It is PSW Week here in Ontario, and I want to introduce some really cool people from the Ontario Personal Support Workers Association in the House today, including CEO Miranda Ferrier, Ian DaSilva, Nicole Crawford, Becca Stolp Romanowicz, Tonya Haevens and Kaitlyn Cannon.

Thank you for all that you do. You are the backbone of long-term care in Ontario. Welcome to the Legislature.

Thanks to the member. He is so passionate in fighting for labour reform and fighting for workers, as always.

We’re sitting here through the fifth incarnation of this Working for Workers. Again, I want to go back to what he ended the speech with: How many Working for Workers bills do you think we’re going to sit through before they actually fix deeming in this province? Why don’t you talk to us a little bit about that?

I want to talk about women workers in this province. I want to know if you’ve heard the expression “pinkwashing.” Literally what that means is a government or a branding company puts the smallest thing out there, some kind of frivolous thing, but when you look behind it there’s nothing of substance. I would say that this bill is nothing but pinkwashing. Because you know what? Period products and clean washrooms are not going to cut it when women do not earn what men earn in this province.

We had a bill here—Lydia’s Law—that the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington chose to discharge to committee so we couldn’t debate.

So my question to you is, do you think the women of Ontario are going to be swayed by clean washrooms when they do nothing to support women with real change?

It’s an honour to rise in the House today to discuss the latest iteration of the government’s Working for Workers Act. I think it is particularly timely that we’re having this conversation. I would like to point out that this week we are celebrating Personal Support Worker Week, a profession that has been very much on the front lines in health care, home care and community care that far too often is forgotten, that for far too long has not been treated with the dignity nor given the support that it deserves. I think back to the challenges that our community and our province faced during the pandemic. Our personal support workers rose to that challenge—those personal support workers who deserve our genuine respect, our gratitude and our support in all of its forms.

As we think about how we can work for workers, I want to encourage all members in the House to think about how we can work for those personal support workers, because as I look at the measures that have been proposed in this legislation, at face value there certainly are good things. But to me, what is most conspicuous are the many things that have been left out and, even more conspicuous, the many actions that have been taken by this government that actually work against workers. In the midst of Personal Support Worker Week, I reflect on a few of those, the first being lack of real wage increases. We know there have been proposed increases, but they only apply for front-line care. If you’re a PSW who drives from home to home, then your wage plummets. We have a lack of wage parity amongst the home care, community care and acute care sector.

If we were working for workers, those things would be in this legislation. If we were working for workers, this government wouldn’t have voted down the opportunity to ensure that PSWs and DSWs get WSIB coverage if they work in a retirement home. Let’s get moving and “get it done” for all workers instead of just looking at it in a superficial manner.

We can take a step back from just PSWs. When I reflect on the record of this government—when I think about Bill 124 and the impact that it has had on education workers and on health care workers; when I think about Bill 28, this government’s attempt at overriding collective bargaining rights of education workers; when I think of the fact that this government does not have, or even speak about, a health care worker retention plan; when I think about the data that was released just last week that said we’re short more than 50,000 nurses and PSWs, and that PSWs have an attrition rate from their profession of 25% per year, and then the Minister of Health has the audacity to say she’s not concerned about it—that makes me think, despite what we have on this piece of paper, that we categorically do not have a government that is working for workers.

But let’s dive into what is on this piece of paper, because that’s what I’m here to do. That’s what we’re all here to do today. It’s superficial, it’s vague, too much is left to the regulations and too little of it can be enforced.

Looking to schedule 1, for example, building opportunities in the skilled trades: There is a requirement for satisfying prescribed academic standards in the skilled trades, and that requirement is removed. It allows alternative criteria to take its place. Madam Speaker, what are those alternative criteria? I don’t know. I don’t think there’s anyone in this House who knows. As is often the case with this government, the specifics are left to be prescribed in the regulations.

For as much as we’ve heard a variety of campaign slogans by government members on the other side—“For the People”; “Get it Done”—I am convinced, at this point in my short political career, that their next campaign slogan should very much be “Prescribed in the Regulations,” because everything is left to the regulations and almost always, nothing is in the legislation. This bill is no different.

I am the critic for housing. I know how badly we need to make the skilled trades accessible. We need to jump-start the sector. We need to create that pipeline of skilled workers, whether they’re ironworkers, electricians, masons, carpenters, bricklayers, journeymen, plumbers and more to build the homes that Ontario needs. But don’t you think that the next generation, the workers who will be working with them, deserve to know what this government means by “alternative criteria” in terms of qualifications before voting for this bill? I’d certainly like to know, and I think they would, too.

I recently called on the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to consider returning to a one-year teaching degree for seasoned skilled trades workers looking to become vocational instructors. It’s a good way to catalyze and accelerate a skilled pipeline of workers. I see nothing like that in this bill. Instead of making it easier for seasoned professionals to become instructors, instead of making it easier to teach the next generation of skilled trades workers, this government is just moving the goal posts for qualifying to be one.

Now, I want to move to something that I have personal experience with which is in schedule 2, the amendment that removes sick notes. I’ll be honest with you, of course, it’s a good move, but I can’t believe that we’re still talking about this. When the government first announced this a few weeks ago, I was asked by media what I thought about it. The truth is, I was confused. I was confused that we’re still having a conversation about this because the reality is that sick notes were banned before this government was elected. And as with so many other walk-backs and reversals, the Premier came in and removed the ban on sick notes. As though that wasn’t bad enough, when COVID-19 happened, he came in and he reversed that again. Then, he reversed it again; that’s a fourth time. Here is one last reversal, hopefully the last time we ever have to talk about removing sick notes.

The reality is that I was working in the emergency department last week. Let me paint a picture for you. There were 50 patients waiting to be seen. Our on-call doctor had been brought in. I picked up the chart, and it was a patient here for a doctor’s note.

Is it a good thing that we’re removing this requirement? Of course it is. But six years into this government’s mandate, why is it still here? Why is it only coming up now? It should have been gone long ago. In fact, it was gone before this government came into power.

Whether it is the greenbelt, whether it is urban boundary changes, whether it is development charges, whether it’s Bill 28, Bill 124, it seems as though every single thing that this government does is characterized by a lack of doing any homework, a lack of consultation—except for the Housing Affordability Task Force. There, all this government does is consultation. But everything else, no consultation, no action, no homework and walk-back after reversal after mistake.

Of course, looking at this legislation, there are some measures that can be applauded. I’m glad to see the definition of workplace harassment and sexual harassment get expanded to include virtual forms of harassment. I would have preferred it if the legislation that was supposed to be debated on Wednesday was actually debated, as opposed to getting fast-tracked into committee, where I have no doubt no further action will be taken.

But there is something here: legislating clean bathrooms. Who could possibly argue against that? The only thing that I can argue is that enforcement must be more of a priority when this government drafts legislation, especially when it actually has ideas that many of us can get on board with.

As I have reviewed this legislation, as I have reflected upon it and its potential to improve the work environment for workers, I have to say, of course, at face value, there are decent things in it, but it leaves a lot to be desired and was a wasted opportunity by this government.

I have got to be honest with you, all I can see is a whole bunch of superficial commitments, none of which actually address the things that workers are coming to me and telling me that they actually want to see to improve their retention, for example in health care, in the construction trades and places like that.

To your question: I didn’t see it in my review. Did you? I don’t think any of us did, and yet again it is just the latest in a series of examples of press releases that are put out by the government professing to change the world and commit to all sorts of things. When the rubber hits the pavement, they’re never able to deliver and, frankly, never willing to deliver.

I want to be really clear: This is not about standing with the government, standing with the opposition or anything like that. Let’s get beyond the rhetoric. This is about standing with workers. When I stand here and I point out the many shortcomings, it is with a view towards helping all members in this House on all sides make this legislation actually work for as many people as possible.

I want the constituents in Windsor–Tecumseh to have a large, well-functioning, modern, up-to-date hospital, and I want that hospital to have the skilled trades workers in order to be able to do that. I have the same problem in my riding. We need desperately to upgrade our hospital. We need the funding for that. But this bill, I regret to say, isn’t going to be enough to get your constituents and my constituents what they want and need.

So in answer to your question: No, I do not see anything in this legislation that addresses—

I’m proud to speak today on behalf of Bill 190, the Working for Workers Five Act, and I want to thank my cabinet colleague Minister Piccini for his comprehensive approach in this legislation to support women at work, and I worked very closely with him, and my team did, just making sure that we’re able to capture the voices of so many women who have been trying to break into the trade sector, who have been trying to have the opportunity to have a really excellent-paying job in the trades.

As Minister for Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity, I’m privileged to work every day to advocate for women and girls so that they can excel in their communities, in their careers and in life. Madam Speaker, the round tables that we have been able to do, meeting with women who have been advocating as much as they could but not having the support behind them to see the culture changes on the job site. Conversations with women like Brandi from fair trade workers—I just can’t remember the name, because I’m going off my notes here. I’m just so struck by the strength in these women, who are working in a sector, especially the skilled trades sector, that hasn’t been encouraging and welcoming. They have been wanting to see change for a long time, and resoundingly they are saying that we are finally a government that is listening and doing things to make a change and a difference on these job sites.

Bill 190 is yet another example of how we are acting across government to improve opportunities for women. I’m proud to stand behind this legislation, which, if passed, would empower more women and girls to fill the jobs we need to build Ontario and to help ensure that they can be safe and protected in those careers.

Under Premier Ford’s leadership and with the partnership and teamwork of my colleagues in this Legislature, our government is broadening women’s career pathways to a wide range of fields through employment and training supports. Two of our most successful programs—the Investing in Women’s Futures Program and the Women’s Economic Security Program—fund organizations across the province that provide targeted skills training and development to help women enter the workforce and build their careers.

What I also really appreciate with these programs and the organizations that are running them is they focus on job readiness, so helping women rebuild their lives after escaping violence, helping women be able to get counselling support and wraparound support, so that they are able to be in a more healthy space to be able to maintain the careers that they want and also helping them realize the strength and the ability of their experiences and realize that, even though they’ve gone through some hardships, they have been able to get out of it. We want to ensure that these women are forever empowered to keep moving forward.

These programs are actually working, and thousands of women have gone through—and the stories. If you could just take a listen to the stories. I met this one woman at George Brown College who was working in the restaurant industry and had said, during COVID when she wasn’t able to work because the restaurants were closed, that she really needed to make a change, because the income that she was making was not enough, and she could see that there were a lot of financial hardships that she was going through. She was able to sign into a program that helped her become a welder. Through the welding program at George Brown, she was able to get a job at George Brown, and now she is running the welding program and mentoring other women and girls to be able to follow the same path and realize the potential that they have in them. She said if it wasn’t for these types of programs to help her do it, she might not have had the ability to completely change her life with the salary that she’s earning now.

Today we’re helping more young women and girls, than ever before, start careers in construction and in the trades. Through Ontario’s Skilled Trades Strategy and programs such as the Ontario Youth Apprenticeship Program and the Pre-apprenticeship Training Program and the Achievement Incentive Program, more women are rolling up their sleeves and getting it done, and realizing that they could get into these industries. They’re saying that this is a whole new world that, had they had the encouragement to get into the trades when they were younger, they would have. So this progress, it’s successful, and we want to keep moving in that direction for Working for Workers 5.

The legislation builds on the government’s work by continuing to make careers in construction and the skilled trades more welcoming and accessible. Approximately one in 10 construction workers in Ontario are women, and approximately 4% of workers in Ontario construction-skilled-trades-related occupations are women. This legislation will help improve this statistic and help close the gap and help ensure that women who enter the trades stay in the trades.

One way is by helping young women who explored skilled trades careers by opening more pathways to apprenticeship, networking and training opportunities—this is huge, Madam Speaker—so more women are able to get the support they need to succeed in the trades that they choose. It is ensuring that they are getting coaching support throughout the process, getting them connected with a job where they can fill the apprenticeship need in the companies and connecting them.

Bill 190 will also allow grade 11 and 12 students to participate in more apprenticeship learning while completing high school, and support the creation of a new, centralized skilled trades job database.

That is that connection I’m talking about: When somebody is in the carpentry skilled trade and in school learning it, now, when they need an apprenticeship position, they’re able to access a database to put them into the place where they’re going to be able to do their work. So, they’re earning and learning at the same time, and that connection is being supported by our government, because we want to make sure that when they enter the skilled trades, they have a clear pathway to do so.

Young women pursuing careers in the trades can access new opportunities, gain experience and more easily connect with job opportunities and mentors. I can’t overstate how much of a difference the right teacher can make and, like I was talking about—her name was Lily at George Brown. Every woman that comes through the program not quite sure if they want to get into it because they feel like they’re the only one—having another woman say to you, “I did this. I can make sure you can get through it too,” is the most encouragement that that woman needs at the time.

By 2026, it is estimated that as many as one in six jobs opening in Ontario will be in the skilled trades. Ontario will need thousands of additional workers over the next decade to build homes, roads, hospitals and communities of the future, so encouraging more women to pursue these careers is essential to addressing the workforce.

We also see there is a large amount of people who are retiring as well and I think it’s so important to acknowledge that. Because there hadn’t been many women in the past getting into these jobs, it doesn’t mean that women don’t want to do these jobs, right? Women don’t need to feel pigeon-holed, that they have to go into certain careers. They also now have the ability to be able to explore the careers that maybe their family told them—or maybe even guidance counsellors in schools told them—that they shouldn’t get into these jobs because it’s not typical of a woman to do skilled trades. We’re disbanding that.

So, encouraging more women and empowering women to succeed sometimes means more than just creating opportunities in the workplace. It means making sure that women are safe in the workplace.

Being able to travel across the province in different communities and hearing from women—so often, we’ve heard from women that the spaces are not inclusive for them. Women have said, “I need to use the washroom. I shouldn’t have to park 10 minutes away from the job site to use one. I shouldn’t have to change in the Tim Hortons washroom to get myself ready to go to work. When I go to use the washroom, they’re disgusting.”

Even though we’ve said they need to have a washroom for women, sometimes they’re not cleaned. These things make environments inclusive and encouraging for women, and they’ve asked us to do these things. This is what we heard in the roundtables: They said, “We need somebody to help make sure that these places are kept clean so that when we need them, we can use them.” And when we have said, “Yes, we’ll listen,” more women are saying, “Finally. Finally, you’ve heard us. Finally, this job place is going to be accessible and inclusive for me.”

So, I just want to keep us moving in the same direction, keep encouraging women and girls to enter into trades careers, help rebuild their lives, and we’re going to continue to keep doing this.

I want to thank the minister for her presentation. In this bill, despite eliminating employer requirements for sick notes, there are no more paid sick days. That’s one thing that is really, really important for all workers and, I would say, even mostly women workers, because oftentimes when children are sick, it’s women who are at home taking care of them. Similarly, when it’s our elderly parents, it’s women who need those paid sick days from their job.

But my question really is around clarification. Right now, the elimination of the sick note—is that covered for just the three-day period which currently exists under legislation, or are the sick notes eliminated for any sick day?

I agree we’re debating the workers thing and that we’re talking about workers all afternoon, so whether you’re a man or woman you’re talking about workers. We’re all workers.

I want to talk about wage theft. Between 2020 and 2022, Ontario workers filed more than 8,400 successful claims for workplace violations and were owed $36 million. The Star reported that by the end of 2022, government collection recovered less than half, less than 40%. The numbers were $36 million owed to workers; $13 million was collected. These bad actors got to keep $23 million in wage theft.

Do you believe that the bad actors or scumbag employers should keep $23 million in wage theft?

I thank the member for her presentation. There’s been quite a bit of discussion this afternoon around working for workers, particularly women, and so I think that one of the things, when you look at what the Conservative government says versus what they do, you see that a lot of times the actions actually hurt women. When you look at Bill 124 and the attack on health care workers, when you look at the child care sector, these are sectors that are predominantly women—actually predominantly low-wage, racialized, immigrant women.

So my question to the member is, particularly when you look at child care, the wage enhancement that was promised by this government back in January has still not arrived. Workers still are not receiving that wage enhancement, and that wage enhancement only applies to a very small percentage of workers, not all child care workers. Do you think that this is the right way forward, and does that help all women who are in the child care sector?

As we recognize North American Occupational Safety and Health Week, it is very fitting to be speaking on Bill 190, Working for Workers Five Act, 2024.

As always, before I start, I want to say thank you to the supreme God for giving me health and well-being compared to the last time so I can stand up and be the voice of Mississauga–Malton. Thank you to the family, the staff and, of course, the residents of Mississauga–Malton for giving me an opportunity to represent them.

Madam Speaker, this bill is making sure that every worker is important to this government. Ensuring every worker returns safely to their family is crucial, and the initiative that I am going to talk about is actually talking about Ontario’s ongoing commitment to that goal.

Today, we’re implementing, and we’re asking, if passed—the changes to further advance the progress we have achieved over the past few years in supporting and protecting workers in this province.

And I want to talk a little bit about the achievement this government has with respect to the workers. The investments which are made by this government are: investing $1.5 billion in the skilled trades strategy to modernize and promote the trades, investing $1 billion in skill development projects—over 600 projects training over 500,000 workers. The workers, through the training, are able to get the training and advance into the jobs, in another way getting better jobs, bigger paycheques.

And we have seen Ontario has the highest representation of women and visible minorities in skilled trades today, thanks to these policies in Canada.

Let’s look at last year. Ontario had the highest number of apprentice registrations in over a decade. The government eliminated apprenticeship fees and cut journeypersons’ fees by half. And the output? Madam Speaker, the output is simple: Ontario has welcomed more manufacturing jobs than all 50 US states combined, and that is the report card of this government and the policies.

Let’s look further, Madam Speaker. Number of jobs: Ontario has created over 700,000 new jobs since 2018. Thanks to the historic investment, today, close to 600,000 Ontarians are working in construction, more than at any point in Ontario’s history.

We’re making the hiring and employment experience fairer by requiring job ads to state whether a position is currently available or just a potential future need so that when a worker applies they know what is going to be happening, requiring employers to respond to the applicants within a prescribed period after they have interviewed for a job with a hiring decision. We’re standing for our workers.

Under the Employment Standards Act, we are doubling the fines for individuals convicted of offences to $100,000, the highest in the country.

Madam Speaker, yes, I’ll hear it loud and clear: “Oh, will increasing the fines reduce the people who are making mistakes, wrongdoings?” Well, yes, of course. We want to make sure they understand that it’s not a casual business, and we want to make sure, by increasing the penalty for repeat offenders, we’re going to stand for our workers.

Madam Speaker, if you want to look at the tale of two governments, the penalty for repeat offenders exploiting workers under the Liberal government, supported by the NDP of course, was $1,000.

I just want to say to the member opposite: Yes, you do have an opinion, and you should express the opinion. That’s why the people of Niagara have voted you in. But at the same time, even if we disagree, we need to be civil. So I just want to say—

Interjection.

Let’s go back to what matters most to the people of Ontario. What is more important to the people is that this government is taking action—action by raising the penalty to $5,000 per employee, because it is unacceptable for bad actors to buy their way out of consequences for putting workers at risk.

We are also reducing the administrative burden for sick workers and health care professionals, and putting patients before paperwork. Madam Speaker, the WSIB has been successfully streamlining and modernizing its processes, from digitizing document submission to enabling direct deposits and tracking your claims online, so that any and every worker who is applying can get the service they need and deserve. And they will continue their effort by working with health sector organizations to explore further options to reduce the administrative burden on workers and doctors.

Additionally, Madam Speaker, our government will further reduce the paperwork for health care professionals by prohibiting employers from requiring a sick note for a worker’s job-protected leave. On average, family doctors are spending 19 hours filling out forms and documentation. That’s nearly half their work week on paperwork and other red tape.

That’s why we’re consulting on amending exemptions under the Employment Standards Act to no longer exclude IT workers from some of the basic rights, like overtime pay.

Through this bill, Madam Speaker, we are keeping front-line heroes and workers healthy and safe. We are making sure, by lowering the service time required for firefighters to receive compensation for skin cancer from 15 to 10 years. I am sure, Madam Speaker, you remember it used to be 25 years in the previous government, from 25 to 10 years, moving the coverage directly into the legislation. We’re making sure to include wildland firefighters and wildland fire investigators under the same coverage for post-traumatic stress disorder that applies to municipal firefighters.

Madam Speaker, again, through this bill we’re not just helping and supporting workers. We’re actually giving an opportunity to the opposition to stand up for the workers and make a difference.

Madam Speaker, it doesn’t matter what they do. We will continue to keep working for the workers to make sure the workplaces are safer and more welcoming, even for our women workers, by modernizing the Occupational Health and Safety Act to include virtual harassment, and making sure that the constructors and employers maintain washroom facilities, when they’re provided, in a clean and sanitary condition and maintain records of washroom cleaning. The other side is going to say, “What a big deal.” Well, talk to the women who are working at those construction sites about what a big deal it is.

Madam Speaker, we want to encourage more women to get into the skilled trades and create a more inclusive environment. We are requiring that menstrual products be provided on construction projects above a certain size and duration.

This is the reason this bill would benefit injured workers, women at work, internationally trained workers and job seekers young and old, no matter your background, and the heroes who put their lives on the line to keep us safe. While the benefits will be spread across our entire economy, the measures are of critical importance to skilled trades, construction, regulated professions, service and hospitality.

This is the time when we all can come together, stand up for the workers and vote in favour of Bill 190 so that we can build a better, stronger Ontario.

Yes, I would just say that I’ve stood up for workers my entire career. I hope you can spell it.

He did raise WSIB. Let’s be clear on WSIB: Why does your government continue to support deeming instead of getting rid of deeming that is forcing workers to live in poverty? My question is, why are you forcing workers to live in poverty?

And I will say, because you raised the budget, there isn’t an opposition that has ever supported the government’s budget, including the 15 years that you guys were the official opposition. You voted against every single budget, so learn your history before you talk—

This government has said that this is a bill about improving the working conditions of women, and it’s called Working for Workers. When they announced it, they said, “Hey, we’re going to have menstrual products available on construction sites.” That’s not even in the legislation.

So when the government is trying to pretend that they are working for women workers, they should actually step up and work for women workers. There are a lot of women workers who work in sexual assault agencies, supporting survivors of sexual assault. They are dealing with the trauma. They are dealing with underpayment and with a lack of funding for the important work that they are doing.

Many of them were here in the Legislature yesterday, and many of the survivors were here in the Legislature yesterday. All they wanted to do was to hear the debate on Lydia’s Law, and this government cancelled the debate. The members opposite in the Conservative Party stood and voted not to hear that debate, even though there were 100 survivors of sexual assault in this Legislature yesterday.

It’s not just this example that this government is working against women workers. This government has shown incredible disrespect for women workers. Women still make 32% less for the same work of equal value than men. If you’re going to have a Working for Workers bill, and you’re going to pretend that it’s for women workers, you should be addressing that gender pay gap, because it’s just incredibly unfair that women are still, in 2024, not getting paid equally for work of equal value. You’ve shown with the midwife case that you are willing to take women to court to fight against their right for equal pay.

I’ll just go to another Working for Workers bill. This government always announces, and they have a really good, catchy byline. This time, it was menstrual products. In a previous Working for Workers bill, they said they were going to give gig workers the right to use the washroom—

That was a great diversion from what the actual bill was about because what that bill was about is, there was a tribunal hearing that said gig workers had been misclassified as contractors, but they were actually employees, so they were entitled to protections under the Employment Standards Act. What that bill—that “working for workers” bill—did is, it stripped those workers of their protections under the Employment Standards Act, so they are not entitled to minimum wage for all of the work hours that they had worked.

For example, a lot of the gig workers, a lot of the drivers—there was a report in the Toronto Star recently that said that after expenses they are making $6.37 an hour. And this government’s response to the abuse and the exploitation of gig workers was to strip them of their rights under the Employment Standards Act to create a separate subclass of workers that are called “gig workers,” who do not have the protections that other employees do in the province of Ontario.

I think this government is trying to get away with something. This government is trying to convince people that they are supportive of workers, but your record shows exactly the opposite. As far as women workers go and as far as women, and particularly survivors of sexual assault go, what this government did yesterday was absolutely shameful.

I actually got involved in politics when my kids were in elementary school because the Mike Harris government of that day was underfunding our schools. I actually had a newsletter that I was putting out to parents. Every week, I would put out another edition and it would highlight the two things that the government was cutting—that this government, through their supervisors at the Toronto District School Board, was cutting from our schools. Sometimes it would be the daytime custodian at my kids’ school or it would be the gym classes for kindergarten students or it would be the art program.

This government wants all of our public services and all of our public assets to go to their corporate friends so that they can generate profit, rather than provide services to the people of Ontario.

I think we all support firefighters whenever we can; I think that’s pretty clear. What I don’t understand is, we raised this as a party before you did Working for Workers 4. Why do you think this government didn’t include that particular part in Working for Workers 4 and waited till number five and had to put it in because of what was said by this NDP government?