asked—and they’ve had to ask after the fact, Madam Speaker. They want to meet with the Minister of Indigenous Affairs, the Premier and the minister responsible for Bill 23, “to discuss the impacts ... and the value of protecting Ontario’s natural ecosystems, lands and waters from irreversible losses and damage for our future generations.”

So there you have it. You have the Chiefs of Ontario basically calling out the PC government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, for being completely inconsistent and disrespectful of Indigenous peoples in Ontario. And why is this relevant to Bill 46? Because Bill 46 actually embeds a component that says that we’re going to try to better understand and address barriers. Do you know what they need to understand? It’s that Indigenous peoples in this province have a right to be consulted, and the government has a duty to consult. So you can put whatever you want into a red tape bill, apparently, but at the end of the day, when you disrespect Indigenous peoples in Ontario, your actions speak louder than words.

The procurement opportunities that this government says that they want and care about in Bill 46—if you were serious about this, you would have passed my private member’s bill, which was diversifying the procurement chain and the supply chain to make those supply chains more local, to make our local economies more resilient, to diversify the people who are interacting with the public service.

At the end of the day, Bill 46 is primarily a series of housekeeping amendments, although we’re still waiting for some stakeholder feedback on the carbon sequestration because the government has said that this will be environmentally neutral. Well, we’re going to take the word of folks who actually have a track record of believing in measures to address climate change, which this government clearly does not. In fact, they have lost in court on several of these initiatives.

The other thing that the opening preamble for the legislation talks about is that it’s going to strengthen the economy. Listen; there is a time and a place for regulations. We sometimes disagree with the government on where they cut regulations because we’ve seen, and we should learn from, the history of this government on things that they have cut when they’ve reduced regulatory measures, especially around health and safety. We have the classic example of Walkerton. We should be learning from that example every day.

But on the stated economic goals of Bill 46, I have to say that the economy requires investment in people. What we have seen from this government is that they don’t fully comprehend how important people who deliver public services are. If they did, they would have already repealed Bill 124. Bill 124 is a piece of wage-suppression legislation which is driving health care workers out of Ontario.

We were in committee just last Thursday, myself and my counterpart from London, and we heard first-hand from a nurse who’s working in the emergency room in Ottawa. They had recruited 28 new nursing students, but they have lost 42 experienced nurses. So the government can say, “But we have 28 new nurses,” but you have 42 nurses who had a connection with that community, who had knowledge that you cannot learn from a textbook. That knowledge transfer, that mentorship that happens in the nursing field, it doesn’t seem to resonate with this government.

The other piece, though, is that we do support progressive infrastructure development and investment, I have to say, because we follow the money. We follow the money very closely over here. It is a rare, rare day that I can take a quick quote from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, but this association—I’m going to read their open letter to this government on infrastructure and transit projects, because it really is telling of how sloppy this government is with regard to the finances of the people of this province. This is the letter, and it’s a really good parable, if you will:

“Imagine you’ve hired contractors to do a home renovation project. You’ve finally saved up enough money to add that second bathroom you’ve always wanted. What would you do if, halfway through the job, the contractors came to you and said that costs had suddenly doubled, and the only explanation they had was inflation?

“Most people would probably fire the contractors on the spot and look for someone else to do the job. Inflation is a factor, but double?” You cannot rationalize a doubling of the cost of infrastructure projects because of inflation. “And, even if you decided to keep those contractors to finish that one job, you certainly wouldn’t hire them” again—but that’s what happens in this place. And it turns out that the Premier apparently has no problems with this.

The Premier “decided to put Metrolinx, a crown agency, in charge of overseeing the construction of the government’s major new subway projects.”

We’ve heard about a lot of these projects that were carefully drafted on the back of a napkin, and Metrolinx will be leading the charge, even though the agency to date has a—I would not say a very good record. You just have to point to the Eglinton Crosstown project and the public-private partnerships that Metrolinx, as the contractor, oversees. So when these projects were first announced three years ago—at the heart of the plan is the Ontario Line. This Ontario Line is supposed to connect the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place. Let’s not talk about Ontario Place today, because it is very, very problematic. I don’t think anyone thought it would end up as a spa.

The Ontario Line’s “cost was originally pegged at $10.9 billion. Metrolinx was put in charge of overseeing the project.

“Just a few days ago, news broke that the Ontario Line, which is still at least five years from completion”—if we’re lucky—“is now set to cost taxpayers at least $19 billion.” That’s almost double.

“That’s a 75% cost increase.

“That extra $8 billion could have paid for seven brand new hospitals”—it could have.

“The Ministry of Transportation is covering for Metrolinx and blames inflation for the increased costs.

“While inflation has certainly hit the province hard, Ontario hasn’t seen 75% inflation over the past three years.

“The Ontario Line is not the only example....”

Metrolinx was tasked by a previous government with “overseeing the construction of the Eglinton Crosstown line through the heart of midtown Toronto.” That project is now $325 million over budget.

“That’s enough money to hire over three thousand nurses”—or pay the nurses in Ontario a fair wage. What a concept that would be.

It goes on to say that Burlington and Oakville—municipalities which this government has been, quite honestly, insulting through the course of Bill 23 and Bill 39—decided that they were going to do a rail underpass together, and Metrolinx said that’s going to be $60 million. Well, they just got a quote for $177 million.

It’s the contractor that goes over budget—and you would think that the government would want to tackle this issue, because infrastructure investment does create jobs, but over-budget infrastructure projects that never get done on time or on budget are a drag on the economy. The only people who benefit from these kinds of projects, when there is no financial oversight or accountability, are the people who are at the table, in the backrooms, making the deals and making the money.

The fact that they’ve claimed that Bill 46 is somehow an economic competitiveness bill, not addressing the importance of accountability and efficiencies in infrastructure development, is not shocking, but it is problematic. A huge reset button needs to be hit on these public-private partnerships, which are not serving the people of Ontario very well.

I’m not going to hold my breath that this government is going to take on P3s. They’re very determined to go in that direction. At the very least, though, the Minister of Transportation should take responsibility. You can’t outsource your responsibility as a minister of the crown—I guess you can, because she is, but it is not in the interest of the people we serve.

So there are obviously inconsistencies with Bill 46, and we have some concerns with that.

Also, the fact that the government claims that they care about red tape, that they want to reduce red tape, is really an oxymoron, because they just passed this morning—we voted against it, for the record, for very good reason—Bill 23. Bill 23, in the region of Waterloo, is going to create twice the red tape that we’ve ever seen—

Questions?

Thank you very much for the question. Again, I want to highlight what we see as some real, solid and tangible benefits, which are industries and emitters which we know strive to reduce those emissions yet at the same time protect the jobs that they have and the investments that they’ve made and potentially any future investments. We want to work with them to enable a framework, to take that carbon that they’re emitting, again, go through those many steps that create a safe and environmentally responsible framework to capture that carbon and then store that carbon. Thankfully, in Ontario, we have the geology for it that will allow that to happen. So we’re uniquely positioned here in Ontario to be able to support industry that way, and there will be some great outcomes, both, again, environmentally and economically.

Thank you, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, for that wonderful presentation. As part of the red tape bill, we heard so many things. Thank you for all that important information you have provided to this House.

The level of carbon in the atmosphere has been consistently increasing. Greenhouse gas emissions are a huge issue, and this is damaging the environment. You talk about carbon capture storage. These are very, very important new concepts to Ontario. Could you explain, please, Minister, more about what are the economic, health, social and environmental benefits through this bill?

False.

It is not false.

We have a regional level of government that the government may or may not like—or they may or may not like the hard line that’s around the region of Waterloo. We have seven municipalities within that regional umbrella. The government is downloading the responsibility for housing and development to those seven other lower-tier governments. Right now, the region of Waterloo coordinates, collaborates, has the big picture on these infrastructure projects, like housing, affordable housing, not-for-profit. They are missing one part. They are missing the money from the province of Ontario; I can tell you that much. They have found a fairly strong partner in the federal government. Now, because of Bill 23, all those seven little municipalities, who have staffs of 10, 12 or 13 people, are going to have to figure out the planning process for the new housing projections—if it matches the provincial direction, whoever is going to determine those provincial priorities. Is it the Minister of Municipal Affairs? Is it the Premier himself? Is he going to determine what the provincial priority is? Right now, nobody really knows. So this, in effect, is going to create double the work at those lower-tier governments, and it will likely slow down housing developments and housing starts. In fact, the housing starts in the fall economic statement had been downgraded.

All of this comes at a time when we hear members of the government saying fairly disparaging things about these municipalities. My counterpart the member for Kitchener–Conestoga, just last Wednesday, was saying that the township of Woolwich didn’t even know that they had $6.5 million, and that $200 million was in reserves, and that nobody was spending the money.

So what did I do? I did what I’m supposed to do. I wrote to all of those municipalities, I quoted the member from Kitchener–Conestoga—I pulled out his comments, which were fairly negative, I have to say—and I reached out to those municipalities. You could imagine their surprise, because they have a five-year, capital-forecasted budget for $6.5 million, and all of it is allocated. I give these municipalities full credit for planning, for doing their due diligence, and for working within a very tight timeline and guidelines that are determined by the provincial government, because they are creatures of the provincial government.

At the end of the day, when you hear back from the municipalities and they say, “All of this money is allocated for five years”—someone in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs just looked at a number and said, “That’s outrageous,” but they didn’t meet with them, they didn’t talk with them, they didn’t consult with them.

And I have to say, this is a government that has $4.5 billion in a contingency fund, unallocated. Who does that, especially when the FAO says a reasonable contingency fund is $1 billion?

So what I see with Bill 46, as I said, is some housekeeping amendments, but you’ve always got to pull back the layers with this government, because they’re always up to more than what appears. What a disrespectful way to treat municipalities in the province of Ontario.

My thanks to the member for Waterloo for her presentation and participation in debate this afternoon, and I appreciate her speaking to the various aspects of the legislation.

I think the carbon sequestration piece is very important. Obviously, I’ve never been accused of being a socialist, but there are aspects of the NDP that I admire, and one of those is their commitment to fighting for the environment. I believe that’s a value we share. We understand the importance of ensuring that we’re protecting future generations, especially with regard to climate change and ensuring that we’re reducing emissions and protecting the environment that we all hold dear.

They bring forward many bills, they bring forward many motions and, obviously, I respect that as the role of the opposition—critiquing our legislation. And yet, I’m wondering why the NDP haven’t brought forward any plans to address carbon sequestration here in the province of Ontario in their own history and why they haven’t introduced similar legislation in the past.

My question is for the member opposite. She touched on a lot of various points.

Providing government services faster, better and easier for people and business is what cutting red tape is all about. This means providing end-to-end services that will enhance competitiveness and resilience across all government processes.

So why doesn’t the opposition support systems that will provide a simple and efficient way for people to submit, track and receive updates on approvals in a manner that is more transparent and accountable? That’s what our government is focused on doing. May the member opposite please answer that question and tell us why she can’t support that measure?

I’m glad to be able to ask a question in response to an excellent presentation by the member from Waterloo, as we’re talking about Bill 46, the Less Red Tape, Stronger Ontario Act.

She rightly highlighted the Ontario Line and the inability for folks to follow the money, and I know that she likes to be able to do that, which is part of the problem with P3s—that with the public-private partnerships, we don’t have the accountability. Certainly, she raised the Eglinton Crosstown—but I will see the Eglinton Crosstown and raise her the Ottawa LRT as a perfect example of when things go awry. Remembering that P3s are not about public infrastructure; they’re about private profits—these are financiers that we entrust the project to. The province, in effect, is handing over the Ontario Line and saying, “Make it happen.” They’ll get it back in the end, and then we’ll find out how many years late and how many billions more.

In terms of outsourcing responsibility—I’d love for her to shed a little more light on why we do need accountability and oversight in the province of Ontario

I want to thank my colleague from Waterloo for her excellent presentation this afternoon.

Last week, our hospital in St. Catharines actually announced that there were going to be pediatric surgical delays in order to create space and capacity, because our health care is in crisis right now.

So why are we literally talking about anything else right now when our health care is in crisis—a crisis that has been exacerbated by serious underfunding by this government over the past half a decade?

My question to my colleague from Waterloo is, why are we not talking about how we can improve our health care when it’s in a crisis?

Questions?

Questions?

Thank you to the member from Kitchener–Waterloo for your comments today.

You mentioned a number of Metrolinx projects where the initial cost projection has doubled when the project was actually delivered and the delivery was late. You’ve also talked about those projects being funded through a P3 model, which cost taxpayers—I believe the Auditor General said it’s an additional 26% on each of those projects.

This government seems to be wedded to Metrolinx, to rewarding incompetence.

So what is your recommendation to the government as far as getting public infrastructure built?

Thank you very much to the member from St. Catharines.

It does speak to priorities.

I was very shocked when we brought forward our opposition day motion to the government to discuss and to plan, to work together, for a human resources health care strategy—because as I said, you can build a bed, you can build a hospital, you can build a long-term-care home, but without the people, it’s not open, and it certainly isn’t serving the people that we are elected to actually make their lives better.

Housekeeping bills are one thing, but for me, when I read Bill 46, especially on the Indigenous communities issue—not consulting Indigenous communities for Bill 23; having them write an open letter to the minister and to the Premier saying, “You have a duty to consult.” This is the pattern of this government—they put out a press release, but then they do something else entirely.

My recommendation is to go back to the Auditor General’s report, because her recommendations will help you. The question is, do you want to be helped? You seem to be very focused on helping some people—but not the people of this province, I’ll tell you that much.

I really do enjoy late-afternoon debate. Everybody is kind of settling in at the end of the day. It’s Monday. People are a bit tired; they’re a bit distracted. Hopefully, we can liven things up a bit here.

There are things that are good in Bill 46—

Interjections.

Modernizing the courts, clearing the backlog, adding more judges—good things.

Putting jury questionnaires online is a good thing—a long time coming, for sure.

Carbon capture: When we get into that, it sounds to me like cap-and-trade light. I don’t want to pick on you guys, but it’s like going part way.

Actually, what’s in this bill is not what I want to talk about today; it’s about the red tape reduction that families need. It’s easy to pull off the pieces of tape that are on the top, and every government does it—it’s like the annual Christmas present. After the fall economic statement, we’ve got to get something on paper, so let’s put all this stuff together—again, a good thing. But it’s what’s missing that is the problem.

Here’s what’s missing: OHIP+. One of the first things this government did when it came in was to roll back OHIP+ if people have insurance. Every child up to age 18 was going to get drugs—like we do for seniors. This government said, “If you’ve got private insurance, no matter what it is, OHIP+ isn’t going to cover you; you’re not eligible.”

Here’s the thing: If you need an expensive drug—if you have cystic fibrosis, and there’s an expensive drug on the market that might be hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and you have private insurance, OHIP+ isn’t going to be there. How is it that it’s not at least even the payer of second resort for people who need that drug? That’s a serious consequence. And all the way through on OHIP+, it can affect people in different ways—but what it does make people decide to do sometimes is either pay out of pocket, give up their benefit plan to take OHIP+, which creates other problems with their employer, with their other children, and sometimes they can’t.

That’s the kind of red tape people want us to remove. It’s not affecting everybody, but the people that it really affects—it has a real, negative impact on their lives.

I’m still trying to get my head around why we would be the payer of first resort for everybody over 65 and the payer of second resort would be insurance companies. My mom, who’s 90, has public service coverage from the federal government—she’s got two coverages—but it’s not good enough for our kids. If that’s not red tape, I don’t know what is. That’s the kind of red tape the government needs to remove.

On top of that, there was the beginnings of what was called a rare disease strategy. That has been orphaned for four years. This government stopped doing it. People who have a rare disease or have children who have a rare disease—their lives are complicated. It’s full of red tape. It’s full of trying to figure out who’s the next person you have to go to or what’s the next thing you have to do. That’s why we need a rare disease strategy. I’m glad I hear some noises about the government starting it up again, but this four-year hiatus just left a whole bunch of red tape for families.

Take-home cancer drugs: How long have we all been talking about that? That’s red tape. You get them if you go into the hospital, but you can’t take them home with you. Why is that? Is there a good reason? None that I can see—and it has been around for a long time. That’s the kind of red tape we need to be removing here in Ontario.

Bill 124: I know you’re all going to be excited about this. Bill 124 wrapped our hospitals, our long-term-care homes, our family health teams and our community health centres in a restriction that no other private interest had. What’s happening right now is, it makes it harder for all those groups, family health teams, to recruit people, to retain people because they’re restricted to 1%. I know the government is going to say, “Yes, but that’s all going to end this spring. That’s all going to be over.” But you sent the wrong message to people by saying to nurses and the front-line health care workers, “You don’t get to bargain.” I guess you elevated it up to—the next thing you were going to do was just use the “notwithstanding” clause, but then our friends in the construction industry spoke up and everybody dialed back that red tape, which you didn’t use. And I want to thank you for dialing that back.

I know the Minister of Labour will be interested in this, because I’ve talked to him about it on a couple of occasions: People of similar work don’t have the same workplace safety coverage. So if you work in a retirement home, which largely is the same amount of work or the same type of work, I should say, as a long-term-care home—if you’re in a long-term-care home, you get WSIB. You’ve got great coverage. In a retirement home, they have to be covered, but not by WSIB. So in the retirement home industry, there’s a whole mishmash of people who aren’t fully covered. We all want to make sure that we’re protected. There’s a reason we have the workplace safety and insurance, and that’s to protect people. The few people who get hurt and injured at work—we want it to be there for them.

So why will we hedge on people working in retirement homes? But here’s the kicker: If you work in a group home that’s run by the province, you’re covered. If it’s a private group home, you’re not covered by WSIB. It has to be some sort of private insurance. I don’t understand it. People are doing similar work; the risk profiles are the same. The government hasn’t changed it. I’ve been talking to the minister about that. I put forward a private member’s bill, and will be doing it again this session, to speak to how we should be allowing people who are doing the same job, being delivered in different places, to be afforded the same coverage by WSIB—straightforward. It’s simple: We should all be covered. We should all be covered if we’re doing similar work.

Now, I know we’re not covered here, but the people working in retirement homes, the people working in group homes, the people working with adults with developmental disabilities or children with development disabilities, autistic kids—they should all be covered by WSIB. That’s red tape around their lives. They’re less protected.

Now, of course, Bill 23: We’ve heard how the member for Waterloo—it’s always hard to follow her—mentioned that the government didn’t take the time to consult with First Nations, which really runs against the spirit of truth and reconciliation. The government is in such a hurry. What does Bill 23 do? Well, what it does is it takes a lot of red tape off for a few rich people so they can become a little bit richer. The government’s own task force said, “You don’t need to open up the greenbelt. You’ve got enough land. You’ve got enough land, so why are you opening up the greenbelt?”

It’s the people’s greenbelt. This is what the greenbelt does: The greenbelt feeds people, it cleans water, it cleans air, it provides recreational space for people. It’s something that we established here in this province for the people. It’s not the Premier’s greenbelt or the minister’s greenbelt or the government’s greenbelt. It’s the people’s greenbelt.

Thank you. I’d like to remind the members of the House that debate has to go through the Chair. Thank you.

Questions?

Interjections.

Member from Ottawa South.

I’m pleased to be able to ask the member a question. We had been speaking earlier about the Ontario Line, because as we’re talking about Bill 46 and less red tape and a stronger Ontario, I have concerns about the P3 model. The member, who comes from the Ottawa area, perhaps has heard of the Ottawa LRT and is probably familiar with what can go wrong with a P3. What we have here is a bill that wants to reduce red tape, but a P3 project—once the government hands it over and says, “We trust you; please make this happen,” there’s no red tape behind there. It’s just whatever happens behind that curtain happens. We get it back, and then we are left as a province to pay the bills.

So my question is, less red tape—is this government, in its obsession with just having no regulation—are those two things the same?

It’s always interesting to listen to a presentation from the interim leader of the independents, particularly when in 2017, under the previous Liberal government, Ontario had the highest cost of compliance in Canada, totalling $33,000 per business. Can you imagine that? In contrast, we’re looking to be able to save over $500 million in annual compliance costs. Will he stand in his place for once and support small—