We are building Ontario. We are indeed building Ontario, because we have a duty to our children. I think of the member from Kitchener–Conestoga: five children who are younger than mine. We have a duty to those youth to leave things better than we found them, and that’s why it gives me great pleasure to speak about the budget today.

We have five simple pillars. We need to build Ontario’s economy for today and for tomorrow. We have to build our highways. We have to build transit. We have to build infrastructure.

The first lesson that I learned on county council was that there’s good debt and there’s bad debt. When you’re spending money on operations, when you’re loaning money for operations, you’re in trouble. You’re in trouble in your household; you’re in trouble as a province of Ontario. But when you’re spending money for the future, for subways, for highways, for hospitals, for courthouses, you’re building for the future. That investment will always come back to you, and that’s good debt. That’s why I’m proud that we’re doing that.

We are working for workers. We’re working for workers so hard that we have over 300,000 unfilled jobs in the province of Ontario right now. Our call-out to the world: If you want to make Ontario your home, if you want to work hard, you are welcome here. We want you. We need you. Please come here.

We are keeping costs down. We are doing our bit. We are calling on the federal government to do their bit too, but we are saving people money on gas. I think, if I remember the numbers right, we’re saving businesses over a half billion dollars a year in red tape costs to be able to do their work more efficiently. These are all things that we are doing in the budget.

Probably the most exciting piece for me, Madam Speaker, is that I can’t hear anything negative from the opposition, other than they say, “Just do a little more.” Well, we will, because we’re going to have another fall economic statement this fall. We’re going to have another budget next year. We will continue to build a strong Ontario.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move that the question now be put.

Mr. Bouma has moved that the question be now put. We have had over nine hours of debate with 25 debates on this bill, and I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those who are in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred to the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 23, 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.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that in my view perhaps unfairly shuts skilled workers out of the workforce in Ontario is the requirement that they have Canadian experience in order to fulfill their workplace qualifications rather than just relevant experience. They might have relevant experience but not Canadian experience, so I think one of the absolutely brilliant things that this bill does, in schedule 3, is it says that a regulated profession may accept Canadian experience in satisfaction of a qualification if it also accepts alternatives to Canadian experience. That means people who got experience in some alternative way may use that experience, whether it’s Canadian or otherwise, to fulfill this qualification. Does the member agree with that proposal?

I appreciate the question from the member, and I know he’s expecting an answer from me. However, I would like him to show me the schedule in the bill where that measure is set out, because there is no schedule in the bill that talks about presumptive coverage for those cancers for firefighters.

Now, I understand that in the media releases around the bill, when the minister has been speaking to the bill, that is what he says the bill will enable. But this legislation actually makes no reference to presumptive coverage for cancers for firefighters. That is in the regulations. Let’s see the regulations, let’s talk about the regulations, and then we can discuss further.

Absolutely, Speaker, anti-scab legislation would be an important step that this government could take to show that they are actually working for workers. We know that when workers band together to withdraw their labour, that is the only tool that they really have. So scab labour undercuts the ability of workers to obtain their rights, and it undermines the financial security of the workers’ families and the viability of the employer’s firm itself.

I’d like to thank the member for London West for her excellent comments and her analysis of the current plights of working people, whether it’s gig workers or temporary foreign workers, and also the importance of equal pay for equal work. In this government’s legislation, they talk about “scumbag” employers, and in some ways it’s almost as through this government doth protest too much.

I would like to ask the member, is it a scumbag move to block collective bargaining? Is it a scumbag move to waste money in a losing court battle, and is it a scumbag move to engage in a costly appeal and withhold what’s fair for nurses?

This morning we had workers drive all the way from Windsor, from Oshawa, from Toronto coming to Queen’s Park to ask the government to bring forward anti-scab legislation. The reason they’re coming to Queen’s Park is that they see the detrimental impact on scab workers themselves, who tend to be vulnerable employees, vulnerable Ontarians, who get hired to cross picket lines. But they also see the long-term effect on the people who cross the picket line, on their family, on their community, when at the end of the day, it does not help the employer and it does not help the workers to drag this on. Do you think anti-scab legislation would be working for workers?

The member opposite just made reference to symbolism and symbolic references in the bill and that this doesn’t go far enough. I would ask her—there’s a very, I think, important schedule of this bill that refers to cancer coverage for firefighters. This is something that other jurisdictions do. It’s something that Ontario was lagging behind in. I’m just wondering if she agrees with the Canadian Cancer Society and with the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs that this is a very, very good piece of this bill, and if she’ll be supporting it.

I’m very proud of the track record of the NDP in fighting for presumptive coverage to those kinds of cancers for firefighters. I know that the former leader of the official opposition, Andrea Horwath, had brought in a private member’s bill—I believe it was her first private member’s bill, shortly after she was elected to this place—to make that presumptive coverage available to firefighters. A former member for Parkdale–High Park, Cheri DiNovo, also brought in private member’s legislation to ensure that there was WSIB coverage for PTSD for first responders.

So, yes, of course, we would support those measures. We have supported them always in the past. We have pushed the government to bring in those kinds of changes.

I’d like to rephrase my question to the member opposite. I would be interested to know whether or not she would support regulation changes that are going to be contained within this bill that will help firefighters—and I think the provision is backdated till 1960, if I’m not mistaken—whether she would support that, whether she would support the Canadian Cancer Society and whether she would support the Ontario chiefs of police in calling for that. Hopefully, maybe this time we’ll get an answer.

Further questions?

Further debate?

I’m grateful to the member from London West and for all of the perspectives that she brings to the Legislature, particularly on paid sick days and the importance of having 10 paid sick days. Maybe she wants to just, in the quick 30 seconds, touch a little bit further on the importance of that for people who are still facing COVID?

It’s my pleasure to rise to speak on Bill 79. Yesterday, as some who are currently in this place will know, I spoke in this House about our government’s comprehensive plan to build a strong Ontario for generations to come. Today, I’m pleased to be able to rise to speak on Bill 79—Working for Workers 3—that reemphasizes some of the pledges we outlined in our budget as well.

Let’s talk a little bit about what it means to work for workers, something this Premier and our Progressive Conservative Party are focused on day in and day out. Unfortunately, for too long under the previous Liberal government, backed by the NDP, the workers of Ontario were forgotten and neglected and left behind. We saw under that government a deliberate policy to deindustrialize our province, sacrificing good, high-paying jobs in every corner of our province.

However, since 2018, because of this government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, Ontario has attracted historic investments in the auto manufacturing sector, with a particular emphasis on electric vehicle production. Obviously, earlier this month, we heard the great news that Volkswagen announced that St. Thomas, Ontario, is the new location for their first overseas battery cell plant, demonstrating a massive level of confidence in our province and this government.

It wasn’t too long ago that the previous Liberal government drove manufacturing jobs out of Ontario, hurting ridings such as mine. The truth is, Speaker, it was everybody’s business—jobs that were driven out of the province—to ensure that we need to build a strong Ontario, to come back from those dark days. That’s why, through this bill, our government is taking real action to protect the jobs we’ve so carefully been able to attract back to our communities in Ontario, to make sure we have a plan to build a reliable and supported skilled trades workforce that’s so important to the growth and prosperity of our province.

Speaker, we’ve brought back jobs. In fact, we have more jobs than we have people who are able to fill them. Ontario employers continue to face historic labour shortages with nearly 300,000 jobs going unfilled in December 2022. Speaker, in my own riding of Perth–Wellington, we have the claim to fame of having one of the lowest unemployment rates—I believe the last numbers from Statistics Canada—second-lowest in the province. I know we’re looking for workers and inviting new Canadians to come to our communities to help us fill those available jobs.

In this bill, our government outlines our plan for training and attracting the workers we need in the skilled trades to help us build Ontario. For far too long, under previous governments, this was neglected and there was a negative stigma that surrounded these important careers. We in this government are giving the credits and showing the strength that these careers provide individuals. Our government is investing a historic $1.5 billion over four years into the skilled trades, supporting people of all ages but especially young people to pursue meaningful careers in the trades.

Our government is also preparing young people for in-demand and well-paying careers by allowing students in grade 11 to transition to a full-time skilled trades apprenticeship program, and upon receiving their certificate of apprenticeship, these young workers can apply for their Ontario secondary school diploma as a mature student.

Speaker, these initiatives, such as the ones I’ve highlighted so far, are so important in removing the stigma around the skilled trades in a way that truly demonstrates just how financially rewarding and fulfilling these jobs can be, as we look towards building a strong Ontario together. I can tell you personally, as someone who obviously comes from a rural riding in Ontario, that people in the communities that I represent are looking forward to welcoming new Canadians, new businesses and new jobs that our government is working so hard to bring back to Ontario.

Having said that, Speaker, I hear it day in and day out. When I speak to constituents, stakeholders and industry leaders, communities in rural Ontario are desperate for more workers and to keep the pace of growth as we look to ensure a brighter future for generations to come. That means boosting protections and enhancing work environments. To that end, this bill, if passed, will require basic information to be provided to new employees by their employer, including their work location, salary or wage, and the hours of work. This provision will be an important part of our commitment to eliminating underground hiring practices that some employers and bad actors in our province have taken advantage of.

Also relating to employees, under the proposed changes, employees who work remotely, which has become such a staple in our society, would be eligible for the same enhanced notices as in-office employees. For situations of mass terminations—I actually know individuals who worked at Twitter who have recently gone through that unfortunate experience with Twitter—I know these changes will help Ontario workers who remotely work receive the same eight-week minimum notice of termination, pay in lieu and preventing companies from taking advantage of them.

Our government is taking important steps to attract and train more workers to help fulfill our plan to build a strong Ontario, but at the same time we have also taken the necessary steps to ensure that workers will be well served by the jobs and industries they will work in, free from discrimination, manipulation or any other form of mistreatment.

Speaker, part of the reason a career in the skilled trades can be so fulfilling is the hands-on nature of the job that allows someone to see their work progress from start to finish. Part of the commitment means ensuring a safe and clean and comfortable working environment.

As many of us know in this place and have seen on social media, the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, Minister McNaughton, recently engaged in a social media campaign, letting a variety of construction workers and other skilled tradespeople raise awareness of their experience with washrooms on work sites. Needless to say, Speaker, we can do better to ensure a safe and comfortable working environment for these workers, and that represents a central focal point of this proposed legislation.

Our government is proposing amendments—again, if passed—to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that would clarify and enhance existing regulations around hygiene on the work site. Speaker, these changes would ensure workers have the convenient and comfortable access to clean washrooms on the work site that meet their needs.

In the coming years, we’ll be relying more and more on skilled tradespeople to meet the demands in our communities across Ontario. By 2026, it’s estimated that one in five jobs will be in the skilled trades in Ontario. And it’s across Canada we are experiencing these demands, so Ontario needs to be prepared to attract these workers. It’s important that our government supports these workers in whatever ways possible to ensure that they can work in comfortable and safe environments.

More than just that, Speaker: Currently one in 10 construction workers in Ontario are women, and as our government looks to support getting more women into the skilled trades to well-paying, rewarding careers, we need to make job sites safe and welcoming. To that end, Ontario is proposing to require women’s-only washrooms on construction sites that are fully enclosed, well-lit and adequately supplied with hand sanitizer and cleaning supplies. These initiatives directly reflect our government’s message that when women succeed, Ontario succeeds.

In the next few years, our province will be welcoming hundreds of thousands of new immigrants into our communities who will be going to work for our local employers and will start their own businesses potentially, eventually, in Ontario. We’re strengthening the protections for temporary foreign workers by establishing the highest maximum fines in Canada—in Canada, Speaker—for employers and people who are convicted of possessing or retaining a foreign national’s passport or work permit. They will grow into the beautiful fabric that makes Ontario as diverse and successful as it is.

But before we get there, we need to take proactive steps, exactly like the ones outlined in this bill, that help ensure we create a supportive working environment for everyone—women, new Ontarians to our province—to make sure that we are ready and prepared to accommodate the next generation of Ontarians in each and every community across the province of Ontario.

Speaker, the Premier often says that when you have a job in the trades, you have a job for life. Working for workers means that we are making that job as rewarding and fulfilling and comfortable as possible. Through this bill, Speaker, we are doing just that, and we will continue to work for workers on this side of the House and in the middle over there.

Thank you to my colleague across the way for the question. As the minister mentioned earlier today, our government always favours getting an agreement at the negotiating table. I know those negotiations are ongoing.

Speaker, that includes workers across all sectors, that includes our educational workers, that includes our teachers remaining at the table to get an agreement, which is what our government always is focused on. We’ll continue to work with workers to ensure that they have safe working environments and they are supported.

I’ve talked to foreign-trained engineers, for example, and manufacturers and small businesses. They’re very supportive of these changes—many of those employers are very supportive of them as well—to get new Canadians, new Ontarians, into the workforce, helping meet some of the growing demand that I have in my riding—as well as the member from Brampton—and ensuring that those with the skills can enter the workforce as soon as possible, obviously meeting all the requirements there but working with our regulated professions. I know many are supportive of this as well, because they know we have a growing need. As I mentioned in my remarks, one in five jobs by 2026 will be in the skilled trades, so unless we all start having many children—I would be guilty of that—we will need immigration, obviously, to help meet that demand.

During COVID, yes, as the member highlighted, there were some bad actors in Ontario, and I know the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour worked together to rectify those issues and support those temporary foreign workers.

I actually have a few temporary foreign workers in my riding as well. I’ve met with them. Those employers are very supportive of them and welcome even more coming to our riding, working in agriculture, working in manufacturing. So I know that we’ll continue to ensure that all occupational health standards, as I alluded to in my speech, are observed and we will continue to ensure there are sanitary work environments and safe working environments for all Ontarians, no matter how long they’ve been in this province.

Earlier today, workers from Windsor, workers from Oshawa, workers from Toronto came to Queen’s Park. They came to Queen’s Park because they are part of this very small percentage, about 2% of collective agreements, that do not get negotiated but end up in a strike or lockout.

Unfortunately, their employers decided to hire replacement workers, scab workers. Most of those replacement workers don’t speak English or French. They are new arrivals to Ontario. They don’t know the labour law, but they will pay for the consequences of that work for the rest of their lives.

Does the member think that it would be working for workers to enact anti-replacement workers legislation in Ontario, like they do in British Columbia and Quebec?

I’m pleased to see that there will be fines there for people who take away people’s passports and so on, but it does worry me, about enforcement. I also worry that perhaps people from the other side haven’t actually visited many of these places where foreign workers are employed. The living situations are often very crowded, unsanitary, and we know that COVID broke out in those places and that workers died, and yet OHIP is being denied to those workers. They also pay into WSIB, and they’re not eligible to collect.

What I would like to know is, what will be there in terms of health care for these workers from this government?

In my riding of Essex, we have a huge demand for skilled labour, a huge demand for people with skills. We have so much demand we can’t keep up with it. We’re hoping to bring more people in. These people sometimes come to the riding of Essex and they have qualifications, but they’re not Canadian qualifications. Under the old rules, if they didn’t have Canadian qualifications, they couldn’t work in the skill for which they were qualified. Now, under this proposed legislation, we’re proposing to change those rules and recognize qualifications that were obtained outside of Canada.

So my question to my colleague is—I know this is going to help enormously in my riding of Essex. Is it going to help him in his riding?

I want to thank the member from Perth–Wellington for his comments on this important piece of legislation. I was also very interested to hear his comments about his riding having some of the lowest unemployment rates across the province.

In follow-up on the comments of our other colleague from Brampton about the low unemployment, high job surplus that we have in Ontario, I’d be interested to hear his comments on how recognizing foreign credentials can benefit those who may wish to come to Ontario, both in the skilled trades and the regulated professions.

It’s time for questions and answers.

I see this bill as tinkering around the edges but really leaving workers extremely vulnerable in many, many respects. First of all, Bill 124—we know that it is repressing wages, that it is harming workers, that it has resulted in the crisis in our health care system. I can tell you, for example, about Steve, who works at the Thunder Bay regional hospital. His coordinator received a 6% raise on his $106,000 pay. Steve, who’s an electrician, takes home $51,000 and, of course, his wage has been capped at 1% for the last five years.

At this point, there are only two electricians left because they’ve all left for better pay and working conditions outside the public service. When he started work, 15 people in trades were working in the hospital: electrical, painters, building operators and maintenance. These days, at most, there will be five permanent employees and they are vastly outnumbered by private contractors.

There are 18 new beds added to the hospital—great, new beds, but no people to look after the people in the beds—which adds to the workload. Contractor labourers are earning $20 more an hour than Steve as a permanent skilled trades employee.

Now, it seems to be very clear that the position this government has taken on workers, governed by Bill 124, is a deliberate attempt to break the health care system, to break education, in order to privatize. I see this bill doing nothing to help those workers to remediate those situations.

There are other workers also affected by this. For example, corrections. Well, things are not good for workers in corrections. It’s interesting to me, though, because the majority of workers are in female-dominated professions and they’re not being well treated and they’re not being respected. But there are also male workers who are not being respected, including the electricians like Steve. People in corrections, well, they’ve been experiencing wage repression for five years—no right to bargain collectively.

And then there are the conservation officers. Conservation officers protect us and they protect our wilderness. It’s interesting to me because the conservation officers will be the first people to discover whether glyphosate, for example, is being sprayed illegally in our forests. But the conservation officers have actually been misclassified for many years, so not only are they suffering under Bill 124, they have a lower classification, and the skills and responsibilities that they have are not acknowledged.

Now, I worry a great deal—you know, I find it interesting; I’m excited. I was at the Fleming College display yesterday and I thought, “Wow, I’d love to go back to school. This looks really interesting. Some very interesting things are going on.” But I really worry very deeply about young people who may be in grade 10 or 11 being moved quickly into trades when young people on their first jobs are the most likely to experience a serious injury. I know this has happened in my own family. My niece’s partner and his father went to their very first job roofing. They were electrocuted; her partner died. They had a young baby. That’s changed her life forever.

When people are young, they think that they’re invincible. They haven’t got a concept of their own mortality, so that worries me. I truly hope that health and safety will be front of mind for everyone training those young workers, but what I also know is that WSIB has changed enormously from when it was first created 100 ago—by the way, it was a Conservative member who created that, William Meredith—and it does not do what it was intended to do.

Let me give you some stories—also young people. Eugene was a young worker: fit, on top of the world. He had a serious accident in forestry. He’s been in pain ever since, so that’s another 30 or 40 years that he’s been suffering in pain, and he’s been fighting the WSIB ever since.

Then there’s Janet who had something fall on her at work and then was later assaulted at work. Well, her back is so sore she hasn’t been able to engage in anything with her own family for many, many years. WSIB, where are they? She’s still fighting for compensation.

Did you know that WSIB shortchanged all workers who are receiving some level of compensation by cutting their cost-of-living allowance in half? Now they have to go to court to fight the WSIB to get what they are legally entitled to. It’s not fair. They’re not doing what they need to be doing.

Then there’s Jim who worked at the Weyerhaeuser mill in Dryden. This was years ago. Many of those workers were poisoned because the owners of the mill made a decision to not install a particular smokestack cleaner thing—I couldn’t tell you exactly what it is. But what I do know is many, many of those workers were poisoned, and the outcome has been neurological problems as well as breathing problems.

Now, that was in 2002—between 2002 and 2004. We are now in 2023. The WSIB still refuses to recognize these workplace injuries that have changed their lives utterly. The strategy that I see is that they wait and wait and wait until most of the workers have died off, and then they don’t have to pay out so much. That’s exactly what happened with the people who used McIntyre Powder. We had a very important memorial acknowledgement and apology to those workers and their families, and it was the same story there: Many, many of those people had already died by the time that apology came.

I fear that it’s going to be the same story, because I know there are clusters of industrial disease all over the province that are being denied right now. And while they are denied, workers have no income. What do they do? They apply for ODSP. Well, we know how much ODSP is: 1,200 bucks, what is it, a month? It’s around that, yes. We know it’s not enough to live on.

Imagine that you’ve been a full-time skilled worker, you’ve got good pay, you have a mortgage, you felt secure enough to have a family, and then you’re poisoned by your work. You can’t work anymore. Okay, there’s no money for you. WSIB is going to fight you year after year after year, and you’re going to have to apply for ODSP. Okay, now you’ve got $1,200 a month or so.