Questions? The member for Thunder Bay–Superior North.

Thank you to the member for his speech. It was greatly appreciated. As we all know, the changes to Employment Ontario are long overdue. This being said, we also know that we are going through a historic labour shortage right now. My question to the member is if you could please explain when this new Employment Ontario approach will be fully implemented and start helping people on social assistance across this province.

And migrant workers are also discriminated against in this province.

Yesterday, for the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, migrant injured farm workers called on the president of WSIB to end the discriminatory practices and called out specifically the racism around the physical, mental and emotional state of workers who have suffered a workplace injury but who are not receiving those supports.

“Following a workplace injury, many migrant injured workers are repatriated and forced to recover from their injuries back in the home country.... WSIB’s discriminatory practices make injured workers feel powerless by isolating them and breaking up injured worker communities....

“Their horrific experiences of improper health care support and the racist reality of the practice of ‘deeming’” still continues.

My question to the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore: Why do you think the Minister of Labour left this important and key issue out of Bill 79 when obviously it will impact worker shortages?

Thank you to my good friend the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore for a wonderful speech. I want to thank the Minister of Labour and the parliamentary assistants, Deepak Anand and David Smith, for the wonderful work they have done on this bill.

I came to this country as an international student. I definitely understand the importance of this bill, especially for newcomers who want to make Ontario a better place to live for themselves and for their families. Can the member please explain to the House what we are doing through this legislation to recognize the credentials of foreign workers?

I am pleased to be able to stand in this House on behalf of the constituents in Oshawa and broadly across Durham region that I hear from regularly. Here we are today talking about Bill 79, which the government has presented as the Working for Workers Act. We’re the ones—

The meat and potatoes in this bill—unfortunately, there are lots of opportunities that are missed. This is Working for Workers, but if they were actually working with workers, year-round, there would be a lot more in this bill. There’s a bit of disappointment there because we’re all hearing from constituents, from workers across communities, about improvements to their workplaces in terms of safety. They’re hearing about the need for paid sick days. They’re hearing from community members about the improvements needed in training. Again, we’re missing things from this bill.

The Ontario Federation of Labour has been a wonderful voice for workers across this province, and they have a new campaign that says, “Enough is Enough.” This government is hearing that a lot from folks, that they’ve had it up to here, that they are fed up. This campaign has five demands that we’re hoping the government will really listen to and understand, and that we might see in the budget some of their needs addressed: real wage increases; investing in schools and health care and keeping them public; and affordable groceries, gas and basic goods. I mean, the cost of living is just going up and up and up. Workers are part of that group that have to pay and they’re not supported. We want to see rent control and affordable housing, making banks and corporations pay their fair share. There’s a whole bunch that goes into creating that kind of ecosystem where workers can thrive.

And so I would encourage the government to spend more time working with workers as they’re developing their legislation, because there are some missed opportunities.

Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to speak about the need for anti-scab legislation, so talking about replacement workers. We have, for a long time—since the original Mike Harris years, when they got rid of anti-scab legislation real quick—been fighting for it to come back in this province. When both parties are bargaining in good faith, agreements are reached without further job action. So this government and previous Conservative governments who have allowed the use of replacement workers—that doesn’t serve anyone. It can be quite unsafe. But it’s not in good faith and it really does extend these strikes. And strikes are one of the only options that workers have to balance the scales when it comes to that power dynamic with them and the employer, and it applies economic pressure. I think the government can appreciate that there is an imbalance when it comes to workers and employers.

When an employer brings in replacement workers, that is in bad faith and we saw that not too long ago. In north Oshawa, there was a strike outside of the campus; it was a privately contracted company that brought in replacement workers. So the custodial staff and janitorial staff were out on the lines, and as they explained to me, they were having to use Google Translate with the replacement workers who were being dropped off in vans and running in between the townhouses to get to work. They were using Google Translate to try and warn them about some of the chemicals in the level-2 labs; they were trying to talk to them about training; they were trying to keep these replacement workers safe and also telling them, “Stop getting in there. This is our job.” It was ugly and it was not right, and this government allows that to happen.

I raise these issues because this is a bill in front of us that says, “working for workers.” Well, the government has an opportunity to undo the harm that was done by the Harris government that came in and did away with the anti-scab legislation and could bring it back in, could be responsible to workers who could make that change. And, Speaker, because it’s not in this bill, I know that my colleagues and I are looking forward to making sure that that gets done. We’re going to continue to raise that issue in this House through legislation until this government steps up and is a better version of itself.

Something else I want to talk about, about this bill: There is a need for paid sick days in the province of Ontario. We have champions on this side, none other than the illustrious member from London West, who time after time after time has introduced legislation and has fought tirelessly for paid sick days in the province of Ontario. And this government hears it, and they know it, and they’re hearing it from people in their community. We’re still getting emails from folks. People all over the place are saying that they and their families are getting sick more often and it’s taking longer to get better. If these people can’t stay home when they are sick, they’re going to spread that sickness to people in their community, in their community of work, in their families. That is not how we keep this province well.

Often when we talk about the medically vulnerable or folks with disabilities, it’s usually within the context of health care settings, if we’re talking about the need for paid sick days. But many of these people who are medically vulnerable are also workers and they are even more impacted when their co-workers come in sick. This is a government that keeps talking about folks with disabilities getting into the workplace, but the very least they could do is to take steps to ensure that workplaces are actually accessible and places where people who may already be medically compromised can stay well.

Earlier in this pandemic, we were also calling for indoor air quality standards and upgrades to HVAC systems to make safer workplaces, and guess what? That never materialized. Improved air quality will go a long way to stopping the spread of airborne illness, resulting in fewer people needing to take time off for being sick. So what better way to work for workers than by keeping their working conditions safe?

Here’s an email from Corwin in Oshawa, who has said that they support the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, and they had written:

“We need 10 permanent paid sick days plus 14 days during public health emergencies. The Worker Income Protection Benefit ... is inadequate in that it provides a meagre three days over a 700-plus day period.

“Health workers and public health experts have been clear that paid sick days curb infection, increase vaccination rates and reduce visits to the emergency room.... Ten permanent paid sick days would ensure workers and their families have access to preventative care instead of relying on emergency departments.”

They go on to say, “Denying workers permanent and adequate paid sick days goes against public health advice to stay home if sick. The reality is that most workers can’t afford to stay home without pay. Especially now, with inflation at an all-time high, losing a day’s wage to recover from the flu could mean not being able to pay grocery bills.” That’s from Corwin in Oshawa.

This is a bill that says that it is working for workers, but it is, again, not taking the opportunity to keep workers safe in their workplaces in a way that has been brought to their attention multiple times with experts and health care folks making the case. So I don’t understand why the government, again, has missed this opportunity to keep people well.

Speaker, Bill 124 is something that we talk about a lot in this space. And probably, if we were to go to the average convenience store and talk to our community members, they might not know what Bill 124 is. But they all, outside of this space, know that nurses are not being treated fairly. They may not understand the ins and outs of it or be familiar with the legislation or this government’s stubborn refusal to back down on Bill 124—even though it has been ruled unconstitutional, they’re appealing it and fighting nurses in court—but it’s nurses and health care workers whose wages are being suppressed by this bill.

There is not a competitive wage that a hospital can offer its own employees. Instead, the hospital is being forced to go to private agencies, who will charge the hospital exorbitant amounts and pay the nurses more than they would make at the hospital. I mean, the agencies are still keeping a lot of that money for themselves. The hospitals are essentially held hostage. They need staffing; they need nurses. And when they don’t have enough of their own—because nurses are leaving in droves and they’re going to these agencies and they’re going to Alberta—this is a government that says, “You’re not allowed to pay them any more. We’re going to keep our foot on your neck, and you’re not allowed to. We’re going to keep those wages suppressed, but we’re going to allow agencies to charge whatever the heck they want because”—I don’t know why; competition?

That is unbelievable, but it’s creating this crisis. It’s creating a circumstance where, I think, ultimately it’s union-busting at its finest. At its core, this is union-busting, because as these nurses and folks who are unable to earn a fair wage because of Bill 124 are going to these private agencies, they are leaving unionized workplaces with benefits and pensions. They may be early in their career, so pension benefits may not be at the forefront of their planning right now, but they are leaving unionized work environments to go somewhere where they might make more money now and have different flexibility for scheduling, as we’re hearing, but they’re ultimately not protected. So this Bill 124 is, I think at its heart, a union-busting initiative.

Anyone who is listening over there is kind of looking at me like, “Come on. It seems a bit far-fetched.” Does it? I don’t think it does, because we are seeing this happening in hospitals, and hospitals are losing the staff that they need.

Here’s an email from Wendy, and part of her email is, “Ontario desperately needs more nurses and health professionals to provide high-quality and timely care in our public hospitals. But, every day, they face impossible working conditions that have only worsened during the pandemic. And their wages and basic rights have repeatedly been attacked with legislation like Bill 124. This is leading more nurses to leave their jobs, and even the profession.”

She goes on to say, “I support” the nurses’ “demands for:

“—safe staffing;

“—better pay;

“—better working conditions.

“Investing in nurses and health professionals is the best way to improve access to timely, safe and quality hospital care. Unless you act now, we will continue seeing nurses leaving the profession, leading to worse nurse-to-patient ratios and a lower quality of care. This is unacceptable.” That’s from Wendy.

People understand what is happening, that this is a created crisis of this government’s making. And they could reverse course, but they won’t.

Speaker, Bill 124 is not only about nurses. It’s about many folks in the public sector. As the transportation critic for the NDP, it has been my privilege to hear from many folks doing important work across the province. One such group is the OPSEU Local 428 members who work on the Glenora and Wolfe Island ferries for the Ministry of Transportation. I met with these folks a while back. I know that our labour critic is talking with them. They are facing a serious understaffing issue, which has caused reductions and cancellations of services on both of the ferries, and again, this is because of Bill 124. Because of Bill 124, which artificially suppresses their wages—well, not artificially; it’s forcing them to be stuck at this level and not able to bargain increased wages. But because of that, they can’t recruit and retain ferry operators. They can’t bring in ferry workers, because the broader world pays something that is fair.

The Ministry of Transportation knows this. They have actually been bringing in agency workers from out of province. They’re not willing to pay them more than this 1% increase. This government will not allow them to be paid more, but they are willing to write a cheque to agencies in other provinces where we’re paying the transportation cost to bring them in, a daily stipend and accommodation, in addition to their wages. At some point, that’s going to become more expensive than just paying them what they are worth—but, again, stubbornly refuses to change course.

This has been an issue, certainly, that the ferry workers have raised, the conservation officers have raised, nurses have raised—just about everywhere you look in the public sector has raised the fact that they are not paid what they are worth and they’re not able to fairly and collectively bargain fair wages. And here we are debating a bill that says “working for workers.” I have to think, what are they doing that is benefiting workers?

Speaker, all of us had the opportunity recently to meet with corrections officers, to meet with probation and parole officers. They came to Queen’s Park, as they have been doing for years, and had their morning breakfast to go over a host of issues. They are having significant recruitment and retention issues across all of their front-line positions. When you don’t have adequate staffing in jails, when you don’t have adequate staffing in probation and parole offices, you have dangerous circumstances for the workers, for the inmates, for everybody involved. That is not what anybody wants. It is not good for recidivism. It is not good for anyone who is doing the job.

The corrections folks came and asked for support for mental health. They asked for improved training. They asked for more permanent full-time staff. More officers mean fewer lockdowns and less violence. More probation and parole officers and staff mean better supervision and support, less recidivism, safer communities. They came and talked about the canine unit, which is very important when it comes to keeping the workplaces safe in terms of managing or dealing with drugs in institutions. Speaker, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s their understanding and my understanding that the canine unit pilot project is the longest-running pilot project in the history of Ontario. When it has been, I think, nine years, at what point does it become permanent? At what point does the government say, “Yes, this is worth continuing. We will invest in that.” That could have been in this bill. Maybe next year, right?

This is about working for workers, and one of the things that this government does is announce new hires, and corrections is no exception. But new hires that are not full-time permanent and are backfill, so that if a corrections officer is away that person may or may not be called, are not adding to the complement on the floor. It’s not adding to the support in the facility, in the jail. It’s spinning numbers about, “Look at all the new hires,” but those new hires are not more people in the workplace. They’re more part-time folks waiting by the phone wondering if they are going to get called. They’re more part-time people who are afraid to rock the boat because they are glad to have some kind of employment, but they don’t have the benefits; they’re not full-time, permanent. So, again, this is a chance where the government could improve the legislation and make safer workplaces—this is in terms of corrections, but broadly across the province.

Speaker, I have been very proud of the work that I have done as the community safety and correctional services critic years ago, and some of the work that I had done was on behalf of firefighters to keep them safe out in the community, to do right by them when they are hurt, when they are sick. The government has made a commitment about adding thyroid and pancreatic cancers to the list. We were hoping we would see that in this bill. I would ask the government to clarify that, and hopefully we’ll see it added.

Further questions?

Just a month ago, I met with the firefighters here in Mississauga, and their recommendations were the two items that we put, the thyroid cancer and the pancreatic cancer, on this bill. We were able to deliver it for them right away, in not even three months. So our government is continuing to work with the workers in this province, and we’re going to continue to work with workers in the province of Ontario.

Not only that, we’re going back to 1960. Think about 1960: I wasn’t even born in 1960. Pretty well a lot of us in the House weren’t born in 1960. We’re going back that far, and I think our government will continue working with workers in this province very closely.

From there, he came over to Port Credit, and he started working at the Texaco refinery because after the Second World War, he was in the Middle East working in a refinery there. His skills at the time were not recognized. That was difficult, because he wanted to bring my mother over from Italy, and he couldn’t afford to do it until he was able to get his skills up to par to bring her over and raise a family here. So it’s very important that we recognize the skills of immigrants who come to this province and even the discrimination against immigrants who come to this province, because still today—I was born here, my kids were born here, and we’re still discriminated against for being Italians. That should stop here in the province.

Point of order.

I would like to put a question to my friend the honourable member from Mississauga–Lakeshore. He has a proud history of Italian heritage, and so do I. We all know that newcomers to this country and this province have helped build this province into the great province it is today. Newcomers bring with them skills and talents, and these need to be recognized by the province of Ontario. I’m inviting the member to comment on that and how this bill addresses that.

During my time as the critic for community safety and correctional services, I worked alongside firefighters to make a number of changes, like changes that ensured survivor benefits would be protected when their partners died from occupational disease. That was originally called Bill 98, and the government of the day took that, put it into government legislation and fixed that problem. I’ve been working with them since the beginning—since I was first elected.

Right now, we recognize 17 cancers connected to the work of being a firefighter. Pancreatic and thyroid have yet to be added formally. We were hoping to see it in this bill. The government announcements and whatnot—that’s good. We hope they will follow through with that. Of course, we support that, but, again, it’s reassuring when we see it in writing, and until that happens, I will not only support it, I will continue to chase it.

Meegwetch to the member from Oshawa. In Sioux Lookout, prior to 1997, we had two hospitals for 5,000 people: We had the federal hospital for Indians, and we had a provincial hospital for—I don’t know—white people. Then we amalgamated, and now we have a provincial hospital.

I share that because the member spoke about Bill 124. It seems the health care system has not improved. I remember being involved in the health care sector. We were paying agency nurses at a rate of $1,200 to $1,500 per day, and when we hire agency nurses, it has an impact on the wellness of the people who are being served. What would—including removing Bill 124, how will it improve the health and the lives of people?

To your point—and thank you for the opposition’s statement—like many of us in the House, I’m privileged to have some very hard-working and dedicated firefighters in my riding. Firefighters die of cancer at a rate four times higher than the general population. On average, 50 to 60 firefighters die of cancer yearly in Canada, and half of those are from Ontario.

Will the member please support our proposal to expand WSIB to expand presumptive coverage?

Questions?

Thank you to the member from Oshawa for your remarks. The member from Oshawa was talking about the announcements. She talked, I’m guessing, about what our government is doing for job-protected leave for military reservists, expanding cancer coverage for firefighters, enhancing fines to protect workers, cleaner washrooms on construction sites, remote work protection and making sure we are preparing students for skilled trade jobs and helping newcomers.

My question to the member opposite is very simple: Do you support these initiatives taken by the government to support our workers?

Next question.

I’d like to thank the member from Oshawa for her comments. I know that she’s a member who stands with workers in thought, word and deed, but I wondered if the member could take us back in time to a time when Oshawa GM was under threat, a time when the Premier actually said, after meeting with GM executives, “They told me straight-up there’s nothing we can do”—as if taking his orders from somebody else—“the ship has already left the dock.”

But at that time, speaking of the title of this bill, Working for Workers, I would like the member to describe how Oshawa workers stood up for workers when this government rolled over and turned their back on workers.

As my colleagues have shared from their time on finance committee, where they were hearing over and over from those who are fighting against Bill 124 because they are doing important work in health care or in our public sector, they feel demoralized. They feel disrespected—“humiliated” I think is what they have said.

If the government were to relent, if the government were to acknowledge that this has been ruled unconstitutional and stop fighting nurses in court, I think morale would also improve among those who are fleeing the province to work in health care elsewhere, but also we need to be able recruit and retain. We need to be able to keep staffing—not keep. We need to be able to get staffing levels to the place where health care can be best provided—safe levels. We’re not there right now.

I think that is a huge thing. Anyone in health care has told us that. Everyone in health care has told us that. They’ve told this government as well. I’m sorry, they’re not listening.

I am glad to have investment in Oshawa and in Durham region to help people find meaningful work. I am glad to know that we’re on the government’s radar, frankly. But I don’t know where it is in this legislation.

Again, to what I had said earlier, this government has been making announcements about positive things that we support, that would make a difference in communities, but we’re not seeing it in the statute. We are not seeing it physically in Bill 79, the Working for Workers Act.

I would be very glad to meet with that member and have a better understanding of the specifics because I’m happy to get onside with workers in my community. I just don’t know what that looks like because I haven’t seen it.

We heard the minister’s question and response earlier this morning about the gendered washrooms being clean. It’s not in the bill. So this “just trust us; it will be in regulation”—a lot has to happen from that announcement to it actually happening. Is that in regulation? It’s not in statute. If things mattered to this government, I would imagine that they would put it in the bill. I guess my answer to the member across is, I will cross my fingers, we’ll see, and I’ll support good ideas if and when they happen.

Thank you to the member for Oshawa for her speech this afternoon. Bill 79 does propose changes to support the rollout of our employment services transformation. Ontario is expanding its new employment services to five more regions, being London, Windsor-Sarnia, Kitchener-Waterloo, Barrie, Durham and Ottawa, and this is helping more people move towards meaningful and purpose-driven careers close to home.

I’d like to ask the member, because I believe Oshawa is in Durham, don’t you agree that we should be doing everything we can to help those on social assistance, including in your area of Durham, find meaningful work?

It’s an honour to rise this afternoon and speak to Bill 79, Working for Workers Act, 2023. I think this is the third Working for Workers Act, so I suppose my first criticism would be the lack of creativity in the name, Madam Speaker. But, overall, having just had a day or so to read it, there are some promising changes that will be beneficial to Ontario workers, so I’d like to start on some of those high notes maybe before getting into some of the areas where there are some gaps.

I’d like to talk about the more flexible job protections that are proposed by the government for military reservists. Military reservists in Canada are very special, because they offer their service to help defend our country, to help protect our communities, while also maintaining their other full-time employment. These individuals can be deployed at very short notice right across our country to help keep us and our neighbours and our families safe. They typically serve one or more evenings a week and during the weekends and spend several weeks a year training for these jobs. Reserve units are located in hundreds of communities right across our country and, of course, our province, and they’re always there when we need them the most.

No matter your role in the reserve, I want to take a moment to thank the brave women and men in Canada’s reserve army for their dedication to our country and to their community.

I had the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to work with reservists very directly in the spring of 2019, when Ottawa was suffering enormous flooding in the west end of the city, in Carp, in Constance Bay and in the east end of Ottawa, in the community I represent along the Ottawa River in Cumberland Village. Between Ottawa and Gatineau, more than 6,000 homes were flooded or at imminent risk. Roads and bridges were flooded out and forced to close. At least two people died in this flooding. Thousands were without power, were without water. Some were left stranded without food as a result. Many, of course, had to evacuate their homes out of threat of being flooded out altogether.

Anyone who witnessed the devastation of this flooding in Ottawa—whether in person, on the ground, or in photographs or in video afterwards—knows just how bad it got in our nation’s capital. The reason I bring this up is because, in Cumberland, we had the honour and the benefit of working with the Canadian Armed Forces reserve from the 33 Domestic Response Company, who came to the rescue during the flooding to help residents of Cumberland, in east Ottawa.

Many of these reservists, as I said, if not all of them, are employed full-time in other lines of work and had literally almost no notice to pack up their entire life, tell their boss, “Sorry, I’m not coming in tomorrow” and head out to Ottawa to help. In fact, one young woman who was interviewed at the time of the floods mentioned that she had less than 24 hours’ notice to give to her employer so that she could come to Ottawa and help save these homes. They carried sandbags along the river, shoring up homes that were at risk of flooding. They helped evacuate people to safer areas. They worked to protect the Lemieux Island Water Purification Plant. Many of them described it as some of the proudest moments of their lives, helping protect these families in Cumberland and across Ottawa.

So I want to thank the reservists who were involved in that operation in 2019. I understand that it’s very difficult to call your boss and say, “I’m not coming in tomorrow,” on short notice, “and I might not come in for days and days and maybe weeks on end.” Obviously, we want to ensure that they have the protection of being able to return to their job, not only when their service is over, but when some of the other issues that might arise from their service might need to be dealt with as well. We want to make sure that they have that protection. I know those reservists who participated in 2019 and all those who benefited from that great work will understand the importance of the measures that are being proposed by the government.

The other area that I wanted to speak to, Madam Speaker, was the increased fines and protections relating to the treatment of migrant workers. From what I understand—again, it’s only been a few hours since we’ve had the bill and had an opportunity to review it, but from what I understand, the proposed changes would establish increased fines for employers and people who are convicted of taking possession of or retaining a foreign national’s passport or work permit.

In eastern Ontario, as many know—I know the member from Renfrew knows—we have a vibrant agricultural sector. Ottawa is one of the largest farming communities in Ontario, certainly in all of Canada, and many of our farmers and our farm operations rely heavily on migrant workers to fulfill the needs on the farm, to help ensure that we all have food to eat and that our farming system remains as vibrant and as sustainable as it is. So we need to ensure that the protections are in place for these migrant workers. We should all agree that treating these workers with respect, treating these workers with compassion and treating these workers as the vitally important workforce they are for our agricultural community is of the utmost importance.

While I agree certainly with the proposals the government is making in terms of fines and jail time for withholding passports etc., we also need to be talking about the working conditions that many of these migrant workers face. There are many farmers who do an absolutely amazing job treating their migrant workers with respect and dignity—proper housing, proper pay etc.—but there are always bad apples. In any line of work there are bad apples, and we need to ensure that those bad apples are filtered out, treated and punished appropriately—not just on the passport side of things though, too; on the housing side, on the pay side, on the treatment as workers on the farms. I’d like to see the government pay a little bit closer attention to those elements of migrant work as well as we move forward.

Certainly I would agree—I know the NDP spent some time hammering away on this during their debate—that some of the most vulnerable workers may not have the confidence or the position to come forward to speak up about some of the treatment they might be facing, but I’m not sure that that’s a reason to vote against this legislation. Yes, there will be people who don’t come forward because of those reasons—that’s almost certain, to be sure—but not proposing stricter fines or not proposing stricter requirements simply because some people might be afraid or unable to come forward isn’t really a reason not to do that. If anything, those measures need to be in place and we need to figure out how to give these workers the confidence and give these workers the avenue, the platform etc. to be able to come forward without risks—not vote against it simply because those don’t exist yet.

I’m also very encouraged, Madam Speaker, to see the removal of barriers for women in the construction industry. We know that there is an enormous gap in construction and the trades from a labour perspective. This is obviously traditionally a male-dominated sector or sectors—lots of reasons around that, to be sure. Anything that can be done to encourage women to participate in the skilled trades, in construction etc., will obviously give those women another opportunity for employment, but will help the industry get to the numbers of workers that it needs to fulfill the obligations that we have in terms of our goals for housing construction and infrastructure etc. Making the working environment for women in these trades—offering them more protections; offering them the same ability to use washroom facilities that men, at least, take for granted; having proper equipment that suits the needs that women have that are unique to them—is obviously a step in the right direction.

But if the government really wanted to remove barriers that women are facing in the workforce, they would repeal Bill 124, which targets sectors of the economy that are predominantly women in the workforce in those sectors of the economy. They would also do things like support my private member’s bill, Bill 5, to help stop harassment and abuse by local leaders in municipalities. We know that there have been any number of cases where women in cities have been psychologically, physically, sexually harassed and abused in recent years. It’s happened in Ottawa; it’s happened in Barrie; it’s happened in Brampton; it’s happened in Mississauga. It’s likely happened in almost every community across the province, Madam Speaker. And while anyone who does these things who works at a construction site, who works at a farm, who works at Walmart or any other employer in the province would almost certainly lose their job pretty quickly for this type of behaviour, of course, for municipally elected officials, there is no ability to remove them from office. So I do hope that the government will support Bill 5 when it comes up for second reading at the end of May, as they did in the last legislative session, so that we can offer protections to women in our municipalities who suffer this kind of harassment and abuse all too often.

Perhaps the biggest absence from the bill that we’ve been able to see so far, Madam Speaker, is the lack of attention towards paid sick leave. We all know that people get sick from time to time. Your kids get sick. And no one should have to make a decision between going to work sick or staying home and not getting paid, putting the health of their children or their own health at risk in order to be able to continue to pay the bills, to buy groceries, to put a roof over their family’s head. And so we would hope that, as we move forward through the fourth and fifth and, I’m sure, sixth iteration that this government might come up with with the Working for Workers Act, that attention is paid to the need for paid sick leave so that all Ontarians can have that security of when you’re sick and need to stay home, that you don’t go to work, that you don’t spread whatever that sickness is, but you also don’t have to put your family’s security on the line because you fear being fired or losing out on a paycheque.