I have to share the compliments of my minister, Monte McNaughton, and PA Anand for working together as a team in making certain that Bill 79 becomes law in Ontario.

I’m pleased to rise in the House today for the second reading of Bill 79, Working for Workers Act, 2023.

I have been working with the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development to further support and protect workers and their families.

I would also like to thank and acknowledge our Premier for his tremendous leadership and support for this bill and our last two pieces of Working for Workers legislation. These acts have been helping millions of people, and we will continue moving Ontario forward. Earlier this week, we announced further changes that would, if passed, expand on those successes.

Ontario is experiencing unprecedented labour shortages. Our proposed changes would help increase labour supply and ensure that workers have the right skills for in-demand jobs. The way we work has been changing and evolving for some time, and the last few years have accelerated these changes. Where we work, how we work and the meaning we find in what we do all need to adapt, because an economy that doesn’t work for workers doesn’t work for all. Our government is planning for the workplaces of the future. We are proposing changes to spread opportunities and give Ontario workers a better deal and employment experience.

Nowadays, it’s possible never to go in to an office in a physical location. Technological advances have uncoupled geography from employment. These changes have resulted in globalized competition for highly skilled workers and revealed gaps in our labour and employment laws.

The legislation we introduced, if passed, would make employees who work solely from home eligible for the same enhanced notice of termination as in-office and other employees in a mass termination situation. Ontario’s Employment Standards Act provides for greater notice or pay in lieu of for employees affected by mass termination. Mass termination provisions generally apply if 50 or more employees are terminated at an employer’s establishment within four weeks. Depending on the number of employees terminated in the case of a mass termination, an employee could be entitled to eight, 12 or 16 weeks of notice. Under the Employment Standards Act, an employee’s private residence is not considered part of the employer’s establishment, so fully remote workers may not be included in the employee count when determining whether the 50-employee threshold for mass termination has been reached. The proposed changes in Working for Workers Act, 2023, would help fix this gap. If passed, the changes would broaden the definition of an employer’s establishment to include employees’ private residences if they solely work remotely. This could entitle employees who exclusively work remotely to a longer notice period or pay in lieu of layoff notices.

We have all read about workers employed by billion-dollar tech companies learning that they have lost their job via the media, and that shouldn’t happen, ever. Mass terminations can make it for difficult for employees to find alternate employment, and by providing these protections, our government is standing up for workers who are terminated.

Putting workers first means giving them the tools they need to stay safe. It also means protecting them from bad employers and recruiters.

Ontario relies on foreign workers to help fill labour shortages in our province. However, despite the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act prohibitions, some employers continue to take foreign nationals’ passports and permits. This increases the possibility of exploitation of vulnerable foreign workers.

That is why our government is proposing to strengthen protections for foreign workers by introducing changes that would, if passed, establish the highest maximum fines in Canada—fines that will apply to employers and recruiters who are convicted of taking or retaining a foreign national’s passport or work permit. If amendments are passed, individuals convicted of taking or retaining a foreign national’s passport or work permit would be liable for either a fine of $500,000 or up to 12 months in prison, or both, and corporations will be liable for a fine of up to $1 million. The proposed increase in maximum fines aims to prevent labour trafficking in Ontario. Anyone can be a target of labour trafficking, but migrant workers and newcomers to Canada looking for work can be at higher risk. Our legislation would support government efforts to protect vulnerable workers essential in building up our province’s economy.

Our government is committed to the health and safety of every worker in Ontario. Employers have significant responsibility for health and safety in the workplace. They must keep a safe and well-maintained workplace. Workers need to feel safe on the job, and businesses must be held accountable when violating the health and safety laws of Ontario.

That is why this legislation would amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to increase the maximum fine for corporations convicted of an offence under the act from $1.5 million to $2 million. This would give Ontario the highest maximum corporate fine under Canada’s workplace health and safety legislation. Corporate fines under the Occupational Health and Safety Act have not been increased since 2017, when the increase was from $500,000 to $1.5 million. The increased fine proposed in the Working for Workers Act, 2023, would, if passed, deter violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by corporations. It would reinforce the importance of putting workers’ safety first. Workplace injuries and death should not be a cost of business.

Speaker, our government is proud to protect workers who protect us. This includes military reservists, who put their lives on the line for us. Thousands of people in Ontario are reservists. These courageous men and women are integral to the Canadian Armed Forces. They put their full-time career on hold in their communities to join important military missions at home and abroad.

Yesterday, our government introduced legislation that, if passed, would provide better protection for our reservists and remove barriers to their deployment. The proposed legislation, if passed, would reduce the length of employment needed before going on a reservist leave to just two months of continuous employment, down from the current three months. And there would be no length of employment requirement if the leave is due to deployment to assist during a domestic emergency. The proposed legislation would also expand the reasons for taking the leave, to help our reservists recover from injuries after deployment—reasons that include physical or mental treatment, recovery or rehabilitation related to a military operation or specified activity. These proposed changes build on job-protected leave already in place for reservists, including protections we introduced last year. These changes, if passed, would cover all military reservists in Ontario covered by the Employment Standards Act who participate in Canadian Armed Forces military skills training, are deployed to assist in a domestic emergency, or are deployed abroad. In introducing these changes, we are standing up for our front-line heroes while they protect us. We are trying to give them peace of mind that their job will await them when they return. We are proud to propose changes to make Ontario reservist leave among Canada’s most flexible and comprehensive.

I want to take this moment to talk about another group of heroes, our firefighters, and measures the Ontario government intends to take through regulations to make sure we are leaving no one behind. Firefighters risk their lives to enter smoke-filled buildings to rescue people, battle out-of-control blazes and respond to other emergencies. Their work touches the lives of so many people and communities across Ontario. They are there for us in our greatest need, and we should be there for them.

Firefighters die of cancer at a rate up to four times higher than the general population, with 25 to 30 passing away yearly in Ontario. We owe it to them to ensure they have easy access to compensation for these work-related illnesses. The Ontario government plans to propose a regulatory change to make it easy for firefighters, fire investigators and their survivors to access Workplace Safety and Insurance Board—WSIB—compensation by expanding presumptive cancer coverage for firefighters to include primary site thyroid and pancreatic cancers. By presuming thyroid and pancreatic cancers are work-related, firefighters and fire investigators could get easier access to benefits and the support they need to recover. If approved, they would apply to full-time, part-time and volunteer firefighters, firefighters employed by First Nation band councils, and fire investigators. We want Ontario to know that we have the backs of the brave men and women who protect and serve us daily.

I will conclude by calling for all in this House to support the Working for Workers Act, 2023. The measures we’ve outlined will position Ontario as a front-runner in charting the way forward as workplaces and how we work evolve. By giving workers a better deal, we are not only protecting them, but we are both keeping and attracting more workers to the province and ensuring our economy remains strong.

I hope all members of this House join me in supporting this bill. So please help us vote on Bill 79 as it comes forward.

I’m proud that we were the first in the country to bring in job-protected leave to ensure that if there’s a worker out there who is sick, obviously, from COVID, staying home to look after a loved one, having mental health issues—it’s really a flexible job leave—that workers can’t be fired for that. We brought in paid sick days, which the member opposite supported. I think I referenced it; it was probably the fastest bill that ever passed in this chamber since I’ve been here. It has been very successful. Over half a million workers have accessed that, which is good—again, very flexible.

I guess what I don’t understand from the NDP is—I think of our past Working for Workers bills that brought in naloxone kits to workplaces, that improved labour mobility so unionized construction workers could come to Ontario, that brought in foundational rights for gig workers. You opposed those. Why?

The member from Essex is doing such a great job being a champion for folks in his riding, especially around the skilled trades. I’ve been with the member from Essex a number of times, meeting with building trade union leaders from the Windsor-Essex region who are doing a great job. They’re going to be building that new hospital down there, they’re working on the bridge, expanding Highway 3—the list goes on and on and on.

Those men and women who are wearing hard hats every day are heroes. I say that proudly, because for too long in this province, people looked down their noses at people in the skilled trades. They’re heroes. That’s why I’m proud that this government is the first in history to do an inspection blitz to clean up washrooms once and for all for construction workers and to get more women into the skilled trades.

He asked, “Who’s supporting this bill?” I want to pay tribute—and I will do this in the next question—to Joe Maloney, the former head of the international boilermakers union, who is supporting this bill. He now runs Helmets to Hardhats. I’ll speak about him shortly. Unfortunately, he is retiring, but he has gotten men and women who have served the country into the skilled trades.

We will work every day to ensure that the health and safety of every worker is protected.

I do want to get back to my good friend Joe Maloney, who unfortunately is retiring from Helmets to Hardhats. He founded this organization. Joe was the former international vice-president of the boilermakers union, and he did a great job promoting boilermakers as a first career choice for many young people out there. Joe said, “Helmets to Hardhats welcomes the expansion of job-protected leave for military reservists. Reserve force members are a vital component of the Canadian Armed Forces but are also crucial in their civilian careers, including careers within the unionized construction industry. Allowing additional job-protected leave will support retention in the military and the workforce while ensuring Canadian reservists can return to work safely and sustainably.”

Joe, on behalf of the province of Ontario, thank you for your work with the boilermakers’ union and being the founder of Helmets to Hardhats.

The Minister of Labour said he won’t tolerate scumbag employers. What did he do to stop the employer who passed Bill 124 and Bill 28, which trampled on workers’ corrective bargaining rights, forced wage caps, working conditions on largely women-led sectors—the same employer that won’t end deeming for injured workers or won’t pass anti-scab legislation?

My question to the minister is pretty simple: What has the minister done to stop that scumbag employer?

I want to thank the Minister of Labour and his whole team for this incredible movement in terms of labour legislation. This is part of a huge series of changes that his team, with our government, is making.

One of the changes that is very vivid for my community—we have Base Borden, close to Barrie. When I speak to reservists—and of course, I speak to our local Legion in Belle Ewart—they talk about the mental health impacts of anyone in the Armed Forces.

So what is this bill doing to show respect and honour to not only our veterans, but everyone in the Canadian Armed Forces, and really move the labour pendulum for those workers?

We’re working for workers every single day. That’s why we’re bringing forward not just nation-leading changes to our labour laws to rebalance the skills, to help those everyday heroes out there, but a lot of the changes we’re doing haven’t been done across North America.

I think of what we’re going to do around portable benefits. There are millions of workers today in the province who don’t have health and dental benefits. We’re going to be the first in North America to bring in a portable benefits plan.

Speaker, I think of the support we have for this legislation. The head of the provincial building trades, who represents literally hundreds of thousands of unionized construction workers in this province, is supporting this legislation—to clean up washrooms on job sites, to create a washroom on a large site specifically for women, to ensure that there’s adequate lighting, to ensure that these washrooms that don’t have covers on them are banned in the province of Ontario.

For the life of me, I do not understand why the NDP are objecting to this legislation—it’s to help people. This should be a non-partisan issue. All of the changes we’re bringing are to improve the lives of workers in this province.

We’re going to clean up washrooms for every construction worker. There are 16,000 women and men today working on job sites in the province—we’re going to clean it up for them. They’re heroes in this province.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Thanks to the minister for that response.

Since day one, our government has been working for workers, and it is continuing to lead the country with groundbreaking protections.

It is a fact that the way people work has changed. The dynamic has shifted from in-office work to other formats. In 2022, 1.4 million people in Ontario were working remotely, and 800,000 were working hybrid jobs.

Workers also need greater certainty, when starting a new job, that they have been given information about the nature of their job before they start their first shift.

It is vital that regulations and employment standards keep up with the new reality.

Can the minister please explain how our government is ensuring that our labour laws reflect the changing world of work?

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.

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.

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.

It’s an honour to rise this afternoon and to speak in support of Bill 79, the third Working for Workers Act, introduced by the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development. I’d like to thank him and his team, including his parliamentary assistants from Mississauga–Malton and Scarborough Centre, for their great work on this bill and on the first two Working for Workers Acts.

I was proud to speak about these historic reforms in the House. If passed, Bill 79 would expand on other reforms which are already helping millions of people across Ontario.

Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board and I had an opportunity to visit the Medical Innovation Xchange in Kitchener with the member for Kitchener–Conestoga. This facility, which is supported by grants from the Ministry of Labour’s Skills Development Fund, is developing made-in-Ontario medical technology that’s being used now in our hospitals and in long-term care. I want to thank the executive director, Elliot Fung, and the CEO of Intellijoint Surgical, Armen, for the meeting and the tour. Their director of corporate affairs, Tim Dutton, said—and I agree—that Bill 79 as well the previous two Working for Workers bills show that the Ministry of Labour is one of the most forward-thinking policy-makers in the country.

Speaker, before I begin my remarks today, I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade for their leadership on Bill 63 and all the other changes we made that led to this historic announcement last week that Volkswagen has chosen St. Thomas, Ontario, to build the first electric-vehicle battery gigafactory outside of Europe. This will be the single largest investment in the auto sector in the history of Canada, and Volkswagen is the first auto manufacturer to set up major operations in Ontario since 1980. As the minister said, this is a major vote of confidence in all the work that we’re doing across government to position Ontario as a global leader in the supply chain for electric vehicles.

A very important part of this is our work to close the skills gap and to build a stronger, more competitive labour market. As the minister said, we’re in the middle of the largest labour shortage in a generation. The Conference Board of Canada reports that Ontario’s skills gap costs our economy over $24 billion each year, or about 4% of Ontario’s provincial GDP. We know there are about 300,000 jobs left vacant across the province, including many in the skilled trades. In fact, we expect that over one in five job openings in Ontario will be in the skilled trades by 2026.

The government is working to increase Ontario’s supply of skilled labour through training, through bringing new skilled workers into Ontario and through making it easier for them to work in the field that matches their skills and experiences. I’ll speak briefly about each of these.

Just yesterday, Speaker, the Premier and the minister announced an investment of $224 million in a new capital stream of the Skills Development Fund to allow businesses, unions and industrial associations to build new training centres or to upgrade their current facilities with state-of-the-art design and technology. This will build on the previous investment of $700 million through the Skills Development Fund since 2020, including an investment of $1 million that the minister and I announced in Mississauga–Lakeshore to help the Christian Labour Association of Canada offer free, online and flexible training for construction workers. It was great to meet them again earlier this month during their lobby day at Queen’s Park.

Speaker, the mayor of Vaughan, Steven Del Duca, said “I want to thank” the Premier “and Minister Monte McNaughton for their continued efforts on this critical province-building priority.... Our highly educated, multilingual population already ensures businesses from all industries have a qualified and ready labour pool, and the government’s new investment in the” skilled trades development fund “means that pool will grow even larger.”

As the minister announced Saturday, we’re also doubling the number of economic immigrants that Ontario can nominate each year through the Ontario immigration nominee program from 9,000 to 18,000 by 2025 to help fill the skills gap.

The two previous Working for Workers Acts removed barriers for internationally trained professionals to allow them to match their skills with jobs they need to fill here in Ontario. Speaker, this was critical because up to three quarters of internationally trained immigrants were working in jobs that didn’t match their skills or experience. As I said before, members of our caucus experienced this when they first came to Canada. The members from Mississauga–Malton and Mississauga–Erin Mills came to Canada with degrees and experience in chemical engineering and information technology, but they weren’t able to work in jobs matching their skills. As we continue to recover from COVID-19, this is a problem Ontario simply cannot afford.

If passed, schedule 3 of Bill 79 would amend the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act to continue to remove barriers for internationally trained professionals looking to register here in Ontario. This includes a new section to clarify that Canadian experience can only be accepted if there are international alternatives as long as they meet certain criteria. Speaker, this will make it easier for engineers, plumbers, mechanics and many other internationally trained professionals to register here in Ontario and to fill in-demand jobs, to help drive economic growth and our recovery from the pandemic.

As my friend Tonie Chaltas, the CEO of Achēv, said, “We need to make it as easy as possible for newcomers to Ontario to find jobs, settle into their communities and build a life here. Streamlining the credentialing process for skilled immigrants is a great step in supporting that journey.”

Speaker, recently I had the opportunity to visit Mike Yorke and the Toronto’s Carpenters Union Local 27 in Woodbridge. They were looking forward to another change. Starting this fall, students in grade 11 will be able to enter a full-time, skilled trades apprenticeship program and still earn their secondary school diploma. These changes mean that high school students will be able to enter the skilled trades faster than ever before. And I know the minister and his team will be consulting with our partners later this year about other options to make it even easier for young people to enter the skilled trades.

Speaker, if passed, Bill 79 would also update the Employment Standards Act and various other laws to reflect the changing nature of our workforce after COVID-19. In the last quarter of 2022, about 2.2 million Ontarians worked from home, including 1.4 million people who worked from home full-time and 800,000 people who worked from home part-time. If passed, schedule 2 of Bill 79 would update how workplaces are defined in Ontario’s labour laws to extend fundamental protections to people who work from home. For example, employees who work from home would become eligible for the same eight-week notice as in-office employees in mass terminations.

Speaker, the minister is also proposing changes to the regulations that would require employers to give new employees information about their jobs in writing, including pay and hours of work but also work location before their first shift. These changes would help to provide certainty for both employers and new employees.

Yesterday, I joined the President of the Treasury Board and Jamie Wallace, the CEO of Supply Ontario, for an event at Communitech in Kitchener, which supports a community of over a thousand high-tech companies, from new start-ups to rapidly-growing companies. Many of these depend on employees who work from home or from other locations around the world. The CEO and president of Communitech, Chris Albinson, said, “We applaud Minister McNaughton for taking steps to ensure that all workers in Ontario are afforded the same rights and protections, regardless of their workplace setting.”

It’s also worth mentioning schedule 2 of Bill 79 would make Ontario’s job-protected leave for members of the Canadian Army Reserve the most flexible and most comprehensive in the country. If passed, schedule 2 would ensure that their jobs are protected when they’re sent into emergency operations, even when it is their first day on the job. And for any other reason, they would qualify for a job-protected leave after only two months so they can take the time they need to recover from physical or mental injuries. Major-General Charles Sullivan said that this “will allow our proud and dedicated reservists to serve their country at home and abroad knowing they will be able to return to their places of employment and be entitled to care after they return home.”

Bill 79 would also strengthen the protection of vulnerable and migrant workers. If passed, schedule 1 would introduce the highest maximum fines in Canada for employers convicted of taking or withholding a foreign national’s passport or work permit: up to $500,000, plus up to $200,000 for every worker whose rights are violated. This will be another important tool to help our police fight human trafficking, which is a growing problem in Peel Region and across the province. My friend the Mexican consul general in Toronto, Porfirio Ledo, offered his support, as Mexican workers have been victims in the past.

If passed, schedule 5 would also introduce the highest fines in Canada for companies that don’t follow our workplace health and safety laws. If convicted, officers and directors of businesses that don’t provide safe work environments that lead to a worker being severely injured on the job could face fines of up to $2 million under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, up from the current $1.5 million.

Unfortunately, we know that some businesses treat fines as just another business expense, and they continue to put their workers at risk. But injuries or death should never be just another cost of doing business. This new penalty will help send a strong message about the importance of worker health and safety and compliance with workplace laws and regulations.

Earlier this year, members of the Mississauga Fire Fighters Association visited my community office in Port Credit. Their top request was that we support an addition of thyroid and pancreatic cancer to Ontario’s presumptive coverage for firefighters. Firefighters die of cancer at a rate four times higher than the general population. On average, 50 to 60 firefighters die of cancer each year here in Canada and about half of them right here in Ontario.

The changes the minister is providing would assume thyroid and pancreatic cancers are work related and streamline workplace injury claims for firefighters. This would make it faster and easier for them to access the compensation and the support they deserve. These changes would be retroactive for claims back to 1960, and it would follow similar changes in other provinces like British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister is also proposing changes to the regulations to ensure that construction sites are safe and welcoming for everyone. For example, it would ensure women have access to properly fitting safety gear and clean, women-only washroom facilities with proper lighting and hand sanitizer.

Victoria Mancinelli of LIUNA said—and we agree: “Ensuring women have access to the tools to reach their full potential in the construction industry will strengthen retention, eliminate barriers, attract talent, and” ensure that they will stay on the job.

Lastly, Speaker, the minister has proposed to expand employer services to five new communities—London, Windsor-Sarnia, Kitchener-Waterloo-Barrie, Durham and Ottawa—to make it easier for job seekers across the province, especially those on social assistance, to find better jobs.

Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the minister and his team for all the work they’re doing on Bill 79 and for everything else they do.

Meghan Nicholls, the CEO of the Mississauga Food Bank, was here on Monday for the Feed Ontario breakfast. She is working to support over 600 new refugees who are coming to Mississauga from Ukraine per week, every week. The minister and his staff are working to connect them with resources, jobs and a safe place to live here in Ontario. So again, I just want to thank the minister and his team for doing everything they can to help.

Speaker, Bill 79 will help prepare Ontarians for the jobs of the future. It will help protect some of our most vulnerable workers, and it will help ensure that our labour laws can keep pace with new technologies and with the new reality of working from home. It would continue to position Ontario as a top destination for global talent and innovation and as the best place in the world to live, work and raise a family. I look forward to voting for Bill 79, and I urge all members to support this important bill.

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.

The member from Orléans had some interesting points, I guess. I mean, we come here every single day to try to make legislation stronger and to make it better, and this particular piece of legislation misses the mark on WSIB and deeming drastically. The migrant injured farm workers have called on WSIB to address the racism in the dealing of health care supplies and care when they are injured here in Ontario. They’ve gone on to say that “their horrific experiences of improper health care support and the racist reality of the practice of ‘deeming’ workers” is impacting labour retention and the labour shortage issue.

So if the Minister of Labour really truly cares and understands what’s happening on these farms when workers are injured and the negative impact it has on the labour shortage, why do you think he left this part out of Bill 79?

I’ll speak to the bill.

We are talking tonight, this evening, and I’ve listened to a day-long debate about Bill 79, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters. The short title of this act is the Working for Workers Act, 2023.

In my riding of Essex, we have a big demand for skilled workers—huge demand. They’re in demand in the construction industry. They’re in demand in the automotive industry. They’re in demand in the agricultural sector. We need skilled workers in just about every sector in every industry in the riding of Essex, and so I need to thank the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development for bringing forward this bill and its related announcements. This is excellent. It’s something that people in my riding want, and I’m going to be very happy if this bill passes into law, because I’m going to be able to go back to my riding in Essex and announce to the people of Essex that these things are going to happen. It’s going to be very welcomed.

Now, my first introduction to skilled trades came when I was a young person growing up on the second concession of Anderdon township. I got my introduction at Anderdon Public School, which was just down the road from us and around the corner on the middle sideroad about two miles away. I went there, and so did all my siblings.

Anderdon Public School, when I went there, was a very multicultural place. There were lots of kids there from all sorts of different backgrounds. There were Italians; there were Germans, Dutch people, Hungarians, French Canadians, English Canadians and people from other backgrounds, and we were very respectful of one another. We liked being at a multicultural school. We liked sharing our traditions. We liked sharing our cultures. We liked teasing each other about our different traditions and cultures.

We would even share and swap our food at lunchtime. We Italians, we’d bring big sandwiches, big sandwiches on ciabatta buns with meatballs inside, or maybe we would have calabrese bread with some leftover veal from last night’s dinner. And the English kids, they’d tell us they were jealous of us, because their parents would give them sandwiches with two slices of white bread and a square piece of processed cheese in the middle. So we’d joke and laugh back and forth with each other, and it was all in good humour. And just every once in a while, but very rarely, we’d give them one meatball—but that’s all.

In order to get to know each other better, we’d ask each other questions. The most common question we asked each other was, “What are you?” For example, one kid in my class might ask me, “What are you?” And I would say, “I’m Italian. What are you?” They would say what they were, and we’d always be respectful, and we appreciated each other.

And we loved our school. We loved our school, and we loved our teachers, and we respected our teachers, because our parents expected it. And we had great teachers, because we thought we went to the best school in the world. We had Mr. Hernandez, who taught us grade 8. He was of Mexican background. We had Miss Bond, who taught us how to sing. We had Mr. Parrot, who I adored, because he taught politics with me in grade 5.

And we had something called industrial arts; that was the more technical word for shop class. When we went to shop class, we lined up in lines. The girls lined up in one line, and the boys lined up in a separate line. The girls walked to home economics class, and the boys walked to shop class, because back then we had division of labour based on gender. Our shop teacher was Mr. Grodzinski, and Mr. Grodzinski—

When we went to shop class, it was sometimes dangerous because we had machines and moving machines in shop class. For example, we had a lathe. A lathe is a machine that holds an object, usually a piece of wood, and turns the object at great speed. Then you use another object to shape that wood. We had, for example, a band saw, which is a saw that turns a blade on a wheel, and you have to use a tool to push the wood to cut the wood. You have to be very careful because you don’t want to get a piece of clothing caught in the band saw and hurt yourself.

So Mr. Grodzinski was stern and strict, and he had to be because we were in an environment which was dangerous, or could be dangerous, if you weren’t careful. In shop class, we learned how to be very safe, because we had to be. We did things, and we all felt proud of what we were doing. There was nobody in shop class who felt bored. We all felt proud. We loved shop class because we were working on machines and we were doing things that our fathers did, and it made us feel like we were growing up into adults and becoming responsible.

Now, that was a very simple introduction to the skilled trades. And even though it was simple, it was important. Many of us graduated from Anderdon Public School and we went on to do skilled trades at high school. Many of us went to a specialized high school—it was called Western Secondary School—where it concentrated on skilled trades. That school was strictly committed to skilled trades.

Some kids from Anderdon Public School became very successful at the skilled trades. For example, one of those kids was Norbert Bolger. Norbert graduated out of Anderdon Public School. He started building homes because he was a skilled tradesperson. His business got bigger and bigger. He started building more and more homes. Now, across Essex county, there are hundreds of homes that have been built or are being built by Norbert’s company, called Nor-Built Construction. Norbert and his company Nor-Built Construction are a success story that got their start—

So, Madam Speaker, let’s talk about how this government is going to get young people into the skilled trades, to join the fabulously successful people like Norbert Bolger and Terry Jones. Madame la Présidente, parlons de la façon dont ce gouvernement va redonner aux jeunes les métiers spécialisés pour qu’ils se joignent à des gens de métier prospères comme M. Bolger et M. Jones.

Les métiers spécialisés offrent des carrières qui mènent à des emplois sûrs et à une bonne qualité de vie qui s’accompagne souvent d’avantages sociaux et d’une pension. Il y a près de 300 000 emplois vacants en Ontario. Ce sont des chèques de paie qui attendent d’être encaissés.

Bon nombre de ces emplois sont dans les métiers spécialisés. Nous avons besoin de milliers de travailleurs dans les métiers spécialisés pour aider à construire plus de maisons et à réaliser d’importants projets d’infrastructure partout dans notre province.

Nous devons construire des maisons pour faire face au manque de maisons. Nous devons augmenter l’offre pour faire baisser le prix des maisons. Nous devons construire des maisons pour les quelque deux millions de nouveaux Canadiens qui arriveront en Ontario au cours des 15 prochaines années.

Au sujet des nouveaux arrivants, notre gouvernement est fier que l’Ontario soit une destination pour de nombreux nouveaux arrivants qui sont venus au Canada à la recherche de meilleures possibilités économiques pour eux-mêmes et leurs familles.

Afin de créer une voie claire leur permettant d’appliquer pleinement leurs compétences, le gouvernement de l’Ontario a l’intention de proposer des changements qui vont aider à éliminer des obstacles empêchant les nouveaux arrivants d’obtenir un permis et de trouver des emplois correspondant à leurs qualifications et compétences. Il faut d’habitude de deux à cinq années pour obtenir un certificat de métier.

It usually takes two to five years to complete your apprenticeship and get a certificate in the skilled trades. On average, a person entering an apprenticeship program in Ontario is 29 years old. Do you know what that means? What it means is they started doing something else, and then they had to change. We can’t let people do that if we want to fulfill the needs that we have today. We can’t let people lose years of valuable earning potential. We can’t let people lose years of applying their skills to build the needed houses and infrastructure here in the province of Ontario. We need those skills, and that’s why we need to get people started earlier—earlier than 29 years old. We need to start them in high school.

As the minister has announced, starting this fall, students in grade 11 can start a full-time apprenticeship program and also, when they complete their program, earn their Ontario secondary school diploma, their OSSD, as an adult student. That means we’re going to get people into the skilled trades faster than ever. That also means that the same young person who graduates with their certificate of apprenticeship will have a job waiting for them the day they have their certificate. They will walk into a full-time career the day they graduate. They will be debt-free, looking forward to a great career of earning potential right from day one, because, as we say, when you have a skilled trade, you have a job for life. Then, after finishing their training, they receive a certificate and they’ll have their OSSD as an adult. This is how we’re going to get young people into the skilled trades and get them in there faster. This is how we’re going to deal with the province’s historic demand for skilled trades workers. This is how we’re going to get it done.

And that brings me back to Anderdon Public School and Mr. Grodzinski.

One day we were finishing shop class and the boys lined up and started filing out of shop class, and I happened to be the last boy in line. I kind of hung behind and as I was passing Mr. Grodzinski, I remembered that his name ended with a vowel, but it wasn’t Italian. So I screwed up my courage and I asked Mr. Grodzinski, “Mr. Grodzinski, what are you?” And Mr. Grodzinski looked at me with his stern face and his big black moustache, and he said to me that his family had originally come from Ireland and that his family name was originally O’Grodzinski, and that when they arrived here in Canada, they had dropped the “O” and changed their name simply to Grodzinski. And I thought about that, and I knew Italian families who had come here and changed the spelling of their name to make it easier or they had anglicized their name to make it sound perhaps less Italian. The story that Mr. Grodzinski told me seemed perfectly reasonable, rational and believable, and I believed it.

I believed it until one day I talked to my friend Alex Augustyniak. Alex knew I was Italian. We were in the same grade, and we went to Anderdon Public School. I knew Alex was Polish, and I knew there were lots of Italians at Anderdon Public School, but I didn’t know any other Polish kids. So I asked Alex, “Alex, are there any other Polish people here at Anderdon Public School?” Alex said, “Yes, Mr. Grodzinski,” and I thought about that.

Madam Speaker, I learned three important things that day. First of all, I learned that, in fact, Grodzinski is not an Irish name; it is actually a Polish name. The second thing I learned was that although Mr. Grodzinski had a very stern exterior with a big black moustache, underneath that, he had a very good sense of humour. And the third thing I learned was an even increased respect for people in the skilled trades.

As I was saying, in my riding of Essex there is a huge demand for skilled trades. We have a demand in my riding for skilled trades in just about every sector. We have a demand for skilled trades in the agricultural sector, in the construction sector, in the automotive sector—there is no sector where we don’t need more skilled tradespeople. We need them in every industry in Essex county.

So Madam Speaker, I’m going to thank the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development again for this excellent bill, which I believe is going to help fulfill the need for skilled tradespeople in Essex county and put young people in grade 11 on the path to a great career—a meaningful career where they’re going to have a great standard of living. With this legislation, we’re going to start filling not only the needs of Essex county but also the needs of all the province of Ontario, and it will be my pleasure to vote in favour of it and hope that it will pass.

I thank the member for that question, and I thank the member for recognizing the awesome career development that will take place as a result of the progress made by the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development towards getting young people into the skilled trades at an early age. Getting them into the trades at an early age is going to benefit them, because it’s going to increase their earning potential massively, and it’s going to get those people into the skilled trades so that we can use their talents to build this province into a greater and better province. And of course, we have a robust WSIB system that’s already in place, and people who are injured can have access to that system. That’s what it’s there for.

With respect to his question, skilled trades—I talked about Essex county, but it could apply to the mining industry. We have a mine in my area. It’s called the Windsor Salt mine, and just about everybody in that salt mine has a skilled trade. Think about it: You would need maintenance workers, heavy equipment operators, people who know how to operate a drill, people who know how to read the instruments. So I thank the member for that question, and it was right on point.

Those people have access to proper language services not only in Ontario but also through the consulate situated in Leamington.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, we had a huge wave of migrants entering Canada and they went into the construction industries—many of them were Italian—and those skills were needed desperately. The way this bill assists in our era is it will recognize skills training that people from outside of Canada have received. They’ve brought those skills here, and now those skills are going to be properly recognized or given credit here in Ontario so they can get right into the industry and do the skilled jobs that they’re supposed to do so that we can use those skills to build Ontario, just like they did in the 1950s and 1960s with infrastructure and highways and schools and other great things.

Report continues in volume B.

The member hails from a beautiful part of Ontario, but there’s a lot of need to focus on safer workplaces and supports for migrant workers in his neck of the woods. So when we look at some of the changes made in schedule 1 to this bill, the minister has made some announcements, but beyond the 1-800 number promoted by the minister, I’d like to ask, is the Minister of Labour expecting exploited migrant workers to call in a complaint? How is this information going to be made available to them? Is it going to be in multiple languages? Are these exploited workers going to be further penalized by losing their right to remain? Will many be deported? We have questions about the announcement, and of course, there’s not any substance in this bill that we can draw from.

So I guess there’s a missed opportunity of committing to more workplace inspections, where they live on site, ensuring that migrant workers are paid at the same rates as other workers, protections from reporting conditions or accessing WSIB without prejudice. I have lots of questions; I’m excited to hear the member’s answer.

I want to say thank you to the member for Essex for that great presentation. I always enjoy the presentations from the member for Essex. He takes me right to Anderdon county and right to the Anderdon school and it’s really interesting to hear his representation of those experiences he had. It was very nice today to actually meet Mr. Grodzinski. We have a Grodzinski’s Bakery in our riding, which is very popular, and maybe your former teacher is there.

You talked about how Ontario is facing historical labour shortages and how important that is in your area. Can you talk to us a little bit about how this bill is going to help us fill some of those historic labour shortages?