I am pleased to rise to continue the debate on Bill 79, Working for Workers 3 from this government. When I was last speaking to this bill, I was giving some examples of the pervasiveness of wage theft in the province of Ontario, which is something that this government could have taken action on, this bill would have been an opportunity to take action on, but they have not. I use the example of wage theft as a case study of how increasing fines for violations of labour laws will do nothing unless there are those strong, proactive inspections in place, unless there is strong, proactive enforcement in place and unless this government closes the loopholes that we see far too often in our labour legislation that have allowed employers to get away with wage theft for so many years.

One of the tools that this government could have used to deal with the issue of wage theft is, of course, around worker misclassification. That is how so many workers do not get the wages and benefits that are owed to them under the Employment Standards Act, because their employer illegally classifies them as an independent contractor rather than an employee who has full rights and entitlements under the Employment Standards Act. That is particularly the case for the farm workers, the migrant temporary foreign workers that the first schedule of this government’s bill is supposed to protect, because those temporary foreign workers are completely exempt from the Employment Standards Act. So it is one thing for this government to say they’re cracking down on scumbag employers, but it is quite another thing to actually protect the temporary foreign workers who are at greatest risk of being taken advantage of and being exploited by unethical employers.

We know that the number of inspections that the Ministry of Labour has conducted dropped significantly; there were 3,500 in 2017 and just over 200 in 2022. So while we welcome the increase in fines, we’re waiting to see other changes that the ministry has to make in order to actually help protect migrant workers.

It’s interesting that since we were last debating this legislation, the government introduced a new measure that is significantly going to harm migrant workers, and that is to remove OHIP coverage for uninsured people. Certainly, we know that migrant workers are among the largest group of uninsured people in this province who do not have access to OHIP, and we have heard the OMA, we have heard doctors in Ontario describe this government decision to remove that OHIP coverage as inhumane, as despicable, as barbaric—as all kinds of words that have been hurled at this government for the action that it is taking that is going to directly and significantly harm migrant workers.

The other thing that we saw since this bill was last debated in the Legislature was the introduction of the budget that put in black and white, in print form, the government’s decision to eliminate paid sick days. That is a benefit that would significantly help temporary foreign workers, migrant workers—workers in this province who need access to paid sick days so that they can stay home if they are sick, which is the number one lesson that we should have learned from this pandemic: how important it is to enable workers to stay home if they are sick so they don’t have to go to crowded workplaces while they are ill, compromise their own ability to recover from illness and also risk spreading infection to co-workers and customers.

This government was shamed into finally implementing an inadequate paid sick day scheme. It took some time to get them there. The scheme was flawed, but at least it was something to help workers be able to stay home if they are sick. Some 60% of workers in this province do not have access to paid sick days, and that number goes up to 75%, 80%, 90% in some sectors, for some of the most vulnerable workers in this province: racialized workers in this province; workers who are at greatest risk of contracting illness in the workplace, who work in crowded warehouses or other places where they are at risk of either bringing illness into the workplace and infecting others or getting infected.

We heard during the pandemic—no one will forget that study from Peel Public Health at the very beginning of the pandemic where one in four workers admitted that they went to work sick because they didn’t have a choice, not because, of course, they wanted to put their co-workers at risk, but because they didn’t want to put their family at risk by not being able to pay the rent at the end of the month, not being able to buy the groceries. So that is the kind of legislation that would show that this government really is working for workers.

The final piece that I want to highlight is around Bill 124. We have heard for months—actually, since that legislation was introduced back in 2019, we have heard calls, strong calls, from health care workers across the province to drop that bill because it is an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of workers to bargain collectively with the government.

At a time when inflation has been as high as 12%, capping wage increases at 1% is nothing but a wage cut, and a significant wage cut, when we need health care workers more than ever. Health care workers are leaving the province in droves because of Bill 124. We know that from the data that’s collected on our health human resources workforce. We know that from—in London, when I go to speak to the London Health Sciences Centre or St. Joseph’s hospital about the health care worker shortage that they’re having, Bill 124 has a direct impact on that.

Dropping the appeal of the court decision that Bill 124 was unconstitutional would go a long way to working for workers in this province. But this government decided not to do that; instead, they have brought forward a package of measures that will make a little bit of a difference, a symbolic difference. The increased fine on employers who withhold passports will make a difference. But if this government really wanted to work for workers, there’s a lot more they could be doing.

Building Ontario.

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?

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.

It’s now time for questions.

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.