The Standing Committee on Social Policy, please.

Thank you so much, Speaker. I just wanted to take an opportunity to welcome students from General Haller’s Polish school. We have Olivia, Martin, Krystian, Marcel, Amelia, Alexander, Patryk, Magdalena, Maksymilian, Joanna and Julia, and their wonderful teachers Pani Agata and Pani Irena. They are here today to witness our democracy. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 70, An Act to proclaim the month of June as Seniors Month / Projet de loi 70, Loi proclamant le mois de juin Mois des personnes âgées.

The ayes are 103; the nays are 0.

« À l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario :

« Alors que les Ontariennes et les Ontariens devraient obtenir des soins de santé en fonction de leurs besoins—et non de la taille de leur portefeuille;

« Alors que le premier ministre, Doug Ford, et la ministre de la Santé, Sylvia Jones, ont déclaré qu’ils prévoyaient privatiser certaines parties des soins de santé;

« Alors que la privatisation poussera les infirmières, les médecins et les PSSP hors de nos hôpitaux publics, aggravant ainsi la crise des soins de santé;

« Alors que la privatisation se termine toujours avec une facture pour les patients;

« Par conséquent, nous, soussignés, demandons à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario d’arrêter immédiatement tous les plans visant à privatiser davantage le système de soins de santé de l’Ontario et de résoudre la crise des soins de santé en :

« —abrogeant la loi 124 et recrutant, retenant et respectant les médecins, les infirmières et les PSSP avec de meilleurs salaires et conditions de travail;

« —certifiant les titres de compétences de dizaines de milliers d’infirmières et d’autres professionnels de la santé formés à l’étranger déjà en Ontario, qui attendent des années et paient des milliers de dollars pour être autorisés à travailler;

« —rendant l’éducation et la formation gratuites ou peu coûteuses pour les infirmières, les médecins et les autres professionnels de la santé;

« —incitant les médecins et les infirmières à choisir de vivre et travailler dans le nord de l’Ontario;

« —finançant les hôpitaux pour qu’ils aient suffisamment d’infirmières à chaque quart de travail, dans chaque département. »

Je supporte cette pétition. Je vais la signer et la remettre à Mikaeel pour l’amener au bureau des greffiers.

Thank you very much for the question.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear once again: There has not been a government in this province for the past 70 years that has provided more protections for tenants than this government has. We protected tenants through Bill 184; we put in various measures to protect tenants. Unfortunately, the opposition voted against every single one of those measures. The rent increase guideline that’s currently set at 2.5%—we maxed it at 2.5%, well below inflation; it would have been over 5% if we hadn’t taken action. Last year, we capped it at 2.1%.

We have continuously said that we are in a housing supply crisis in this province and it affects everyone. The opposition doesn’t seem to understand that. We need to increase supply so that everyone in Ontario has a home that meets their needs and their budgets. They may not care for it. We will, and we will—

Mr. Speaker, last year, in 2022, we had a record number of purpose-built rentals in this province; the year before that, once again, a record number of housing starts—not only just overall, but also for purpose-built rentals.

When it comes to protection for tenants, let me be clear once again: Bill 184—that member was here when we introduced it. It was this member here that put in protection for tenants across the board in this province. What did the opposition do? Vote against it. That’s the same thing for opposition—they’ll continue to talk about one thing, but when it comes to voting, they will vote against it. They’re for housing until we introduce it, and they will vote against it. They’re for protection—they will talk about it—but when it comes to actually putting their name behind it, they will vote against it. That’s not on this side of the House—

Interjections.

I am really proud to present this petition that was signed by—we are at 1,500 names. The last name we have is Colette Riess from Noëlville. It reads as follows:

“Keep the Noëlville OPP Detachment Open....

“Whereas insufficient communications and consultations have taken place with communities and relevant stakeholders concerning the OPP Noëlville detachment’s continuing operations; and

“Whereas the residents and visitors in the municipalities of French River, Markstay-Warren, St.-Charles, Killarney and Britt-Byng Inlet as well as the First Nations of Dokis and Henvey Inlet deserve equitable access to a reliable, timely and efficient police response;”

They “petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario” as follows: “to direct the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ontario Provincial Police to continue having Ontario Provincial Police officers reporting to an operational detachment location in Noëlville.”

I fully support this petition, Speaker, will affix my name to it and send it to the Clerk with a good page.

World Water Day is today so it gives me a great honour to present a petition entitled “Protect the Greenbelt.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Bill 23 is the Ford government’s latest attempt to remove protected land from the greenbelt, allowing developers to bulldoze and pave over 7,000 acres of farmland in the greenbelt;

“Whereas Ontario is already losing 319.6 acres of farmland and green space daily to development;

“Whereas the government’s Housing Affordability Task Force found there are plenty of places to build homes without destroying the greenbelt;

“Whereas Ford’s repeated moves to tear up farmland and bulldoze wetlands have never been about housing, but are about making the rich richer;

“Whereas green spaces and farmland are what we rely on to grow our food, support natural habitats and prevent flooding;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately amend Bill 23, stop all plans to further remove protected land from the greenbelt and protect existing farmland in the province by passing the NDP’s Protecting Agricultural Land Act.”

I fully agree with this petition. I’m going to sign it and give it to Savannah to take to the table.

Thank you to the good member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan for this question.

Speaker, it does not matter whether you live in downtown Timmins or downtown Toronto: Everyone has the right to expect the best service from this government.

That is why, under the leadership of our Premier, this government is leveraging emerging technology and modernizing our province’s vehicle services with the automobile industry through their digital dealership registration. Since launching last March, the digitization of the registration process became a monumental shift for the industry. I’m happy to inform the member that in the second phase of this program, 300 participating dealerships are already registering new passenger vehicles with new licence plates—including electric and used vehicles.

Ontarians can rest assured that this government will never stop working to make their lives easier and our services more accessible.

I’m proud to present the following petition on behalf of Lynn Mayhew from families of incarcerated women and girls at the Andrew Mercer Reformatory, submitted by Denise Besic. It reads:

“Extend Access to Post-Adoption Birth Information.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas current legislation does not provide access to post-adoption birth information (identifying information) to next of kin if an adult adopted person or a natural/birth parent is deceased;

“Whereas this barrier to accessing post-adoption birth information separates immediate family members and prohibits the children of deceased adopted people from gaining knowledge of their identity and possible Indigenous heritage;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to extend access to post-adoption birth information (identifying information) to next of kin, and/or extended next of kin, if an adult adopted person or a natural/birth parent is deceased.”

I’m happy to sign this petition. I will be sending it with page Keya to the Clerks’ table.

Madam Speaker, point of order.

This petition is entitled “Invest in Ontario’s Arts and Culture Sector.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the arts and culture sector contributes $28.7 billion to Ontario’s GDP and creates over 300,000 jobs;

“Whereas the Ontario Arts Council budget has not been increased at Ontario’s rate of inflation, exacerbating the income precarity of artists and cultural workers, some of whom are earning less than $25,000 per year, and still less for those from equity-deserving groups;

“Whereas the income precarity was worsened during the pandemic through issues of regulatory unfairness in the arts and culture sector, disproportionately impacting the performing arts sector and OAC-determined priority groups, including BIPOC, Indigenous, women, people with disabilities, and LGBTQIA2S+ artists and cultural workers;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to sustain the Ontario Arts Council budget of $65 million in the 2023 provincial budget and adequately invest in the arts and culture sector, including supports for equity-deserving groups, small, medium and grassroots collectives in our communities, and individual artists to ensure their personal and economic survival.”

I completely support this petition. I’ll affix my signature and pass it to page Elizabeth to take to the table.

Point of order, Speaker.

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 22, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 79, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi, le travail et d’autres questions.

As the critic for immigration, citizenship and international credential recognition, it’s an honour for me to speak to this bill, Speaker, because any time I have the opportunity to talk about workers’ rights, to talk about Ontarians and people who contribute so much, dedicate so much of their labour and hard work to put food on the table, but also to really make Ontario a better place and make this country a better place, it’s incredible for us to have this opportunity to talk about them and to be able to make laws that help them. So I’m really hoping that I can highlight some of these things in this legislation, and as an official opposition member, I also believe that it is my duty. We have reminders across the House here that tell us that you have to listen to the opposition, so I will also take this opportunity to talk about some of the ways that we could have done better and some of the missing pieces of this legislation that have been proposed as well.

Speaker, I also want to say before I begin that my colleague from Sudbury, our critic for labour, has also given me a lot of guidelines in terms of the conversations that he’s had with a lot of workers across the province. As critic, he has the opportunity to meet with a lot of labour unions and a lot of workers’ organizations and hear really incredible and, I would say, heartbreaking stories of so many workers, especially during the pandemic. I will take the opportunity here, if I can, to highlight some of those as well.

Over the last couple of weeks, we saw the Minister of Labour really—before this bill was actually introduced, Speaker—make a lot of headlines. We recently saw the headline about calling employers who take advantage of workers “scumbags,” and rightfully so. We also saw the minister make headlines about the bill and how he is going to provide washrooms for workers who don’t have access to clean washrooms. There are people who actually called me up and said, “You know what? This is great. A minister who is making toilets accessible is excellent.” These headlines really gave me a lot of hope, because these are some of the things that we heard about during the pandemic.

I want to start first by sharing one of the stories I heard right at the beginning of the pandemic. It was from a taxi driver who talked about how as soon as washrooms in Tim Hortons and McDonald’s were closed, they did not have the ability to have any access to washrooms if they were to go to work. This is something that I have highlighted in the House in the past as well, so when I heard these announcements, I was filled with hope, because these are some of the things that we know people across Ontario need. We heard about truck drivers who have always talked about how we can make their lives easier and, talking about essential workers—how important truck drivers were to make sure that we have food in our grocery stores and therefore we have food on the table as well, and how important it was for them to have an accessible, clean washroom.

So I was really hopeful seeing these headlines, but then when I went through this bill—and I must say, Speaker, after all the headlines, which means that we knew that this bill was coming, we only had an opportunity of just one day, yesterday, to actually go through this legislation. We are actually missing out on a huge opportunity to meet with stakeholders who would have been able to give us a lot of feedback. Should we introduce it? Talk to the stakeholders, talk about the specific schedules and hear their feedback so that we can actually do justice to this. Unfortunately, I am a little disheartened to see that because I would have liked the opportunity to talk to more of the stakeholders, more of the workers, more of the migrant workers, who I’m sure have excellent feedback, who have done a tremendous amount of work highlighting the issues that workers across this province face, and we would have had the opportunity to do so.

My question that I want to start with: Is this a headline bill or is this a bill about taking real action? To answer that question, what I want to do is go through the different schedules, because people across this province—and I know my colleagues across the aisle will agree as well because many of them sat on this side for many, many years. I was talking to the Minister of Labour this morning, and I know he sat on this side as well as an opposition member. You hear government after government make promises and give really beautiful, big words, but they’re hollow words, Speaker. They’re empty promises, and people have yet to see real action that actually facilitates these necessary jobs, which people across the province are calling for.

So what we’re debating in this bill—is it actually about empty promises, is it about some hollow words, or are we going to have some real action? And for that, I want to go through the different schedules, Speaker.

Let’s go through the breakdown of schedules. Schedule 1 really looks at the control of foreign nationals’ passports and work permit documents, and one of the things I started with, which was the minister’s announcement about the fines and the penalties and the increasing fines and some of the stories we’ve heard about the way a lot of migrant workers have been treated. The fact that any employer in this province would confiscate someone’s passport, someone’s travel documents, someone’s identification cards or any such documents, is just unbelievable, especially in a province like Ontario.

That has been happening for many, many years, and we’ve heard so many stories like that. We’ve heard about it after it takes place as well. We’ve heard about the $250 fine. We’ve heard about how people are forced to do work that they didn’t even sign up for because they’re afraid of losing their travel documents, their passports, and the fact that a lot of people are given this hope of a work permit and then they spend months and months working somewhere and then sometimes they don’t even get the income that they deserve, the pay they earned or the fact that the employers don’t live up to the promise of that work permit. Then this worker will be left without any hope, without any options, without any choice, really, to do anything.

Sometimes, many are forced to go back. Not only did they lose the money they earned, that they’re supposed to receive, but they have also lost money in coming here, in the application process and the fact that their living accommodations and the fact that they—and I know there are colleagues on both sides of the House where we have family members who have immigrated here. My father immigrated here. A lot of us know the struggle you go through to actually get into Canada and the cost there is. Then, obviously, once you come here, the cost of that as well. I am really glad to see that the minister is at least recognizing that problem.

And, then, the individuals who we’ve found in violation will be fined up to $500,000 and can face up to one year in jail, and for corporations it will be $1 million. The face value of this looks great. However, one of the things I looked at last night was—I thought, “You know what? We have the migrant workers’ alliance which is an organization that works for migrant workers that we are supposed to be helping through this legislation.” This is the response that the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change Canada wrote:

“Today’s announcement about increased fines for migrant passport seizures is designed as a distraction from Ontario labour law exclusions that allow for migrant exploitation and abuse.

“The EPFNA—Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act—doesn’t work. It is simply too difficult for migrants to prove exploitation under it. Increasing fines under this law will not ensure an iota more of justice. We call on Ontario to end employment standards exclusions, increase proactive inspections, implement the temporary help agency licensing regime to regulate employers and recruiters and hold employers financially liable for any exploitation throughout the recruitment process. The federal government must ensure permanent resident status for all as that is the only mechanism for migrants to assert their rights at work.”

The reason I wanted to read exactly the statement that the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change Canada wrote is because it really highlights the core of the issue here. It’s great to say, “You know what? A $250 fine is not enough.” But the new fine that is highlighted in schedule 1 is a scale. Going back to the idea of making headlines, on the headline it will say, “$1-million fine;” it will say, “$500,000 fine”—and that looks great, but it is a scale. The problem that the alliance pointed out is that if you don’t know that there is a problem, that there was something done wrong, then there will not be a fine, and this announcement actually distracts them from highlighting the main issue, because the actual system that we have doesn’t work, and a lot of these workers don’t even have the ability to assert their rights.

Speaker, I want to highlight some of the issues that migrant workers face in Canada, specifically in Ontario, and the inhumanity of their working conditions. During the pandemic, we heard about some of those. I know some of the members visited farms, visited workplaces across the province. There were life-threatening living conditions for many workers who were the ones who were picking the fruits, for example, who were providing food on the table for us. There were migrant workers who actually died during the pandemic because they did not have the right protocols, the right safety measures put in place in the places that they were supposed to sleep in, in the places that they were supposed to stay in.

The fines against employers who mistreat workers, for example—the other part of this is, who reports it? When we talk about someone whose passport has been confiscated, when we talk about someone whose travel documents, whose identification documents have been confiscated, do we really think they’re going to come out, call some hotline and say, “This is what’s happening; this is my employer”? And, now, on top of that, add the fact that this is someone who is relying on that employer to make a living, and they’re probably sending that money back home as well. That’s why they’re here, right? They’re migrant workers. If something happened to their employer, they’re also worried: “Am I going to be making an income?” If it happens to one of their colleagues and they witness it, are they going to be reporting it? What does that mean to them? Some of these pieces need to be highlighted.

The Ontario labour law exclusions continue to put migrants in exploitative and abusive work conditions. This is another part that a lot of migrant workers point out, because the current labour laws we have actually exclude these workers. So we can say that we’re adding all these regulations, we’re adding all these extra measures, but if you have a cut and you’re not healing that cut but you’re putting a Band-Aid on a different place, it doesn’t work. You have to first make sure that you heal that cut, you take the right ointment that’s necessary and then you do the other parts of it. So this schedule misses this significant part of it.

The other part is that when we have the enforcement mechanism, if someone does report it, let’s say—and the legislation reads, as the minister has pointed out, that we are actually expecting the migrant workers to call in complaints. So once someone does make a complaint—let’s say someone is able to come out and is finally able to make that complaint of that workplace violation and exploitation. We are really relying on these workers and their livelihoods and how precarious their working condition are to make these complaints and go through it.

The other problem that we have is the fact that we are actually relying on a whole claim method to be able to go through. If you look at international students, a lot of international students who work part-time, for example, face similar situations. They have to go through the Ontario website to file a complaint. Now you’re relying on this worker to risk their income, risk their livelihood, risk the income of their family’s livelihood to make that complaint.

This is important because it does bring us to a solution that we could have highlighted here as well. This goes back to some of the things that the minister talked about. One of the other headlines that was made was about the number of inspections that we’ve had. We saw the minister standing in front of a toilet or something—I don’t know—in front of a washroom. He talked about the inspections and how we are finally able to find out what’s happening in workplaces. What we need to do to actually solve the problem I just talked about is the number of inspections necessary in workplaces—I think we all agree that would have been a good method to find out what’s happening within these workplaces. You’re not putting the onus on the worker, but you’re putting the onus on the inspector, who is working for the province to make sure workplaces are safe and that they’re not exploiting workers. You have inspectors who go into these workplaces unannounced to find out what’s going on. Wouldn’t that be something? And we’ve tried this during the pandemic as well.

Unfortunately, Speaker, that is not something that’s part of the legislation. And let me tell you, not only is this not part of something that should be here—I really hope maybe the regulations will cover it—but in 2017 there were 3,500 inspections. Trust me, Speaker, you and I both can agree we are not praising the Liberal government. We know they could have done a better job, right? We all agree on that. I notice there are some heads nodding on the other side.

But, Speaker, guess what happened in 2017? We actually saw a decrease. So in 2017 we have 3,500, and guess what happened last year when we had—guess which government was in place? Was it the Liberals? No, it was this Conservative government, Speaker. So in 2017, under the Liberals, we had 3,500 inspections, but under the Conservative government in 2022, we had 215 inspections. From 3,500 inspections to 215 inspections, and you’re talking about making a headline? And this is actually online. This has been reported.

Now, the Ministry of Labour data shows that the number of inspections conducted to identify overall workplace violations such as wage theft has dropped significantly in recent years from 3,500 in 2017 to 215 last year. So I really hope that the minister will take this official opposition member’s feedback and this highlight that’s online, that’s in the Ministry of Labour’s report, and actually fix something that’s necessary, which is the amount of inspections that we need to have in order to actually find out whether employees, especially vulnerable employees who are migrant workers, are being exploited, and if they are, how can we help them? What is happening in that workplace, and how can we support them without putting their livelihood at risk?

Now let’s talk about the number of prosecutions. The number of prosecutions for employment standards violations also dropped to 34 from 233 over the same period. So you know how I told you all about 3,500 to 215 from 2017 to 2022? Now, the number of prosecutions for employment standards violations also dropped to 34 from 233 over that period of time. Speaker, there is nothing to be proud of for that.

I recognize the member from Mississauga–Malton.

This petition is titled “Invest in Ontario’s Arts and Culture Sector.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the arts and culture sector contributes $28.7 billion to Ontario’s GDP and creates over 300,000 jobs;

“Whereas the Ontario Arts Council budget has not been increased” not even “at Ontario’s rate of inflation, exacerbating the income precarity of artists and cultural workers, some of whom are earning less than $25,000 per year, and still less for those from equity-deserving groups;

“Whereas the income precarity was worsened during the pandemic through issues of regulatory unfairness in the arts and culture sector, disproportionately impacting the performing arts sector and OAC-determined priority groups, including BIPOC, Indigenous, women, people with disabilities, and LGBTQIA2S+ artists and cultural workers;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to sustain the Ontario Arts Council budget of $65 million in the 2023 provincial budget and adequately invest in the arts and culture sector, including supports for equity-deserving groups, small, medium and grassroots collectives in our communities, and individual artists to ensure their personal and economic survival.”

I couldn’t agree more with this. I will affix my signature to this petition.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas it takes an average of 18 months for people in Ontario to get an official dementia diagnosis, with some patients often waiting years to complete diagnostic testing and more than half of those suspected of having dementia never get a full diagnosis;

“Whereas a PET scan test approved in Ontario in 2017, which can be key to detecting Alzheimer’s early is still not covered under OHIP and research findings show that Ontario will spend $27.8 billion between 2023 and 2043 on alternate-level-of-care (ALC) and long-term-care (LTC) costs associated with people living with dementia;

“Whereas the government must follow through with its commitment to ensure Ontario’s health care system has the capacity to meet the current and future needs of people living with dementia and their care partners;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to develop, commit to, and fund a comprehensive Ontario dementia strategy.”

I fully support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

COVID.

Which means we could’ve done more inspections and more prosecutions—during COVID migrant workers died because they weren’t protected. During COVID we needed more inspections done because a lot of our workplaces, even coffee shops for example, did not have proper safety measures, which meant a lot of gig workers, a lot of precarious workers were not protected—a lot of front-line workers, a lot of essential workers who were defined as essential, Speaker.

And this is one piece that I know many of you know—and I know the President of the Treasury Board knows this very well because back then he was the minister for this. I talked about essential workers. An issue that I just can’t get over, Speaker: The fact that the Ministry of Labour could not define what was essential. And guess what happened? So many of these vulnerable workers went to work and caught COVID. Their family members were at risk. Some of them lost their family members. Some of them lost their lives, including health care workers like PSWs and nurses. In Scarborough as well, Speaker, they lost their lives because they were not protected, and this government could not even define what was essential.

I’ve talked about it many, many times, so I won’t go into that detail right now, but it’s in Hansard, and I’ve talked about it. I begged the ministry, I begged the Premier, I begged the House—just go back to look at what you have done, look at your policies, because you can save so many lives if you could just go back and define it—because guess what was happening? Some of these vulnerable workers, like migrant workers, a lot of women workers, Speaker—especially women workers—guess what they were doing during the pandemic? I know we talked about the pandemic, but guess what these people were doing? They were working at makeup factories. They were making foundation and lipstick. They were forced to go to work in order to protect their jobs, and they were risking their lives for that. How was that essential? That was not essential, and we asked the government to take action. They did not, and that’s on this government. That is on this government.

When we talk about foreign nationals and migrant workers and we want to come off as, you know, this incredible bill, Working for Workers Act 3, we need to also talk about the exploitation, the way it happens and the way we have to help them. We have to make sure that we understand who these individuals are. That includes women. That includes international students. That includes vulnerable people who rely on these incomes for their livelihoods.

There have been dozens of instances of the “scumbag employers,” as the minister describes, withholding wages, physically intimidating and threatening the livelihoods of these students. We have organizations that talk about it. I want to actually take a moment to highlight one of the organizations that just does amazing work to help workers. I had the opportunity to meet with a group of young organizers, many of whom are international students, who face precarious work conditions themselves. This is the Naujawan Support Network, the NSN Peel group. They have fought to win back hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages from these employers. What they’re doing basically is they’re shaming the employers. They work closely with the employees. This is like detective work: You have to really be careful of saving the identity and working closely with the employees, helping them. And then once it doesn’t work through negotiations, you have to go out there and shame them, and sometimes that’s how it worked.

One of the examples that you will hear, Speaker, is in Brampton, where international students actually worked together, and they shamed some of the restaurants and contractors, because the conditions were just brutal. They made sure that the employees got paid. Satinder Kaur Grewal actually said that she was paid C$100 per day for 12-hour workdays at Chat Hut. This was an example that was in the newspapers—$100 per day for working 12-hour workdays. The Chat Hut place actually had promised to support her permanent residency application, a tactic that I talked about. Many employers use it on international students to keep these workers in line.

After protesting with the NSN group, Satinder actually received C$16,495 in back pay from Chat Hut, in February. I want to thank this group for the work that they’re doing. There’s a lot that we can learn in terms of the actual problem that’s going on on the ground.

The other thing I want to point out is, when we talk about these conditions and how the whole information system will work, there’s a piece of awareness that needs to be put in place for this province as well, because a lot of workers are not watching this debate. They don’t see the highlights that take place. They don’t read the Toronto Star or find out. A lot of the people, for example, sometimes are removed from accessing some of this information as well. So we have to break that barrier and help them break that barrier so they are aware of some of their rights that are available to them. So that awareness piece and how they will get that information is also a big missing piece in this legislation as well.

When we talk about unannounced inspections for washrooms, I have to say, I’ve talked to some of my colleagues who go on the highways, and some of my colleagues, actually, who don’t live in Toronto or in Scarborough go further down. Sometimes they even have stories of how, when you go from Sudbury to Thunder Bay, for example, or Queen’s Park to back home in some northern parts of the province, you don’t have public washrooms. Actually, just let me correct that: You do have public washrooms in certain locations, but they’re not all season. Sometimes, they’re closed during wintertime because they’re not maintained. And the times that they are maintained, it’s disgusting. Sometimes even women will say, “You know what? Leave it open because I can’t breathe.” That’s how dirty it is.

That’s a big piece that people who just travel from one part of the province to another will tell you. Imagine constructions workers, imagine taxi drivers, imagine truck drivers who have no option but to find facilities like that. I want to highlight that, and I appreciate those who are listening, because it is an important piece that you have to really take into consideration when you legislate, when you put this bill together, when you put the regulations together. That’s schedule 1, Speaker.

I hope to go into schedule 2, which is the Employment Standards Act. This actually adds a clause: “the employee is in treatment, recovery or rehabilitation in respect of a physical or mental health illness, injury or medical emergency that results from participation in an operation or activity referred to in this subsection”—it actually goes on, so I don’t want to read the specifics on the bill.

I want to highlight that this is a very important piece that I’m really glad to see happen, especially as it relates to the Canadian armed services reservists, because adding it to the ESA in 2007—the Ford government made some changes in the past, and now we’re seeing some more amendments to it. I think it’s very important that workers, especially those who risk their lives to protect us, anyone who’s contributing to this province should have the ability to access health supports, especially mental health supports. It’s very important that we have this provision in there as well. I want to say thank you to the government for adding that.

I also see there is a little bit of some technical changes made as well. I think probably my dad is watching, so for him, I’m going to explain this. This section also includes changes to some of the technical pieces in terms of definitions of certain words, which allows for things like mass layoffs and who gets what—if you work in a home, for example, what does “establishment” mean? If it’s not a workplace—before that home did not qualify as that workplace. Now, it will allow for that, and it means that there’s notice that needs to go out.

However, there are some limitations to that in terms of how that will take place, and I think there’s some tweaking that needs to be done in the regulations, because if someone is working in a home, for example—because it’s based on seniority, if someone is new or works part-time, they may not be aware of exactly what’s happening in that workplace, that establishment. So there is some clear guidance that’s needed for the ministry here as well.

The other piece that I want to say—which is in schedule 2—because this talks about mental health; it talks about the support that will be provided. I want to actually highlight what I was expecting to see in this piece as well, which is the piece that the minister actually made another headline for. This is actually a piece that the former leader of the official opposition, Andrea Horwath, and many of our members, including our current leader as well, have highlighted in the past. Recently, we met with firefighters and we talked about this as well. Based on the recent announcement—and I call this “the headline bill” for a reason, because you made a headline for this. This is an excellent piece that could have been included in this legislation. What we were actually anticipating—but it was not included in this bill—was the addition of pancreatic and thyroid cancers as presumptive occupational illness for firefighters. I was really surprised this morning to actually see the Minister of Labour speak to this as well, as if it was in the bill. He spoke about it and how important it is, and I wholeheartedly agree: It is very important. When I met with firefighters who came for the lobby day, it was very simple. It was one of those things where I was just like, “I don’t understand why it’s not there already.”

So having this change enshrined, ingrained in the legislation would have been beautiful. I think a lot of people were anticipating seeing that as well in this bill, but, unfortunately, it wasn’t there. I was actually expecting to see it in this schedule as well, Speaker. This would have been a meaningful change for so many firefighters who have suffered through this. I hope that it will be retroactive as well, so that people who have already suffered through this and deserve to get compensation and deserve to get the support receive that support as well.

Moving on to schedule 3: This adds a new subsection to the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act. You all know this is one of my favourite acts. I feel like I have spent so much time talking about fair access to regulated professions. This schedule adds the section “Duty re public interest.”

I want to say, one of the things that I think the team was trying to do with this was to figure out how we make sure that we have—and they did say, in consultations with the minister and the minister responsible, to identify specific things in terms of qualified skills. Let me just go back a little bit so that anyone who is listening outside—and I know, members of this House, when we talk about skilled labourers, skilled workers, who come here with years of skill, with years of education and experience, they have worked hard. Based on that skill, based on that education, through a point system, they immigrate to Canada; they come to Canada. Whether you’re a migrant worker or whether you’re a domestic worker, you come here and you’re able to come to a new place so that you can make a living. You have hopes and dreams to do that.

What happens is that a lot of people, when they come here, in order to get recognized for their skills, have to go through a whole new process again. They have to go through a system where they have to prove their education, they have to prove their skills, but we don’t have a system. We don’t have a bridging program that actually allows that.

I brought in legislation, in my previous term, for second reading, and the government did support it. And do you know what? I’ll take it. I will take the fact that the government took pieces of that legislation and the feedback that I’ve given in my previous term and actually put some of that in their legislation. For health care workers they did put the PRA, the practice-ready assessment piece. The minister talked about it and they recognized it. I have yet to see the full result. I have yet to see the quota increased for internationally trained professionals—especially health care workers—to be recognized, to be able to find those opportunities. We are not there yet, but, unlike some of my colleagues, I think, I’m going to say I’m optimistic with this government that maybe they’ll get there. Let’s hope that they will get there. Let us really hope that they’ll get there.

What this section does is it looks at—where the regulated profession does not have a responsible minister, they actually allow for the Ministry of Labour to work together.

The other piece of it is the Canadian experience bit. When I talk about anyone who is internationally trained and comes here to work, it’s like when you pass grade 12 and you’re kind of dropped and you’re told, “Now go find a job.” If you want to go through any sort of regulated profession then you have to go through the whole system. In fact, it’s actually worse because they don’t have any networks. They don’t have the ability to go through a whole system. What happens is, people who come with, let’s say, five or 10 years of experience—I talked about a gynecologist who moved to Buffalo because she could not practise in Ontario. There are people who come here with an amazing, tremendous amount of skill and experience, but they are not able to practise, and one of the reasons is because they’re asked to provide Canadian experience. I’ve talked about this in the past, and I’m really happy to see that the government will be removing that requirement for Canadian experience.

I actually expected that in Working for Workers Act 1—and we kind of had a hint of it; it’s sort of like a drop in the bucket, but 1, 2, 3? We’re getting there; we’re slowly getting there.

The other loophole that some of the employers were trying to use which was an alternative to Canadian experience, which was injuring a lot of workers in order to be able to find work and be able to qualify—this loophole will be closed through this schedule, as well, I’m actually really excited to see.

However, one of the things that I have to point out is that this clause is very convoluted. What happens is that, in theory, this makes sense, but if you listened carefully in my past debates, I talked about what happens when you actually go to find a job. The discrimination you face, whether it’s an accent, whether it’s the country you’re from, the colour of your skin, the way you sound—all of those things actually make a huge difference. So coming from one country and having that skill all of a sudden puts you at the back of the line versus if you come from another country.

I have highlighted the fact that if you come from the UK or Australia, you get preferential treatment sometimes than many other countries. And, then, for example, I’ve had constituents, I’ve had advocates, I’ve had internationally trained professionals who have joined me during press conferences in past years to talk about their experiences, to talk about what they went through, as well, and how important it is to address this discrimination and address the way that a workplace will treat them when they try to get a job and get an opportunity.

So this clause, although in theory it is an excellent idea, there will be a lot of work that needs to be done still—maybe in Working for Workers Act 4 or 5 where we’re going to address the discrimination and we’re going to look at what kind of barriers a lot of these internationally trained professionals face, as well.

The next schedule that we have is schedule 4—another topic that I’ve talked about in the past, as well—which amends the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act to add the subclause granting access to the ministry to collect personal data from post-secondary institutions relating to employment services programs. This is tied into the recent employment services and the changes the ministry is making, and I really hope that the ministry will work together in terms of how we can make education closely tied with the job opportunities that students across this province have or right now lack. I hope to see respect for personal data, as well, from this schedule. This is similar also to another schedule that we’ll go into later on in terms of personal data.

Schedule 5 looks at the penalty contravention for the health and safety act, and I’m also glad to see the increase in penalty for anyone who’s in contravention of that. But, again, I have to repeat the same thing I started with, which is: How are we making sure that we know what kind of contraventions are taking place, how employees are treated, what kind of health and safety measures are there or lack thereof, and how are we making sure that employees are able to report those in a safe way so that they’re not risking their jobs? That’s something that is not part of schedule 5, and we have to make sure that if someone is in violation or if someone wants to report a violation, that they’re able to do that.

Now moving on to schedules 6 and 7. First, schedule 6 amends the ODSP Act to permit the Ministry of Labour to collect personal data of recipients relating to the expansion of the employment services program and the contracting out of these services, and then schedule 7 does the same thing for Ontario Works. My one piece of advice would be that I hope you do respect people’s personal data, and you must, especially when we’re talking about people with disabilities, people with personal histories, medical histories, and making sure that we are—and there is some ambiguity in this schedule, as well—we have to make sure that we’re helping people, especially the way that the service is administered in the province. Anytime I hear agencies and contracting out, I become very curious, because that means there’s third-party involvement and that means we’re also looking into the private sector—how are we doing that and are we taking away jobs from the public sector, and the fact that we have to work together to make sure that we are protecting our public services, we’re protecting the public networks that we have that help people who are trying to get a job, who are on Ontario Works, especially those who are dealing with a disability.

But when I looked at these two schedules, Speaker, and I saw ODSP and I saw Ontario Works, I thought that there must be something more. Because you have a chance to open up the Ontario Works Act and the Ontarians with disabilities act, and this is what you’re amending? Like, after everything we went through for the past years and all the questions and all the stories, this is what you’re amending?

It was just Monday when we had Feed Ontario here, and we had people here telling us how there was a 40% increase—a 40% increase—in food bank use, and so many of those people—guess what—are on ODSP and OW. Yes, there are results, and I know the government’s probably going to ask me questions and talk about the previous record, but if you look at the last 10 years, which is when that 40% increase happened, within those 10 years, five are on the Liberals, but the last five here are on this Conservative government.

I frequently get people coming into my office who talk about when they start getting their CPP, for example, or if they qualify for anything else, guess what happens? There’s clawbacks. Our government deducts money from people who are getting a benefit, who are getting another benefit from the federal government, for example, a benefit that’s deserved. You have clawbacks on CPP, for example. I can’t even fathom—it’s heartbreaking. Someone will come in, and they’re so happy. They’ll tell us that maybe next month they’ll have $300 more, and guess what happens?

Interjection: Nope.

Nope. You deduct that $300 and you match it again. It’s like we want them to stay in that system.

We have veterans who are on ODSP and Ontario Works. We have people who fought for our country, who deserve so much better, who are on OW. That’s not the province we want to build, Speaker. That is not what we’re here for. We need to do so much better. We had an opportunity here through these schedules. If you’re going to touch these sections, these acts, there are so many things you could have been doing.

Just yesterday evening, actually, I got a call from a constituent who I know very well. I’m like her personal secretary at this moment, where she calls me up every time there’s a new document that she has to fill out for her ODSP. I was filling it out, and because I was working on this bill, I actually paid attention and said, “You know what? Is it okay if I write down the exact amount that you’re getting?” Because normally I don’t share any of her information like that. Guess how much she gets? Last month, she got $821. That’s her total, $821. This is after all the disqualification and the clawback, and this is a senior citizen in my community who gets $821. And it includes things like food, transportation, all those things.

Actually, I just remembered. On Monday, when we had the group here, I met Bee Lee—and I know Bee would be okay with me sharing her name, because she’s an advocate for food security and those facing homelessness. Bee recently became homeless. She was actually in the Legislature. She was able to come in after a lot of struggle. She didn’t have ID with her. Because she became homeless, her case worker has all her ID.

One of the things that we were talking about—suddenly, her hand. She has been out in the cold during the storm. I don’t know if anyone had a chance, and, if you haven’t, I hope you’ll go out during the winter time and just talk to anyone who is on the street. In my riding near St. Clair and Warden, in previous years, you would never see anyone asking for money or help, but in the last two, three years, yes, someone always stands there. If you have a chance to talk to someone like that, talk to a fellow Ontarian, talk to them and take a look at their hand and their fingers. Do you know what happens? The frostbite? I can’t even explain it. Something has got to ring inside to see that, to see the pain. They’re at a point where that pain, you can’t even feel it anymore. They’ve gone to a different level of pain. It’s dark completely—their hands, the toenails. If they have something to wear, if they have shoes that are winter boots or anything—but it is painful. Because they don’t feel anymore. Their fingertips are burnt from the cold.

I really thought that with schedules 6 and 7, we would have had an opportunity to fix some of those things in our province. I really thought that we would be able to help people like Bee, like my constituent who receives that $821. I really thought that we would have been able to help migrant workers who face inhumane conditions in their workplaces and have worked hard but they do not get the wages that they deserve.

I must say, when I look at some of the things that the minister said, and I want to actually use the minister’s words—he specifically highlighted employers who he called “scumbags.” He talked about the fact that they’re being suppressed for their wages, people are not getting what they deserve, and I just want to ask this one question: Seeing the conditions that we have right now with our front-line workers, with our health care workers—we have legislation right now that is suppressing wages. We have legislation right now that is not giving workers—front-line workers, health care workers—what they deserve. Based on exactly what the minister has said, in that description of those employers, would the Conservative government of Ontario fit that role as an employer as well? Would the Conservative government of Ontario be on that list of those employers? I think so. I think a lot of you will agree as well, because a health care worker who is not getting what they deserve, who is not getting the wages they deserve, the fact that they have no hope to make a better living and they’re living in this province, I don’t know what kind of employer that is. Probably what the Minister of Labour calls some of the other employers as well.

I actually thought I would have a lot of time to go into some of the missing pieces. I did not realize that you can run out of time like this. I want to briefly talk about some of the missing pieces from this bill as well from these schedules in the Working for Workers Act. One of the main things that we tried to do over the past 24 hours, I would say, is talk to some of the stakeholders, talk to some of the advocates who fight for workers just to hear what they’re sharing, just to hear what they feel about this bill. Some of them hadn’t even had a chance to look at the legislation yet. When I look at this, I really hope that the minister will provide more than a 1-800 number, and that’s one of the things that migrant workers told us, that if workers are exploited, should there be more than that?

The other thing is that Bill 79, as I highlighted, continues this government’s scale of announcements. If you’re going to make meaningful change, if you’re going to have something that’s more than a sound bite, you really have to understand the problem, and I just highlighted one of them, which was Bill 124. You have to repeal Bill 124. The minister talked about wage suppression and the way we’re treating workers—you have to know how to protect front-line workers. You have to protect health care workers.

And one of those pieces—the Ontario NDP, I don’t even know at this moment how many times we’ve proposed the legislation—is paid sick days. You have to have paid sick days. And the fact that just the other day, in answering a question, the Minister of Labour actually said that it’s status quo, which means that it will not be extended—and workers are terrified right now. They want something better from this government. They want something better for their families, and they want to be able to be protected. We have proposed paid sick days time and time again, and I’m asking again. You have an opportunity. If you’re really working for workers, you have to have permanent, adequate paid sick days.

The other thing is we have to align with the stated federal changes for migrant workers. This is going back to schedule 1, which I talked about, having workers who come here to give their labour, who work hard but then they’re forced to leave the country. There’s an important piece that a lot of researchers and a lot of advocates talk about, which is when we talk about EI benefits or WSIB or the ESA, migrant workers actually pay their dues to WSIB, for example. So they contribute to a whole body, a whole system that they do not even benefit from, Speaker, and this bill completely overlooks that. Foreign workers who are required to pay EI premiums into the program, foreign workers who have closed work permits, for example—all of these workers, especially when you go back—you know, you’re not here to be able to even take into those benefits. The fact that the federal government right now has made a commitment—I would say the provincial government should work together to allow for those workers to become permanent residents so they can actually benefit from WSIB and from the EI benefits that they truly deserve and they pay into.

The other piece of that is we need to make sure that we respect them and include them in the Employment Standards Act. We don’t even include them. There’s a whole body of workers that work hard for this province and they’re not even included within the actual workers act. You can do sort of piecemeal solutions on the outside of it, on the peripherals of it, but if you’re not including them, then you’re missing a huge solution that you could have been providing for workers. So that system needs an overhaul.

The final piece that I will say, Speaker, is if you’re going to bring workers from—and I know that the minister also made another headline talking about bringing in more workers from abroad, but one thing that happens a lot is we bring in people who are skilled workers, but then we want them to drive taxis or we want them to work in a coffee shop. So, for example, let’s focus on what this province needs. If you need a farmer, bring in a farmer, protect them, allow them the opportunity. If you need an engineer, ask for an engineer, bring in an engineer, allow them to go through the process and become an engineer. If you need a doctor and someone is willing to come in and contribute their skills and labour, allow them to do that instead of having a system where you bring in the cream of the crop, the people who have these skills, and then you just abandon them. Let’s make sure that we’re able to support them the way that we should.

Speaker, I want to end with this one piece, which is that when I talk about workers, the reason why I get so passionate about it and ask if this bill is about making headlines or if it’s about taking real action is because for years we have seen the government make empty promises.

I have one special constituent of mine who, almost every single day, reminds me of how important it is to have workers protected, to make sure we are supporting workers, to make sure they have a pension and they’re unionized, and that’s my father. My dad is one of those constituents who, after coming to Canada, worked very hard. He loved his job; he loved working. He wanted to make sure he had a good income so he could put food on the table for us. But, soon after, he got into a really horrible car accident, and guess what happened? A 12-year-old me then had to figure out how to translate for my mother and be able to understand what was going on.

So at a very young age I learned a lot about labour laws, I learned a lot about insurance claims, and I learned a lot about what was going on when you have a job where you don’t have a pension, where you are not unionized. I understood what it means to go to a bank account and not have enough. I also understood what it means to be told by an employer how much you’re going to get or what you actually deserve.

It’s very tough, Speaker, and I don’t wish any 12-year-old—anybody, any children or anyone—to ever live through a situation where not only do you not speak English very well, but have a moment where you have to tell your family, “I don’t think we’re going to get this,” or “We don’t really have anyone fighting for us.”

So, if we’re actually going to help workers, if we really want to know what workers, whether it’s in Scarborough or across Ontario, would have really wished for in a “working for workers” bill, Speaker, they would have wished for protected workplaces. They would have wished for living wages, so that they could put food on the table. They would have wished for a WSIB that actually works for workers and not the employers. They would have made sure they’re a part of the ESA, and they’re protected—including migrant workers. They would have asked to end deeming, something that my colleague talks about all the time. These workers would have wished to get paid sick days. They would have wished that they could earn more than the minimum wage. This government made a promise and they’re still—they’re still—making these workers wait, especially after a horrible pandemic that we’re still living through.

You know what else these workers would have wished for, Speaker? They would have wished that women have real pay equity so that they actually can make an income that they truly deserve. They would have wished that it’s easier to unionize. They would have wished that they had a plan from this government that helps them retire, that they can plan their life, they can plan for their family. They would have wished that they could have affordable housing, so that whether they’re coming here from a different country, whether they’re living here or whether they’re growing up in this province, they have a place they can afford to live in. They would have wished that this government was providing affordable housing. They would have wished to have a happy and a beautiful province where workers are respected, and to do that you would have repealed Bill 124.

That’s the huge list—and I have more I can add. But those are the things that workers would have wished for, Speaker, if you really wanted to work for workers.

Questions?

Thank you to the member from Scarborough Southwest for her remarks.

Madam Speaker, we know that men and women who serve our country in the reserve forces are heroes, and I always say that you stay awake so that we can sleep well. So thank you for your incredible work.

Ontario is home to 1,100 reserve forces members. When they’re abroad or serving domestically, keeping our country safe, the last thing they should be worried about is whether their job will be there when they get back or not.

I had the opportunity to meet Rick Hillier, the Canadian Forces head, and we were talking about it. He said that this is the move which will support our reservists and make them proud of being Canadian and working and helping the community.

My question is very simple to the member: What would you say to Mr. Hillier about this bill? Are you going to support it? And what else can we do to support our reservists?

Question?

A quick response.

Further debate? The member from Brantford–Brant.