It’s always an honour for me to rise and add the voices and perspectives of the wonderful people of London North Centre here in this chamber.

As I rise today to debate Bill 190, I’m reluctant to use the title itself because I often find that with this government there are unintentionally ironic titles to pieces of legislation that they create. As I take a look at this bill, I want to consider following the money, because, quite frankly, with much of the legislation that this government enacts, they simply don’t respond to the cost-of-living crisis that we see here in our province, and the plight of workers who are struggling to make ends meet, to pay for a roof over their heads, to pay their utility bills and to put healthy food on the table for themselves as well as their children.

The Fraser Institute actually just released a report just today that shows the trend of incomes in Ontario over the last two decades. It is entitled Ontario’s Two Lost Economic Decades: 2002-2022. It finds, by using a big-picture perspective and using several key indicators, that minimal economic progress was made for Ontarians during this time and that we actually lost ground relative to the country. It found that the GDP per-person growth was the second worst nationwide; business investment per worker over the 20-year period was only 61% of the national average. Here in Ontario, businesses are not investing in their people. The report was created by Ben Eisen, senior fellow from the Fraser Institute, and Eisen states, “On a number of important economic metrics, Ontario is lagging the rest of the country, which ultimately means Ontario workers are falling behind, along with opportunities for them.”

As we follow the money, I can’t help but also need to communicate to this government, despite their ideological opposition to health care workers as evidenced through Bill 124, as well as their ideological opposition to education workers with the bill that was until it wasn’t, we see a lot of really punishingly low wages for people across health care sectors.

I had the opportunity with the MPP from London West and the MPP from London–Fanshawe to meet with the RNAO and Janet Hunt, who spoke about so many issues that are facing nurses in the community sector. They gave us really harrowing stories about trying to struggle to meet clients’ basic needs, while being paid dramatically lower than their peers.

I should also point out that when we consider wage parity, that the Ontario Nonprofit Network pointed to a number of different places in which the province is a laggard and is making sure that people aren’t being paid what they deserve. For registered early childhood educators, if they work within a school board or a municipal centre, they will make roughly $25 an hour whereas those working in a not-for-profit licensed child care will earn $18 an hour.

In home and community care, PSWs are paid a fraction of what they deserve and what they’re worth. In home and community care, they earn 17% less than those in long-term care. But also, those home and community care PSWs earn 21% less than hospitals.

The list goes on: child and youth workers, disability support service workers, language instructors, settlement counsellors, social service workers—all in the community-based non-profit sector—earn $10 an hour less than hospitals, school boards and child welfare.

When you consider drop-in and shelter workers, those who are employed in not-for-profits will earn roughly $15 an hour, whereas those in municipal respite centres will earn $30 an hour, twice as much.

The Ontario Nonprofit Network has shown through its reporting that when you consider pay and benefits all together, people earn 30% less than they ought to be. And that’s something that this government could answer.

Recently, CUPE had actions trying to show this government how little they were being paid as a result of Bill 124 and seeing real degradation of their pay over the last several years. They’ve been handed excuses and delays. I would like to quote CUPE Local 8916 president Shaun Steven who said, “Our members work very hard behind the scenes to ensure that members of our community have access to health care and support for their needs at home and in community clinics, and we deserve a settlement that takes our hard work and the cost of living into account.” I could not agree more, Speaker. This is something that the government could act on, should act on, yet has chosen not to act on.

The RNAO has provided the following quotations, and this is from front-line workers: “In the community, we have clients who are waiting weeks to get routine procedures done because we are so short. Sometimes, the wait is so long that the client gets an infection or cannot wait any longer and must go to the ER to get care. This is a cycle that repeats.”

And another RNAO member stated, “We are struggling to find people who want to work in the community because their pay is so much lower than bedside nurses’, yet they are expected to do the exact same work. Our patients in the community are sicker than before.”

And from a veteran nurse who stated, “Historical decisions made in the 1990s are showing now, everywhere from changing how we fund health care from a nursing-hour model to a per-bed model. Nurses have been calling for change and warning about this for decades, and now, we are stuck having to pay for it.”

And another health care provider: “In the community where I work, I am frequently given a list of up to 14 patients to see in a day. It is often impossible to see all the patients in a day without going over my time but then I don’t get compensated. I get paid per visit but the patients they send to the RN are some of the sickest and need thorough assessments. Often I am called at the end of my day to go see someone whose condition has changed and family have called in looking for help. I then must call my other clients and tell them I can’t make it to see them. It often leads to angry words as they feel abandoned, and they then have to go to ER for whatever it was I was meant to do for them.”

Speaker, this is unconscionable that workers are being treated in this way, and this government is well aware of the plight of wage parity, and yet they simply choose not to act. During the tour for the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, we heard again and again and again that wage parity is an issue affecting people across the province, yet we see legislation that’s titled purporting to support workers and yet ignoring their inability to pay workers properly.

But if we also follow the money, taking a look at the way this government has ignored some of the systems that they are responsible for, I also think about injured workers in this province. I think about the WSIB that has long not stood up for people who have become injured on the job. There was a 2015 study, and it found that 46% of injured workers will live in poverty nearly five years after their injury; 46% of the workers who really need the help, who are disabled, are stuck in poverty. Speaker, that was not the system the WSIB was created for. It was created to support workers, not to deny them.

There’s also been many, many recent studies showing that—and this is actually studies done by the Ministry of Labour that have shown the WSIB’s claims allowed rate has fallen from just under 2% of employed workers in 2004 to just over 1% in 2013. The number of fatalities and the number of critical injuries is going up, and yet there has been almost no change in the amount of claims being allowed by WSIB. We have to ask why that is. If we’re seeing numbers going up in terms of injuries and fatalities, how is it possible that that number is remaining stagnant?

Furthermore, if this government would like to support the title of its bill, it would do things such as getting rid of deeming. Deeming is the practice used by the WSIB to pretend an injured worker has a job that they do not actually have; it’s a phantom job. It’s used as an excuse to withdraw and to cut and to make sure that they are holding back money from that person who is injured and unable to work.

If this government really wanted to support workers, they would actually listen to physicians that attend to these injured workers. It’s been long exposed in Prescription Over-Ruled—which was created by a number of different doctors as well as the Ontario Federation of Labour. That has shown the stories of workers who were injured and were then supposedly treated by doctors who never actually saw them, never actually spoke to them, who looked at a piece of paper and made decisions based on a piece of paper.

I want to share, from that Prescription Over-Ruled, Keith’s story. Keith’s name has been changed to protect their identity:

“Keith suffered a brain injury and serious spinal injury when he fell eight feet and landed on his head. Despite immediate and ongoing physical and psychological distress, receiving treatment remains a constant struggle for this injured worker.

“Keith was working underground at the time of the accident. Unfortunately, his helmet came off during the fall and offered him no protection. When his head struck rock, witnesses say that they thought he was dead.

“In contrast to what Keith’s medical team has advised, the board has decided that he does not have a permanent injury. Even though Keith has a solid and consistent work history, and even though he sustained three spinal compression fractures from the fall, they are calling his ongoing pain ‘pre-existing.’

“While the board originally funded some physiotherapy, they ultimately turned down the physiotherapist’s strongly worded request for ongoing treatments to manage Keith’s continuing chronic pain. His condition has continued to degrade, and requests for more therapy—at the recommendation of a health care professional—continue to be denied. Now, he is on so many medications related to his pain that his doctors ordered him not to drive and functioning day to day is a struggle.

“But Keith is suffering from more than physical pain. Shortly after the injury, Keith’s doctor became concerned about his depression and poor sleep due to a possible brain injury. As his treating physician, he suggested Keith see a psychologist. The WSIB denied this request. When his depression reached what his doctor called ‘profound levels,’ he again requested psychological support for his patient. He was again denied. Some two years later and many requests later, Keith was finally granted limited sessions, though any activities related to brain injury rehabilitation or occupational therapy (both of which the psychologist has strongly recommended) have been flatly turned down.

“While Keith’s mental health has been improving, his psychologist remains concerned that he struggles with severe depression, a lack of purpose and is at risk of suicide. Their funded sessions together are now complete. His psychologist doesn’t anticipate receiving approval for more, but even if they do, it will take months.

“Every medical professional in Keith’s life agrees that he needs continued physical and psychological support in order to regain and retain some quality of life. The WSIB—who are not doctors and who have never met Keith—have ignored the recommendations and requests of all of them.”

Speaker, as well, I’d like to turn to some of the words from our excellent labour critic, the MPP from Sudbury, who in the line of his following the money has pointed out quite rightly that this government has made a lot of promises and changes within this legislation, yet much of it will never really be realized.

In Working for Workers, we call this a “headline bill” or pretending to be tough on bosses. As our critic pointed out, the fine maximums have been changed for violations of the act from $50,000 to $100,000 for an individual. Also, it should be noted that currently, under the ESA, corporations can already be fined up to $100,000 and repeat corporate offenders as much as $500,000. But it should be pointed out—and this was very well pointed out by our critic—that the highest fine levied in 2022 was $31,250. If we’re following the money, we can increase the thresholds all you like, but if that’s not actually going to be enforced, if that’s not going to be levied, then it is relatively meaningless.

In addition, our critic pointed out that in 2018-19, there were 2,345 proactive workplace inspections, but a few short years later, in 2022-23, there had been only 788. It’s like they don’t want to know what’s going on.

And if we follow the money further, stolen money, wage theft—money that belongs to workers, that this government is aware of but is not getting for those workers—is ridiculous. In 2018, that number was $10 million. The Workers’ Action Centre stated—and this is Ella Bedard—that workers need proactive inspections to ensure employers obey the law, and we need effective collection of stolen wages when the Ministry of Labour has ordered an employer to pay back workers’ wages. How can it be possible, Speaker, that the Ministry of Labour can order an employer to pay back workers’ wages and the workers don’t actually see that money? But that is what happens in Ontario.

Between 2020 and 2022, there were 8,400 successful claims, and that amounted to $36 million. But the province was a failure—an abject failure—in making sure workers got that money. They recovered less than 40% of the money that should be in the pockets of the hard-working people here in this province: $36 million was owed to workers and only $13 million was collected.

So, Speaker, in Ontario, we see legislation that talks about bad actors, and yet we see a government that is not actually holding them to account. How is that possible? Why do we have titles of legislation that are strangely ironic? Why do we have words that are not enforced? Why do we have actions by the ministry of labour itself that are not being completed, that are not being effectively taken care of? Think of that $23 million that should be owed to people, that they have worked for. They should not have to go and settle for a province that does not have their back, that will not look after them.

So, Speaker, I will say that, with Bill 190, it’s not all bad. It is not the worst piece of legislation, but it is the kind of legislation that I do think time will show that this title is yet again strangely ironic, that there are so many opportunities for the government to do the right thing to look after things such as wage parity across health care sectors and across community support services. They could look after workers by ensuring that the money that was owed to them by their employer was returned to them. They could make sure that people who are injured on the job have the protections that they require, that they’re being treated properly, that they’re being treated fairly, that they’re not being deemed, that they’re not having phantom jobs.

Further, Speaker, a very last thing, if this government really wanted to stand up for the working people in this province, they would pass NDP legislation to make sure that scab labour is something that is not allowed in this province. I’m very thankful that the government has listened to the advocacy of the great team with the official opposition and has expanded presumptive coverage for firefighters. There’s so much that is missing within this bill.

I hope that this government will take the time, pay people what they’re worth, make sure that the money that they have earned actually gets into their pocket, that bad actors are taken to task and are forced to pay what they owe people.

It’s unreasonable to think that the province is not doing its part to make sure that people are being paid what they deserve.

I’d like to thank the member from Spadina–Fort York for his presentation today and for recognizing what happened to 294 Central Avenue in my riding of London North Centre and the seriousness of it.

I also think of what happened during the construction that is currently under way—it happened in 2022—of a railway underpass on Adelaide Street, actually, at Central Avenue as well, when construction crews accidentally hit a natural gas line that affected 1,800 businesses and consumers, who had to be evacuated from their homes. Thankfully, there were no injuries, but it was because of the collaboration of a number of different city services to make sure the people were safe.

Currently in Bill 153, it has removed the ability of the owners of underground infrastructure to charge for certain locate requests, but they’re also not going to be required to pay if they miss deadlines. Does the member have any sense from the government or from the legislation how these will be fulfilled in a timely way?

It’s a great honour for me to stand here in this place and represent the great voices of the wonderful riding of London North Centre.

As I take a look towards Bill 139, the Less Red Tape, More Common Sense Act, it is an interesting bill to arrive at this time. We have yet another doorstopper bill, a bill with a number of different technical amendments to legislation—which are in and of themselves not necessarily odious. As the official opposition, we usually look towards these large, omnibus sorts of bills that are full of schedules and try to look for that poison pill, the arsenic in the pie that majority governments are often foisting upon oppositions—you know, something that appears as though we cannot technically vote for.

But if we take a look at this bill, I also think about the current situation in Ontario. Families in Ontario are hurting incredibly right now. We have a cost-of-living crisis. We have a housing crisis. We have an opioid epidemic across our province. And this government seems content to pursue technical amendments.

Today, as it turns out, Speaker, we have an opportunity for the government to vote on really life-changing legislation that would help empower low- and moderate-income families. Today we’re going to be voting on my motion that was debated just yesterday, for the government to actually provide affordable housing and supportive housing to low- and moderate-income families. Given the debate yesterday, I am deeply concerned that the government is not taking the housing crisis seriously, because they have indicated that they won’t be voting for it.

If we look towards the Less Red Tape, More Common Sense Act—just at first blush, given I only have a few minutes on the clock this morning—this bill sort of tinkers around the edges. It’s interesting because, within this bill, it is going to tinker with the agricultural act, while at the same time, in recent memory, we have seen that this government has been hell-bent on carving up the greenbelt, turning millionaires into billionaires with their greenbelt grab. And to that $8.3 billion that they were content to hand over to a few well-connected insider friends, that was also—just a point of note, Speaker—based on the Auditor General’s 2016 numbers. So that number could be far, far more than $8.3 billion.

We look at the impacts that would have had for our province, for our precious farmland, where we’re losing 319 acres of prime farmland each day—once you lose that farmland, it never comes back—the ecologically sensitive areas such as the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve and so many more.

But what I wanted to just speak about this morning is about the bill itself and what it hopes to achieve, and also what it is entitled. The bill is entitled the Less Red Tape, More Common Sense Act, and it harkens back to a time—I hope the member, my friend from Kitchener–Conestoga, will cover his ears for this next little bit. When this government talks about common sense, it harkens back to a very dark time in Ontario’s history. It harkens back to a government that had what they called the Common Sense Revolution, and it’s something that strikes fear into many people’s hearts.

I was a high school student at that time, and I saw the tremendous and grave impacts on the educational system, where a billion dollars was stripped out of the educational system that was never put back—certainly not by the Liberal government—something that has impacted education for many, many, many years.

We can also thank Conservative common sense for downloading services from the provincial jurisdiction onto municipalities. They downloaded social assistance. They downloaded public housing. They downloaded public health. We need not look far to think of what that downloading and the impact of it was, considering the deaths and all of the poisonings that happened in the Walkerton area as a result.

We can also thank Conservative common sense for cutting funding to health care and closing hospitals. I believe the Harris Conservative government closed 28 hospital and laid off 6,000 nurses.

And we can also thank the Conservative common sense for creating our current housing crisis: 16,000 units of co-op and non-profit housing that were under development at that time were cancelled by the Harris Conservative government. What a shame. You think about those 16,000 units and how many lives would have been impacted by having that economic stability, having that safe place to call home, having something that they could pass on to their children, where the economic benefits could have been realized with these low- to moderate-income folks. Think of those lives—16,000 individual spaces. Think of all the lives that could have been within those units. It’s shocking to think.

You know, earlier—

It’s my great honour to rise today to add the voices of the wonderful people of London North Centre on what is possibly one of the most important topics of our time, which is housing.

Today, we are discussing and debating Bill 134, An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act, 2023. This bill is very light on details. Just to take a look at the two schedules that comprise this bill, they talk about the definitions of affordable or attainable homes, and they also talk about the adjustments to the St. Thomas-Central Elgin boundary adjustment—an adjustment, I might add, was one that the NDP was proud to support. We helped expedite that adjustment to make sure that we were able to land the historic investment of the Volkswagen plant in St. Thomas.

Housing is something that every single constituent of mine discusses with me at every event I go to. I speak with seniors who are looking to downsize, who are concerned because they simply can’t maintain that bigger home. There are also people in the mid-ranges who have adult children who can’t move out or may never realize the dream of home ownership.

It’s really shocking when we see the policy changes that have been enacted by this government and governments previous which have resulted in this unaffordability crisis. You see, housing is foundational. Housing is fundamental. Housing is health care, when you look at it in a more broad sense. Unfortunately, because of policy changes over the last 30 years, we’ve seen that housing has become more of a commodity rather than what it is, which is a human good, a necessity.

If you take a look at both Liberal and Conservative housing policies, they centre around developers. They have this focus on this trickle-down economic situation, where they expect that if they create a policy environment to enable the creation of housing, somehow that will result in affordability. But 30 years after those policies have been enacted, we see that they are utterly wrong.

This bill is an opportunity, and I would say that, though the NDP, the official opposition, will be supporting this bill, it unfortunately misses the moment. I have to wonder, with a bill that is comprised of two very brief schedules, if this legislation actually serves the purpose of the magician trying to distract the people of Ontario. What is happening in both hands? You see, we have the greenbelt grift. We have this handout to land speculators. We’ve seen so much corruption and scandal embroiling this government that this legislation seems to be something where they’re trying to put out a good news story and distract from what is actually going on.

It’s no wonder, Speaker, that they will interrupt all the members on the official opposition side when we dare talk about the greenbelt in relation to this legislation, because they don’t want anyone to know. They don’t want anyone to pay attention. They certainly don’t want anyone to investigate, otherwise they would obviously have co-operated more fully with the Integrity Commissioner. We would have ministers that actually told the legitimate and honest truth, and we would see a government that actually would pass the official opposition’s motion to strike a special committee—

Interjection: Select.

The NDP, the official opposition, has always been and will always be the party of housing. Back during the 1990s, the NDP government built the most significant amount of affordable housing, supportive housing, co-op housing of any government of its kind, and much of that still exists to this day, despite the reckless and destructive cuts of the government that came after them with the Mike Harris government. They cancelled so many projects, so many co-op housing projects, in the tens of thousands. But this government, unfortunately, isn’t really looking after people; they’re looking after developers.

It’s also unfortunate because I think this results in the weakening of peoples’ faith in our elected representatives, because this government has tried to cloak their greenbelt grift with the shield of housing. They’ve tried to hide behind this defence, pretending as though this unbridled corruption crisis was something other than what it was, which was about rewarding insiders. It was about making sure that a few people were turned from millionaires into billionaires, but instead, this government would pretend that it was about housing.

I wanted to first look at an analysis of this government’s cousin, their federal leader, Pierre Poilievre, and his discussion of housing, because I think we see resonance with this government and their principles. This was posted; it says how Poilievre blames city regulations and red tape that are causing the housing crisis. He said that these inflate the cost of housing, and his entire plan is to force or encourage cities to remove them. We see much resonance with that and this government stepping all over municipal partners, overriding their authority, really insulting them, pretending as though they’re sitting on all of this unspent money when it’s this government that has a $22-billion slush fund that they’re sitting on. However, they would like to point the finger at somebody else—again, changing the channel and trying to distract.

This analysis goes on to say that the red tape is “a way of speaking to the needs of ‘ordinary’ Canadians, while advancing the interest of the party’s corporate backers. The existing capitalist provision of housing in Canada need not be changed in any way. We just need to cut government waste.”

So it’s interesting when you take a look at this government and their discussion of housing because we always see such focus on red tape. It’s like they’re trying to change the target. They’re trying to change the channel. They don’t want people paying attention to what they’re actually doing; they would rather point the finger at somebody else.

If we look at the historical provision or the responsibility for housing, back in 1995, the Conservatives cut the provincial housing program and the Liberals cut the National Housing Strategy. As a result, we have a crisis that has been created by government cuts, by government neglect, by governments not doing and not abiding by their historic responsibilities.

You see, back in the 1990s, governments began to rely on the for-profit model and our for-profit market to deliver housing and, unfortunately, that has been something that has not provided what Ontarians need. We also see that pension funds, REITs and so many more have realized that they can commodify or reap enormous profits off housing, and this government has done nothing to stop them. We’ve seen some tinkering around the edges. We’ve seen increases on the non-resident speculation tax, but there are giant loopholes you could drive a truck through with those.

It’s also really interesting, when you take a look at recent history, because this government has had a flurry of bills, they’ve had a ministerial shuffle, they have really tried to distract from what is actually going on here, which has been a corruption crisis, despite them masking it with housing. We have to ask the question: Which is more important: people or profit? Clearly, there’s a division down the middle of this chamber, because on this side of the chamber, we believe that people are more important than profit. Yet, with this government, we see them rewarding millionaire friends, turning them into billionaires. We see corporate tax cuts. We see all of these incentives that are given to people who don’t need our assistance.

I have to think about a really interesting quotation I read just recently. This individual said that, really, if you are a person of faith, if you believe in some sort of “Almighty,” that our responsibility here is to look after the little people and make sure they’re being protected from the big people. But we see a reverse of that with this government—entirely, entirely opposite.

As we look at this legislation in question, there are some interesting points to it. There is the definition of affordability based on income instead of the market. It’s an incremental improvement; it’s not perfect. It’s somewhat better than the status quo, but there’s still so much more this government could do to actually create that housing. This government talks a lot about creating housing, but they are actually taking a back seat. They are really not taking responsibility; they’re leaving that up to other people. They really don’t want to be in the driver’s seat. I don’t know—maybe they don’t want to be responsible, maybe they’re afraid, maybe they’re just afraid to get their hands dirty. I’m not sure what it is, but they’re not building the housing.

Now, we also, on this side of the House, want to look at the housing crisis from every angle. There is not one silver bullet to tackle the housing affordability crisis, so we also need to look at people on all parts of the spectrum of housing. That would include real rent control. It’s shocking to think that, this government, during the throes of a housing affordability crisis, that the Premier and this government in 2018 would remove rent control from all new buildings. They will pat themselves on the back, Speaker. They will tell themselves, “Look at all the new housing starts.” But what they don’t admit is that none of these are affordable, and that they’ve created a system of exploitation whereby people are stuck.

People have finished year-long leases—I’ve talked with so many folks who were not informed that the government did not have their back. They were not informed that the government did not care about their safety. They were not informed that the government didn’t want to provide them with protections, so after that year-long lease, their rent skyrocketed. It’s unconscionable that, in the midst of a housing crisis, this government would take away things away from people.

Now, we take a look at some of the other distractions in terms of housing that this government has created. We have Bill 23, and Bill 23 was a direct attack on municipalities removing development charges, again, rewarding the people who didn’t need further reward—those developers, those speculators, those people who are already wealthy—while removing protections from people who were hardly protected in the first place. I believe the Association of Municipalities of Ontario have estimated that with Bill 23 the impact will be in the neighbourhood of—what is it, $5 billion?

I’d like to thank the member from Nickel Belt for her excellent presentation about how it is wise and fiscally prudent to invest in community-based surgical centres. Not only did she highlight the safety and the continuity of care but also the better health outcomes. I would also like to thank the member for recognizing the great work of Dr. Abdel-Rahman Lawendy, the chief medical director of the Nazem Kadri Surgical Centre at London Health Sciences Centre.

Standard operating rooms are required for complex care, where there are six staff per room. They require a full set of sterilized instruments. It costs on average $469 per day, whereas these other ambulatory centres cost $172 per day. It’s 36% of the cost.

This government’s ideological adherence to the for-profit model—I wanted to ask the member, who is this government listening to, if it’s not listening to patients?