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.

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.

Thank you very much to my colleague from Scarborough Southwest for your very passionate defence of workers’ rights. It’s very, very moving to hear your many thoughts and comments and the way you speak from the heart in defending workers. Thank you.

I’m sure the member would agree with me that one method of standing up for workers is of course defending the right of workers to free, fair and collective bargaining. We have seen this government repeatedly trample on that right with Bill 124, suppressing the wages of workers; taking away right to bargain their wages and benefits, even while some of those workers had wages so low they were using food banks; imposing a collective agreement and taking away their right to collectively bargain and strike.

Does the member not agree that this is a missed opportunity from a government that does not itself respect the right of workers to collectively bargain to actually protect the rights of all workers by ensuring that employers can’t bring in scabs to break a strike, to actually allow workers to come to the table, to force employers to be there at the table and to negotiate in good faith?

I want to thank my colleague, the member from Scarborough Southwest, for her presentation. One of the key pieces of this bill that the minister and this government is highlighting is—using the government’s own words—that “scumbag employers” will be fined more than before. I think the member will agree with me that we all support bad employers being fined more. But what the people, I’m sure, would like to know is, what is this government going to do with the fines? Is any of that money going to the workers who were employed by these “scumbag employers”? Will the workers who had to deal with these “scumbag employers,” who are now being fined more, be compensated in any way? Can the member please share with this House what the government’s plans are, if any?

Thank you, Speaker. It’s very good to see you in the chair today. It’s always a pleasure to see you in the chair.

It is indeed my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 79, the Working for Workers Act, 2023, which, in my opinion, is a landmark piece of legislation. This bill, if passed, will constitute a major step forward in our government’s continuing mission to combat the labour shortage our province faces, and it will propel our workers, the backbone of this province, in the right direction. I’m so pleased to see that the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, under the leadership of our Premier, has once again introduced legislation that will be making a difference to so many people all across our province.

Today, our province is in the midst of a labour shortage. Nearly 300,000 jobs go unfilled in the province of Ontario. This is something that I continually and constantly hear from employers in my riding of Brantford–Brant. In Ontario, we are so blessed to have incredible innovators, and all that we have to do as a government is listen to them, to let them use that power of innovation, unlike previous governments.

Workers are integral to a strong economy and a prosperous future. Speaker, think about what people are talking about every single day. When I walk into a convenience store or a restaurant or a construction site, time and time again, I hear the same issue: There are not enough workers in the province of Ontario, or “I’m having a tough time filling this position.” I’m sure that all of my colleagues all around this chamber hear the exact same in their communities as well. If we cannot secure a workforce today, it will cause even more pain tomorrow.

I want to focus on several aspects of the Working for Workers Act, 2023, that speak to me personally. If passed, this bill will help encourage people to join the workforce, protect those at high risk and give workers the skills that they need for high-paying, long-term careers.

With that, I want to begin with the bill’s provision regarding firefighters. As you all know, firefighting is very personal to me. I have been an active duty volunteer firefighter with the County of Brant Fire Department, Station 7, St. George, since 2008. I’ve seen some of those very difficult things. I can remember when I was asked to join the fire service. What do I, as an optometrist, bring to that profession? What I realized is that it perfectly matches with what I did every day as an optometrist, that we tried to make people’s lives better. When we’re at your home, when we’re at an accident scene, wherever you’ve experienced that trauma, we’re there to make that very, very bad day a little bit better. To me, that’s what it means to be a volunteer firefighter: to serve your community in an incredibly intimate way, to come through the doors to our friends, to our neighbours and to do the things that other people are running away from.

In fact, this morning, while I was on my way here, my colleagues at home were responding to a scene of an industrial fire in Paris, Ontario. What does that mean to the firefighters in the province of Ontario? That means that we carry the burden of trauma around with us. That means that there are times when we see faces in front of us that—as I’m saying these words, I see those faces in front of me of the people that I have seen. They don’t go away. Those are the emotional scars that we carry around. But it’s more than that: It can be also very, very physical, and that’s why this legislation is adding more cancers.

This morning, my friends at home were exposed to more causes of cancer. We realize that’s part of what we do. That’s something that we are willing to do to serve our communities. That’s why claims related to thyroid and pancreatic cancers will be added retroactively to January 1, 1960, in this legislation, so that we can stand with those who are there for us.

I’ve spent many years serving my community, and I will continue to do so. I can say first-hand that these changes will benefit my peers—who are my friends—their families and all of those who are at disproportionate risk for thyroid and pancreatic cancers.

I’m going to read the list right now. Currently, the following are included in the firefighters’ regulation:

—primary-site brain cancer;

—colorectal cancer;

—bladder cancer;

—primary acute myeloid leukemia, primary chronic lymphocytic leukemia or primary acute lymphocytic leukemia;

—primary-site ureter cancer;

—kidney cancer;

—primary non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma;

—primary-site esophageal cancer;

—breast cancer;

—multiple myeloma

—primary-site testicular cancer;

—prostate cancer;

—lung cancer;

—skin cancer;

—ovarian cancer;

—cervical cancer; and

—penile cancer.

These diseases, like all cancers, are devastating, and, for those who run towards events and disasters instead of being the ones running away from them, we are going to make sure that our province’s firefighter heroes and their families get the support that they deserve.

Speaker, presumptive coverage for firefighters is far from a new idea—I think the first legislation in this place was in 2007, from the previous government—but I know that we are going to continue working for our front-line heroes each and every day. Our government is making it faster and easier for firefighters and their families to access the compensation that will support them and that they deserve.

Fire Chief Darren Watson from the county of Brant said the following, “We commend the province of Ontario for expanding cancer coverage for firefighters.

“Firefighters put their lives on the line in a variety of ways, including acquiring health conditions as a result of exposure on the job.

“The county of Brant is committed to supporting and protecting the volunteer firefighters, and strives to provide a safe and healthy workplace where every reasonable precaution will be taken for the protection of workers.

“As a result, county council approved an additional $600,000 in the 2023 budget to provide additional personal protective equipment, including a second set of bunker gear, facilities to safely store bunker gear, and washing equipment to protect the firefighters and mitigate exposures.

“The phrase ‘all reasonable precautions’ to protect the firefighters is the foundation of the decontamination and firefighter hygiene program, which assists in the reduction of exposure to contaminants at fire scenes, and, where exposure occurs, measures are in place to limit the exposure.”

This is what our municipalities are doing. I want to commend Mayor David Bailey and his council on making these changes to keep firefighters safe.

If this is what our municipalities are doing, we owe it to our municipalities and our firefighters to expand these things, as we are in this legislation, for pancreatic and thyroid cancer. That’s why we’re expanding this coverage. Speaker, our government stands with every single firefighter in the province of Ontario.

Moving on, we will always work for all workers in this province. Ontario skilled trades are vital to the health and growth of our province’s economy. The skilled trades offer careers that lead to secure jobs and a good quality of life, and that often come with benefits and pensions.

My son is becoming an electrician. It’s interesting, I’ve talked to other parents with the same thing—you couldn’t get him out of bed to finish high school, but when he had the opportunity for his final semester of high school to get into a trade, he would bounce out of bed at 6:30 every morning—he still does—to get out there. It’s amazing to hear the reports from his employers about how pleased they are with him, and it’s so encouraging to see one of your children so excited about getting out into the workforce.

The reality is that thousands of workers are needed in the skilled trades to help build more homes and complete important infrastructure projects all across Ontario. That is why, starting this fall, students in grade 11 can transition to a full-time skilled trades apprenticeship program and earn their Ontario secondary school diploma. This change means that students can enter the skilled trades faster than ever before.

Additionally, the government is starting consultations this fall with employers, with unions, with educators, with trainers and with parents on how to make it easier for young people to enter the trades. The consultations will explore the potential of altering academic entry requirements for certain skilled trades in Ontario to allow students to enter the trades sooner.

Our government, under the leadership of this Premier, is on a mission to lift people up, no matter the industry, no matter the sector or where they work. As part of our government’s goal to build 1.5 million new homes over the next decade, we are going to need more people in construction. As I said, our province is currently going through a labour shortage. To address this, our government is taking concrete actions to address these shortages, especially in the construction sector. One of the ways that we are addressing this construction sector labour shortage is by making sure workplaces are welcoming more women into construction.

If you can believe it, Speaker, it’s 2023, but one of the biggest indignities on construction sites that has existed for a long time was the condition of washrooms. I am told that our health and safety inspectors have visited over 1,800 job sites and have found over 240 violations. The common issues ministry inspectors found were no toilets provided, lack of privacy and lack of cleaning. Some cases included job sites where portable washrooms had missing doors, missing walls and no place to wash your hands. For far too long, unhygienic washrooms have been considered acceptable by constructors—but, Speaker, not anymore.

Everyone deserves a safe, clean and private washroom at work, and that’s why we are taking unprecedented action to improve washrooms on construction projects. Our new rules will, if passed, require toilets to be completely enclosed, facilities to be adequately lit and facilities to have hand sanitizer available where running water is not reasonably possible. Ontario’s construction workers that build and maintain our province deserve the basic dignity of access to a safe and clean washroom. No one should have to leave their workplace and search for a washroom. To attract more women into the trades, we need to do better, and that is exactly what we’re doing.

Speaker, in addition to protecting our heroes who fight fires and help build our province for the next generation, we need to attract new investments into our province. Why? To get our best and brightest into exciting new jobs so they can better support their families, and that takes an all-of-government approach.

Just one week ago, our government announced a historic investment from Volkswagen in St. Thomas and Central Elgin. Europe’s largest automaker is building its first overseas EV battery plant right here in Ontario. Their decision to build in our great province is a testament to Canada’s strong and growing battery ecosystem and Ontario’s competitive business environment. With a highly skilled workforce, clean energy and abundance of critical minerals, access to markets and a flourishing automotive and battery sector, we are making real progress towards making Ontario into a global leader for investments in the battery and automotive sectors. Again, Speaker, this is one of the many examples of where our government is delivering for the people of Ontario.

Not only are we delivering for the people of Ontario, we are taking concrete strides to bring more jobs for them too. Speaker, we need to use our precious minerals wisely. We need to attract more mega-sites, and we must continue prioritizing our labour force, which is the best and brightest in the world. Ontario has everything from an unmatched education system, jobs, manufacturing and natural resources—a competitive landscape and unique positioning guided by a government that values its citizens above all else. I am proud to be a part of this team on a unified mission working together for you, the great people of Ontario.

This bill is an example of how we’re delivering for workers, for job seekers and newcomers to Ontario. We’re making sure that everyone has the resources that they need to succeed and to help them secure better jobs and bigger paycheques.

I’ll conclude, Speaker, by just going back to where I started with our firefighters. I’ve stood for a 24-hour vigil at the home of one of my colleagues from another hall who passed away, leaving a wife and two young children. It was at the height of the pandemic, and myself and a colleague stood there for an hour holding vigil, guarding that house. What struck me so much was that, in that time and traditionally, friends and family would gather and surround the family with compassion, with food and all those things. We stood there alone. That family grieved in that house alone. They were completely inaccessible.

I know this morning my friends were out fighting a fire and there were toxins that got under their clothing and that will get into their systems. Those are the risks that we are willing to take to take care of our communities. Those are traumas that we are willing to take, physically and emotionally, into our systems in order to serve our communities. It’s the most gratifying thing in the world to see our municipality taking these incredible steps to keep our firefighters safe, and I feel so proud to be of a government that is willing to add cancers to the presumptive legislation in order to take care of our firefighters the way that they should be.

At the end of the day, Speaker, we are no better than how well we take care of those who are most vulnerable among us. When people are willing to stand and serve our communities like that, I’m so proud to be part of a government that is willing to stand with them. It’s so good to hear the opposition provide so many excellent ideas in their comments on what we could put into our next Working for Workers legislation. It gives me great pleasure to hear their suggestions, and I’m sure that the Minister of Labour is taking those suggestions to heart on what we could do improve.

I love the fact that we continue to put out pieces of legislation, taking incremental steps to make Ontario better. We don’t do one-and-done legislation. That’s not how you take an all-of-government approach. You work through these things. We continue to put forward housing bills. We continue to put forward bills for workers. That’s why we’re seeing our third piece of legislation to protect workers. I can’t wait to see this actually bearing fruit.

I asked my colleagues on our WhatsApp group this morning how many of our colleagues in the fire service and the volunteer service in St. George, of less than 200 firefighters, have had cancer in the last five years. And the answer someone posted back was, “10 to 15.” Those are the kinds of numbers that we’re dealing with.

Speaker, we owe it to our first responders to take care of them. I am so pleased to be part of a government that is making that happen. I look forward to seeing everyone in this House support this legislation. Thank you for your time today.

I appreciate my colleague for her speech. I’m new in this House, but I am always impressed by my colleagues filling an hour, and I appreciated her remarks.

My question: Lots of my colleagues of the younger generation are used to working from home now, or remotely, and some of us haven’t even gone into the offices we may work at. In this piece of legislation, as the minister announced earlier—last week I believe—workers working from home—remotely—obviously deserve the same protections as an employee in an office. So when a company announces a mass termination, remote workers obviously deserve the same rights as those on site. Can the member explain whether they support this proposal to include remote workers in mass terminations and ensure they have the same rights as those who are on site on a work site?

I really wish that my colleague, who I had the chance to raise the flag of Bangladesh with, actually listened to the first part of my speech, because I spent a significant portion going through each and every single schedule, highlighting it for anyone watching—and anyone in this House as well—because I felt it was necessary because many people may not have had a chance to understand what this legislation highlights. One of the things that I thanked the government for was making sure that we have health—physical health but especially mental health—supports accessible, especially to those who protect us, those who work hard and make sure that we are protected as well, and for them to be able to have that mental health support faster.

One of the pieces that I do have a question about—and maybe you can talk to the Minister of Labour about it and we can take it to committee and amend it—is how we are making sure that people who are part-time, who don’t have that seniority, are also included in there as well so that they have the ability to know exactly if there is a mass termination and what’s going on.

You’re absolutely right: We need to have the protections, we need to have penalties for any employer that’s harming any employee, but we also have to make sure that we protect those workers to be able to do their jobs without facing hurdles in coming forward and actually reporting something like this, which does not exist—

Thank you to the member for your presentation. I hear you making a lot of comments about those who are immigrants. Me being an immigrant—I’m the first generation, and I also hear a lot of the members say, even if they are the fourth generation, they still recall all the things that their grandparents or great-grandparents have gone through being immigrants. I can understand that being an immigrant is something that—when we choose to leave the place we have been for a new place, we’re going to face challenges. I appreciate the long wish list you have, but I’m also very happy that our minister has presented a lot of things, really, for the first time, really supporting a lot of the foreign workers, especially, let’s say, when we make sure that they can find a job the way that they can, and also especially on the ones that we say we’re making fines for, those who are holding their passports. These are the things that are important—

I want to thank the member from Brantford–Brant for your comments today. I share your concern about firefighters in this province. I’ve got both an uncle and a cousin who are on the Toronto Fire Services here, and you know, the expansion to include pancreatic and thyroid cancers to provide protections for firefighters across the province is actually a step in the right direction.

But when I talk to firefighters, they’re also concerned about their colleagues, their fellow workers, who are impacted by Bill 124. Bill 124 removes the right to collective bargaining for public sector workers across this province, except for firefighters and police. The courts have already decided that this is a violation of the charter rights of those workers. Your government is actually appealing that bill.

Would you support a repealing of Bill 124 as part of this legislation in order to support workers across this province?

Questions?

I want to thank the member opposite for his strong words and all his work that he’s done both on firefighting and as an avid public servant and MPP for his area.

I know that previously he introduced a very important private member’s bill on PTSD for first responders specifically to address what firefighters go through. I wanted to ask him to elaborate a little bit about how that private member’s bill and this bill complement each other, how they really show respect and honour to those who put themselves on the front line.

My thanks to the member for his presentation earlier. Just following on the question from my colleague from Ottawa Centre: The number one predictor of higher wages and better working conditions for working people is membership in a union. I’d like to know why this legislation doesn’t make it easier for workers to unionize. Why is there no card-based certification? Why is there no first-contract legislation?