I want to start off by being clear: We’re in a climate crisis. We’re heading toward an iceberg and we need to turn this ship, not crank up the gas. We don’t have to wait for 2030. It’s here now, it’s getting worse faster, and it’s our fault. We can’t plug our ears and pretend we don’t know. We have to be brave, and we have to be afraid a little bit. It’s fear and courage that will help us do the right thing and save our way of life; whether it’s for your kids, yourself, your business or a space you love, I beg us, please.

I am worried that this summer in Ontario we’ll have an unprecedented fire season. Our province is going to burn. It will go up in smoke. This will devastate northern communities. We need to wake up and smell the smoke. Businesses will be impacted. Home building will be stalled. Kids will spend their time inside in the summer because it’s not safe to go outside, because we can’t breathe smoke. Smoke causes cancer. Ontarians will be at ERs because they’re sick from the smoke. We shouldn’t be doubling down. We should be preparing. We should prepare for extreme heat, the most deadly killer of climate impacts. BC lost 600 people to death when they had an extreme heat dome. This foreshadowing should not be ignored.

When everyone in Ontario turns on their energy-inefficient air conditioning, we have to watch out for our grid. We have to watch out for us—for seniors, for folks with respiratory issues, for babies.

Can we spend our time now in the Legislature discussing how to improve our energy grid? Can we discuss how to install more heat pumps that are three times more efficient to cool our homes? That will help us with these peaks. It will help us with blackouts. It will help prevent deaths, and it will help prevent ER visits.

We know that every dollar we spend on mitigation will save Ontarians $7 to $10. The Conservative government’s own report says that for every dollar of adaptation we spend, we save $13 to $15. So if we care about affordability, this is a good investment. But get ready to adapt, spending our time in government working on how we can reduce the harm to our community, how to prepare for the devastation to come, instead of doubling down.

We are cooking Ontario, because Enbridge is cooking the facts. We know that they’re afraid that people can save on connection fees by not connecting. The gravy train will stop. This $16-billion company and the $19-million man will not benefit from this gravy train. They’re greenwashing right now. They’re being challenged in court for that, because they say that gas is clean, that it’s good for the planet and affordable. These claims have been proven untrue and unethical. They’re also lobbying mayors, which is also unethical.

We need to do what we can to make right decisions for the people of Ontario so that they can make affordable decisions.

How many beds do we have for slip-and-falls? In my community, when there was an icy day, we saw slip-and-fall visits to ERs explode. Not only did we have RSV explosion, but it doubled down because of climate impact, because of slip-and-falls.

So we’re talking to insurance companies right now, workplace injuries—if we have HR concerns, climate is not going to make that better, because we’re going to have smoky days in the summer, we’re going to have slip-and-fall days in the winter, and we’re not collecting proper data to prepare our health system for these consequences.

They’re afraid to compete with the heat pump industry that’s exploding all over the world. They want to save their monopoly, and they don’t want to play nice in the sandbox. They’re creating misleading information across our province, on radio, sending letters to mayors, because they’re afraid—

Interjections.

Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 27, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 165, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 respecting certain Board proceedings and related matters / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario en ce qui concerne certaines instances dont la Commission est saisie et des questions connexes.

There’s a lot going on in the chamber at the moment. It’s the obligation of the Chair to listen to the member for Kitchener Centre. I apologize, because I’ve had three people come up to talk to me in the last 30 seconds.

Start the clock.

I wasn’t expecting to hear about emergency rooms in a speech relating to Bill 165, but since I did, I’ll take the opportunity, as an ER nurse, to ask the member opposite if she knows how many new acute-care beds this government has built since we came into power in 2018.

It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House—but this morning, I was up very early. Actually, I was watching the debate last night, at about 1:30 in the morning. It’s nice, how exciting my life is.

The reality is that this morning I heard that in Ontario, 50% of all people are living paycheque to paycheque.

And we know that Enbridge made billions of dollars in profit, approximately $18 billion—I might be out by half a billion there. Their CEO made $17 million in compensation.

My question to my colleague: Do you agree with the Conservatives that consumers who are living paycheque to paycheque should pay an extra $500 on their gas bill because of Bill 165?

I really appreciate the member from Kitchener Centre’s presentation.

I want to know from the member, how does it make sense that the government would overturn a decision—that by doing so is going to increase bills for gas customers by $600, so Enbridge can install heating systems that are going to cost them 13% more? Why wouldn’t we just go with heat pumps? Can you explain the benefits of heat pumps?

I think when we’re talking about low-income folks, we really need to make good investments. This is a bad investment. I don’t buy a car that I know is going to break down in five years, that’s not going to last. We’re saying this infrastructure is going to—we can pay it off in 40 years. If we can, let’s balance it. Let’s amortize heat pumps across 40 years, if you really want to be fair. Why are we not being fair in the marketplace? Why are we creating subsidies and barriers to a fair marketplace?

We know that the best way to save on a hookup is not to hook up. It doesn’t make financial sense anymore. If we’re going to give a fair market price to a new home, we have to make sure that it doesn’t just mark this moment in time in an urban centre—that we’re considering all the costs that go into connecting a house, and is it really worth it anymore?

Across the world, we’re seeing hookups being banned, not because of a moral choice, but they should also be considered a financially reckless choice. The reason why we know heat pumps are better: They’re more efficient—

It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this Legislature and speak on bills that are very important to this province and important to the people of Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Before I start on the bill, I just ask for the House’s indulgence for a moment.

Currently, the Cochrane-Timiskaming branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association has locked out their workers. As a result, right now, their clients are not getting any service. We are in the middle of a mental health crisis. As with any labour dispute, there are two sides; we recognize that. But I urge the management and I urge the government to discuss with the management what the roadblocks are from their end. They’re not that far apart, and we are facing a mental health crisis. Right now, the people who serve their clients are being locked out and not being able to serve the people who have some of the most dire needs in this province. I urge the government to reach out to management to see what roadblocks exist so that those residents in my riding and in other ridings can get the mental health services they need.

Thank you for that indulgence, Speaker.

The bill we’re talking about—the working title is Keeping Energy Costs Down Act. This bill is more complicated than it seems. A lot of people, I think, would never think of how the energy system, particularly the natural gas system, is operated in Ontario. It’s regulated. That means that there is a regulatory board, the Ontario Energy Board, that oversees the system so it’s stable, so that people who are connected to gas or who want to connect to gas—if they do want to, and there are reasons why they may not want to—know that they’re getting as fair a deal as possible.

The Ontario Energy Board made a ruling that new gas hookups in new subdivisions, in new builds, shouldn’t be amortized over 40 years because it’s a very likely that that gas hookup won’t be useful for 40 years, because, as we know, the world is in transition.

Last summer, I was in this House speaking, and I think you will remember that we could smell the smoke from the forest fires, in this House. I don’t think that has happened in modern times.

Today, in Timiskaming–Cochrane, it was 8 degrees this morning, thunderstorms—in February. In Timiskaming–Cochrane, in February, it’s usually minus 20, minus 25, snowmobilers are happy, ice fishermen—ice fisher-people, I guess—are happy. But that’s not the case. People can say, “Oh, that’s a one-off,” and, “No, no, that could happen”—I was standing here, and so were the rest of us, sitting here, when we smelled that smoke. That’s not a one-off. Is that the only reason to look at this—what the government is trying to do here? It’s a big reason, but not the only one. But we have to keep that in the back of our minds.

We have to look at transitioning away from fossil fuels. We’re not the first people to do this. Most of my family comes from Europe. Right now in Holland, they’re self-sufficient in natural gas. They do import, but they could be self-sufficient. Right now in Holland, if you build a new house—

This bill is about how the regulator said, “To keep the system stable, we can’t take out 40-year amortization mortgages on new parts of the system that likely might not make sense today and likely won’t make sense in five years.”

It was really interesting when the Minister of the Energy, who I respect, talked about how he had a heat pump with an electric backup and he was never cold. That tells me that, in large parts of this province, new houses could also have heat pumps with electric backup and cause much less impact to the environment than natural gas.

The financial part of what the government is doing—the Ontario Energy Board said, “No, no, it doesn’t make sense to take a 40-year mortgage out to pay for something that actually might not make sense for people now; it certainly won’t make sense in five years, because the rest of the world is transitioning already.” The government steps in and says, “No, no. The regulator? They don’t know what they’re talking about. We’re going to make an informed decision. What we’re going to do is, we’re going to make all the other people who pay, who are already on the system—we’re going to make them pay for the hookups that might not make sense. We’re going to destabilize the system on their behalf.”

If this government had a really good record of making forward-looking financial decisions, you could maybe give them the benefit of the doubt. It’s very, very concerning that they are overruling a regulator. If they had a reasonable track record on their legislation—but this is the government that, with Bill 124, decided to change how negotiations were done with public sector workers, creating a huge issue in the health care sector. And guess what? They rescinded it. They rescinded another bill to go over the “notwithstanding” clause. The greenbelt? They rescinded it. Now they’re saying, “We know more than the Ontario Energy Board.”

The government doesn’t have a problem tacking the bill on infrastructure for 40 years that’s likely not going to be worth it in five—“We’ll make the people who are already on that infrastructure pay the difference.” They’re willing to destabilize the system. They say it’s because they want to make houses more affordable. We all want to make houses more affordable. But are you sure you’re making the house more affordable when you’re kind of forcing someone to put in natural gas because they’re hooked up when, over years, they’d be much better off with something that was more efficient for heating and cooling and that would save them money in the long run? I question whether the government has thought that through.

I certainly don’t think that this government has the track record to say that we, the province, should be very comfortable that we’re overruling a regulator.

This is a big debate. We need to take this issue seriously. We are making decisions for people in the future—it’s not just for today.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

We have time for one more brief question.

Further debate? Further debate? If no one stands up, the debate collapses—just to remind the House—and then we vote. Further debate?

Put a heat pump.

Thank you for the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane’s statement.

We know that they’re overruling the Ontario Energy Board. I believe this has never happened before. Certainly, it sets a very dangerous precedent—an independent regulatory board.

We know that part of what’s going on is that Enbridge is afraid of having stranded assets, so they want to invest even more, but the public will have the stranded assets in the end. And we know that the public is going to be paying; current ratepayers are going to see their costs go way up.

My question is, do you see this as another example of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the government?

Thank you to the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane for talking about this issue. Of course, you have to recognize that all the farmers in this area all want natural gas for the grain dryers and for operations. Of course, it’s a big priority, and he couldn’t go without mentioning it.

My question is, when the member knocked on doors for the election, what was the message he got from the people of Ontario? I hope it’s the same message we got. The one we got was about the cost of living, the lack of housing, the need for natural gas expansion and high-speed Internet. Our government did put money towards high-speed Internet, and I don’t see anybody complaining about Bell Canada or Rogers getting some favours, because what we did is bring service to the people of Ontario. So I’m wondering if he agrees with me on this.

So I’m wondering, can the member tell us if some constituents, some farmers or some municipalities did reach out to him, trying to work to get natural gas in his riding?

Thank you very much for that question. You raised a lot of issues.

I knocked on a lot of doors—we all knock on a lot of doors—and I can guarantee you, Speaker, that not one person said, “Sign me up to pay $500 extra so a new subdivision can get gas.”

I see this as an attempt by the government to make a short-term political gain, not taking into account the long-term financial pain that it’s going to cause to everyone on the system. It’s a wake-up call that there are going to be stranded assets, things that we don’t use, and one of those is going to be large parts of the gas system.

You’ve got the Minister of Energy with a heat pump, supported by electricity. He’s going in the right direction. I don’t think he has access to natural gas. Everyone in this House is not going to subsidize a natural gas line to the Minister of Energy. He’s going to put in a heat pump, supported by electricity—which he did. So why does this government expect the rest of Ontarians need to do that?

I’ve been here for a while. Years ago, municipalities were demanding and residents were demanding access to natural gas, but now, many are doing what the Minister of Energy himself did and are putting in heat pumps supported by electricity, even in northern Ontario, because the price between natural gas and heat pumps is—the difference is no longer there like it was before. People are switching, and the government isn’t realizing that. The Minister of Energy realizes that, but his government doesn’t seem to.

Are there people wanting natural gas, needing it in particular for agriculture? Yes, 100%—but for heating their homes, not the case anymore, even in northern Ontario.

Questions?

I have to say I’m disappointed to hear the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell—the comment that you just made to this member, who does not do what you just said, ever. He comes to this House, and he presents an honest, true picture of what is going on in his riding. For you to question that is shameful. That’s on you.

My question to the MPP for Timiskaming–Cochrane, a well-respected member of this House: Why, fundamentally, do you think the government would throw down so hard for a for-profit, basically regulated monopoly when the evidence continues to pile up that people need to get off fossil gas, to get off methane gas? Why do you think they’re desperately hanging on to this when people in the province of Ontario need affordability and they need to face the fact that climate change is real? This strange weather that we’re having is not a coincidence. Why do you think this government is throwing down so hard on the side of a huge monopoly?

That’s a very good question.

I can’t speak on behalf of the government, because most of us don’t understand what this government is doing most of the time.

If they don’t do this, and people actually have to make a rational decision, not all of them are going to choose gas. Then, if not everyone chooses gas, all of a sudden, the gas lines won’t get built, because everyone has to be hooked up to make that worthwhile. So they’re kind of forcing—if you’re a new development and you’re going to get, basically, a free hookup because everyone else is paying for that hookup, the chances are you’re going to put in a gas furnace as opposed to the chances of putting in a heat pump with electric backup or with another backup, because you’ve already got the hookup for the gas. So they are helping Enbridge, and they are helping the developers, but they are creating stranded assets—they know that because the energy board told them, and they overruled. They know that we’re creating stranded assets.

At the end of the day, somebody is going to end up paying a lot of money for—it’s like taking out a car loan for 20 years when you know the car is going to last, maximum, eight, and you’re forcing everyone else to pay that car loan for 20 years. In eight years, that car is going to be in the recycling centre. That’s what—

Thank you.

Quick question, quick response.

Further debate?

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being now required, this vote will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

Our government established the Electrification and Energy Transition Panel to advise the government on the highest value, short, medium and long term—all the opportunities related to the energy sector—and of course to help us with Ontario’s economy to prepare for electrification and energy transition.

All of that being said, does the member opposite agree that it’s unfortunate that the board moved ahead without waiting for the panel’s final report, considering that expert input should be critical to making any decisions like this?

I’m proud to rise today in this chamber in support of Bill 165, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act. I have to say that the Minister of Energy’s hard work on this file is truly commendable. Bill 165 focuses on lowering the price of newly built homes, and it shows how our government is tackling the housing crisis using a holistic approach. The housing file requires the collaboration of ministries to implement forward-thinking ideas so that Ontarians can achieve the dream of buying an affordable place to call home.

Madam Speaker, just this past week, the Premier awarded the mayors of Toronto and Brampton millions of dollars for their cities’ incredible success in meeting provincial housing targets through the Building Faster Fund. That is what we like to see—our municipal partners working with us and meeting our targets.

One notable city that unfortunately did not meet their housing starts is my very own city of Mississauga. Let the record show that under Bonnie Crombie’s leadership, our own city lagged behind in housing starts while others successfully met their targets. Last year, Mississauga only hit 39% of their targets. The Associate Minister of Housing mentioned that under Bonnie Crombie’s leadership, Mississauga denied an application for 4,700 units because the buildings were too tall. Really?

First-time homebuyers, young Canadians, young professionals working hard should know that Bonnie Crombie does not have your back.

That brings me to Bill 165. Since day one, our government has taken action to lower energy costs. We extended the tax cut on gas and fuel until June 30 of this year, saving Ontarians at the gas pump an average of 5.7 cents per litre. We’re saving families $312 a year with the Ontario Electricity Rebate. We ended the disastrous cap-and-trade carbon tax imposed by the Wynne Liberals. And last week our government tabled the Get It Done Act, which will mandate a referendum if any future government wishes to establish a carbon tax, because Ontarians should have a say if a disastrous tax on everything is imposed on our lives. It is a necessary step when we have someone like the Liberal leader, Bonnie Crombie, the queen of the carbon tax, vying for power. During her federal time in politics, she was a champion of the carbon tax. Just this past week, she was asked by a journalist seven times on live TV if she supports a carbon tax, and she just kept on deflecting and deflecting. However, we and the voters already know the answer. This past week, her own caucus voted against a motion from my colleague the member for Simcoe–Grey to eliminate the carbon tax on fuels used for the transportation of goods. Is that who we want as our next Premier?

Ontarians do not want to be taxed to death. Do the math. The same federal government we sued to exempt Ontario out of the carbon tax is the same federal government currently polled to lose the next election in a landslide.

Our government is using every tool at our disposal to keep costs down for people, especially those looking to buy their home.

When we see institutions like the Ontario Energy Board make decisions that are unnecessary and increase costs for homebuyers, we will take action, and we are taking action.

Bill 165 will give our government the authority to reverse the energy board’s recent decision for customers to buy 100% of the cost for a new natural gas connection up front rather than over a 40-year period. The energy board strayed outside of their lane on this issue. It is a huge departure from the realities of our energy system and from historical precedent, that homeowners should pay for these costs like a mortgage over many years.

We will be appointing a new chair to the energy board with the expectation that the board will abide by our legislative requirements when reaching any decisions that support our commitment to an affordable, reliable and clean energy system.

Paying for a natural gas connection for a 40-year period lowers the average home price by about $4,400, and tens of thousands of dollars for homes in rural areas of Ontario. As first-time homebuyers navigate through difficult obstacles such as high interest rates and inflation affecting the cost of building materials, it is important that we don’t burden homebuyers with even more new energy costs.

The energy board’s decision also raised concerns with how they incorporated public consultation. In this decision itself, the commissioner noted that it was reached without any input from Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator or from any stakeholders.

With this act, we are requiring the energy board to conduct broader engagement with stakeholders when conducting both natural gas and electricity hearings.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move that the question now be put.

I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report entitled Ontario’s Labour Market in 2023 from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 22, 2024, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 149, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters / Projet de loi 149, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi, le travail et d’autres questions.

It’s fortunate that I switched my House duty with my colleague today because last week, as you know, the government House leader gave us an update of what we’re going to be debating this week, and Bill 149 wasn’t on that list of things we would be debating. I found it odd because, on Thursday morning, they brought it for debate so the minister could have his hour lead, and then it collapsed because of question period. We couldn’t proceed. They didn’t call it back in the afternoon. This is a weird standard that they’ve set for these employment bills, because on second reading, they brought forward the debate at 5 p.m. on a Thursday—or a Wednesday; I apologize. They brought forward the debate at 5 p.m.—I believe it was on a Thursday—the minister had his hour lead, and then because of orders of the day, at 6 p.m. we went to different business, and then we didn’t resume debate until 11:30 p.m.

If you want to have fulsome debate, you have to hear the criticisms of the bill. It isn’t that this bill is a terrible bill—there are good parts to it; there are some terrible parts to it. Honestly, in this bill, there are some good parts, there’s a really bad part, and there’s a bunch of parts that really didn’t have to be there because they are already existing laws.

The bill is Bill 149. Technically, it’s called An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters. It has four schedules. It’s an omnibus bill. Schedule 1 is the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act; I’m going to get to that in a minute. Schedule 2 is the Employment Standards Act. Schedule 3 is Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act. And schedule 4 is the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

I’m going to start with part of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act because that’s the part of the bill, for the most part, that is very positive. That’s the part of the bill that was basically piggybacked from a private member’s bill that my colleague from Niagara Centre had—

Interjection.

Knowing how the occupational disease affects people, from my background with health and safety working in the mining industry, I know that, like Captain Bowman, a lot of these people are really just hanging on to hear that there will be some good news for their family. They know the finish line is coming. They just want to hear something. They want to hear that their WSIB claim has been accepted, that there will be some compensation and recognition for what they’re going through and what their family is going through. And I’m very happy to hear that Captain Bowman had heard that this bill was moving forward before.

Last week, I was able to go up and talk to the family and let them know that, although we do have issues with this bill—primarily the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, which is a bizarre name for something that’s kneecapping digital workers—we would be supporting this bill because of the importance of what it’s going to do for firefighters in our province. We’ll have another way to work on this digital workers’ section.

So that being said, that’s the cornerstone of the bill. That’s the solid part of the bill. There are some sort of wishy-washy things in the bill that are not really legislation that I’ll get into afterwards.

I do want to talk about this Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act. This is one of those creative writing things. I’ve said often that a lot of these Conservative bills are basically for headlines. This sounds like a great thing. These are your gig workers—if you don’t want to read through it—these are your Uber drivers, food delivery drivers; these are these app workers. It sounds like a fantastic thing, “digital platform workers’ rights”—you’re going to have some rights. We know these workers have been exploited and taken advantage of, but it really doesn’t do anything for them. What it does is, it spells out that they can make a complaint, and the complaint can be investigated—and that sounds great—but it also enshrines that you’re only paid for the time that you’re active in service. If you think of this morning, for example—I think up to now there have been seven people who spoke. Some spoke for 10 minutes. Some spoke for maybe a minute and a half, to answer a question or to ask a question. You would only be paid for the time that you spoke. It doesn’t matter that you came to the Legislature. It didn’t matter that you’re on House duty for hours on end. It didn’t matter that you’re in committee—and I’m not taking cheap shots at anybody. We work hard here; I know it’s a joke to say that politicians don’t. We work hard, and there are a lot of hours in here. But if we were protected under this Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, I’d be getting paid right now, but nobody else would—not even you, Speaker; you’d probably get the least amount, because you just get up for a second to say, “Further debate?” or “I recognize the member.” This is unfair in any workplace.

When I was a flash furnace operator, I was paid to fill the trains with slag, and I was paid when the trains were switching out. When I was waiting for new pots to come in, my pay didn’t stop.

When I was a kid, working at Baskin-Robbins in the winter, when it was slow and we had fewer people, I wasn’t paid just when people showed up to get ice cream. I was paid for the amount of time I was there ready, willing, waiting to work. That’s what needs to happen for these app workers.

In this thing, when it says that you have a right to complain that your employer is paying you less than minimum wage per hour—but nothing will happen, because the Conservative government is enshrining the right for these companies to pay their workers less than minimum wage per hour. You’re only paid for your engaged time. That means that, for example, if you stop by a grocery store or a pharmacy on the way home and you have to pick up soap, bread or something like that, the cashier would only be paid for the time that you got there, and when they scan your device, and while they did the transaction. Then, their pay stops. Think about a chess match. Every time they hit the clock—that’s how these workers are paid.

There was a document—I know I can’t hold it up, but I’m going to have it to read from. Legislated Poverty was from RideFair. This was presented to us the day before we went to committee on this: “Under current city and provincial regulations, Toronto’s ride-hail drivers’ median pay is an estimated $6.37-$10.60/hour, a collective annual loss of up to ~$200 million/year.”

This is about app delivery drivers. This is about ride-share companies, like Lyft and Uber. This is an amazing business plan. You come up with the app, and the workers provide all the equipment. The workers do all of the work. They pay for their vehicles. It doesn’t matter if it’s a car—you want to get an Uber Black, you get a high-end car, and you’re paying a lease on it. You’re doing food delivery, and you get on an e-bike that some people are renting or trying to pay off. And you hear about these rates of pay—because Uber is telling you that you make about 30 bucks an hour. That’s 30 bucks an hour if you only count the time when you’re working.

The Conservative government has created a law where—“Yes, we stand with Uber. We stand with the billionaires.” This is sort of a familiar refrain from the Conservative government. They love billionaires, but they don’t stand with regular working-class people.

A couple of quotes in here: “Toronto ride-hail drivers received an estimated median pay as low as $6.37/hr”— that’s before the deductions. That’s before gas. That’s before their lease. That’s before they pay for the bike. That’s out-of-pocket expenses.

Our minimum wage is $16.55. I want you to compare that—and I’m going to say it again: $16.55. What the Conservative government is saying is, “It’s okay if a company pays their workers $6.37 an hour instead.” That is flabbergasting. In this economy, in this time of financial strife, when people are feeling the affordability pinch—middle-class people, higher-income people are thinking about what they’re purchasing. They’re putting things back on the shelves. People who can afford it are just saying, “This is ridiculous, the way we’re being gouged.”

You have a Conservative government saying, “I think it’s great that this billionaire company is exploiting these workers. In fact, I’m going to write it into law so they can keep getting away with it.” It’s disgraceful.

Further, they did some analysis on this, and their estimate was that Uber’s proposed—Uber says they make 120% of minimum wage for engaged time, but only while they’re actually working. While they’re waiting for an order to come in, and if Uber decides—they know how the app works. If Uber decides, “I’m going to keep sending it to this person and ignore this person”—it’s only while they’re going; you get zero while you’re waiting.

One of the deputants who spoke to us at clause-by-clause told us about being out in snowstorms—because you get more orders for food in snowstorms—and waiting in Toronto with his bike and making $2.50 an hour, which, coincidentally, is what they estimate that works out to, actually, as an hourly minimum wage. It’s a little bit of smoke and mirrors, because the engaged time pay is pretty good, but if Uber doesn’t give you any deliveries, it’s pretty bad.

Again, think of us all here: Right now, I’m getting paid because I’m engaged; none of you are. None of you deserve a cent for what you’re doing. It makes no sense. It’s completely unfair.

So Uber is telling people—they’ve got a thing called Uber math; I guess that’s a trending thing. Basically, what they say is, you’re making $40.69 an hour—which is great, if you actually made that for the hour, but that’s only when they add up your engaged time over a long period. So, your engaged time, seven hours and 24 minutes—do you know how long the worker has to work to have seven hours and 24 minutes of engaged time? It’s 26 hours and 18 minutes. So to work an eight-hour shift for Uber, you have to work more than 24 hours a day. If you break it down to what they actually make per hour, in this instance, it’s $11.45.

I can go on and on about this, but there are other parts of the bill to get to. I’m spelling this out as clear as I can, though, because this is punishing for workers. We had several come who are Uber drivers and food delivery workers, and I asked one of them—I’ll hear, often, when people hear of somebody who has a job that doesn’t pay well, “Just quit and get another job.” So I said, “Why don’t you just quit and get another job?” He said, “There are no other jobs. I have to put food on the table for my family, and so what I do is, I sit in my car and I wait. I don’t spend time with my family. I sit in my car for 16 to 18 hours a day, and then I collapse from exhaustion and sleep, and I sit in my car again.”

Interjection.