I have a very apropos petition to present today, entitled “Health Care is Not for Sale.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontarians get health care based on their needs, not their ability to pay;

“Whereas the Ford government wants to privatize our health care system;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals and will download costs to patients;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124 to help recruit, retain, return and respect health care workers with better pay and better working conditions;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated nurses and other health care professionals already in Ontario; and

“—funding and fully utilizing public operating rooms.”

I fully support this petition, affix my signature, and will send it to the table with page Sofia.

Mr. Piccini moved third 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.

This petition is “Pass Anti-Scab Labour Legislation.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the use of replacement workers undermines workers’ collective power, unnecessarily prolongs labour disputes, and removes the essential power that the withdrawal of labour is supposed to give workers to help end a dispute, that is, the ability to apply economic pressure;

“Whereas the use of scab labour contributes to higher-conflict picket lines, jeopardizes workplace safety, destabilizes normalized labour relations between workers and their employers and removes the employer incentive to negotiate and settle fair contracts; and

“Whereas strong and fair anti-scab legislation will help lead to shorter labour disputes, safer workplaces, and less hostile picket lines;

“Whereas similar legislation has been introduced in British Columbia and Quebec with no increases to the number of strike or lockout days;

“Whereas Ontario had anti-scab legislation under an NDP government, that was unfortunately ripped away from workers by the Harris Conservatives;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To prohibit employers from using replacement labour for the duration of any legal strike or lockout, except for very limited use to undertake essential maintenance work to protect the safety and integrity of the workplace;

“To prohibit employers from using both external and internal replacement workers;

“To include significant financial penalties for employers who defy the anti-scab legislation; and

“To support Ontario’s workers and pass anti-scab labour legislation, like the Ontario NDP Bill 90, the Anti-Scab Labour Act, 2023.”

I absolutely agree with this and am signing it and thinking of every ACTRA member in Toronto–St. Paul’s.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the” Conservative “government cancelled rent control on units built after November 2018;

“Whereas the cost to rent a home has never been higher;

“Whereas people are being forced to leave their communities because decent, affordable homes are increasingly out of reach;

“Whereas the rent control for all units act, 2022, will ensure tenants are not gouged on rent each year;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to protect tenants from predatory rent increases and pass the NDP rent control for all units act today to ensure renters can live in safe and affordable homes.”

I couldn’t agree more with this, especially as tenants in St. Paul’s are hit by apartments with no rent controls.

I’m happy to rise to address third reading of Bill 79, the Working for Workers Act, 2023. Before I begin, I would like to let you know, Speaker, that I will divide my time with parliamentary assistants the member for Mississauga–Malton and the member for Scarborough Centre.

I would like to start by saying that this is the first day on the job as minister in this portfolio. I would like to first just start by thanking the incredible team at MECP, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Both on the department side and on the ministry side, they’ve done a phenomenal job. It’s been an honour working with each and every one of them. I’ll miss them greatly. But Speaker, I’m very excited to start in this new role, and I’d like to especially thank everybody at the department and on staff who have been working very hard on Bill 79.

I’d also like to say a special thank you to my predecessor, former minister Monte McNaughton. I think it goes without saying he’s been a remarkable champion for workers in the province of Ontario—someone who understands that to build the highways, roads and bridges we need, to build the homes that we need, the skyscrapers downtown that are going to house thousands of new people looking for the dream of home or apartment ownership, it’s going to require workers and a robust labour force. It’s going to require working with the federal government to increase immigration targets, all of which he has done. I would like to say a special thank you. I wish you all the best, Monte, in your exciting next chapter. And also a profound thank you to Premier Ford for entrusting this important file to me.

Under the leadership of Premier Ford, our government is taking unprecedented action to move and improve the lives of workers and make Ontario the best place to live, work and raise a family. I’m glad to have this opportunity to tell you about this exciting bill, helping workers find better jobs and bigger paycheques and addressing the historic labour shortages many businesses in our province face. You don’t need to look very far. In my own community, go into Jebco, go to Mirmil, go to any of the employers—Horizon Plastics, Sabic, Protoplast—they’re all looking for workers. This is something we see across Ontario; this isn’t unique to me. We had the mayor of Windsor down—historic investments thanks to this government, this Premier. We’re going to need workers, Speaker.

And isn’t it a nice thing to see, from under the previous Liberal government, where jobs were fleeing and where businesses were shutting down and people were getting pink slips, to today. The signs that I see—more than even signs that I had up during the election: “Help wanted,” “Help wanted,” “Help wanted” everywhere, because Ontario is booming again and because we’re building things in this great province.

We’re protecting vulnerable workers, Speaker, standing up for those who protect us and bringing new transparency when workers start a new job or have the unfortunate experience of being part of mass terminations. With Bill 79, our third Working for Workers bill, we’re building on the strong success of our previous acts that this House passed in 2021 and 2022.

This is an important piece that hits home for me, as the grandson of a man in the fisheries in Newfoundland and someone who came to this country from Italy to build and to work for a union at Stelco. This hits close to home. I’ll speak a little more about the latter on my dad’s side—proud Hamiltonians who worked in a steel factory at Stelco. My dad worked in a steel factory at Stelco to help pay his way. He went to university—the first on that side of the family—and became an architect. I think to my aunt, I think to so many who have been working through union shops—Christmas parties, the important role that that played in my upbringing and in so many. And it’s not unique to just there; then we have the other side of that side of the family that worked at Dofasco, a non-union shop as well.

What do both have in common? Men and women getting up each day, working hard on the front lines. In this case, it was for steel, but it’s not just ubiquitous to steel; it’s regardless. I think to my own community: men and women who are working in the forestry sector, who are working in injection moulding, who are working on the front lines at Mirmil, for example, to build the custom woodwork that we see at Harvard or at the new Miami Dolphins stadium, done right in my own community. I’m very proud of that, and I’m proud because we’re making things again in this province. I’m proud that we’re a leader in electric vehicles. And behind all of that are stories of men and women who are working hard on the front lines to provide for their families.

I had a great conversation this morning when I visited one of the LIUNA local sites, 183. I spoke to Jack Oliveira. He said, “Dave, I just want to leave behind a better place than I inherited.” I think that was what my grandfathers said. That’s what my parents have said to me. Jack’s wise words are what so many of us aspire to do—leave behind a better place. I think everybody in this place has the same goals: leave behind a better place than what we inherited. And that’s what we’re trying to do, at this ministry, for workers of this great province.

We followed this act and measures that we’ve taken in the past, with Working for Workers acts that predate the one that I’m speaking to today—amendments to make Ontario the first province in Canada to have requirements regarding a minimum wage and other foundational rights for digital platform workers who provide ride-sharing, delivery or courier services. This was monumental in the service sector. And no, I’m not referring to solely the service industry that the former Premier wanted to drive Ontario to become—they were, of course, famous for saying that as they drove manufacturing jobs out of this province. But we recognize that there is a digital-disruption reality that we’re seeing today, and it’s this government, this Premier and this ministry that said we’re going to protect those workers—rights like minimum wage, the right to regular pay periods, the right to keep tips, and the right to resolve worker-related disputes right here in Ontario. These changes will go a long way to levelling the playing field and helping workers who rely—to get around or bring food to our doors.

Building on our mission to help people from other countries start their careers and build new lives, as my family did here, we took steps to make it easier for people from other provinces to do the same. Now skilled workers from other Canadian provinces and territories who apply to work in a regulated profession or trade must receive a registration decision within 30 business days from those bodies. This is an important part of how we’re taking a customer service approach for workers who want to come to our province and help build Ontario.

We also took action to reduce overdose deaths by requiring employers to provide life-saving naloxone kits in workplaces where there’s a risk of overdose. This was a first in North America. The ministry launched a temporary program to provide free training for up to two workers and one free nasal spray naloxone kit per workplace. Our ministry and I, as minister, make this clear: We want these life-saving tools in every Ontario workplace.

We enhanced worker health and safety by increasing maximum fines to the highest level in Canada for directors and officers of companies who fail to provide a safe working environment for their employees.

And as more people work from their kitchen, living room or bedroom, Ontario became the first province to protect workers’ privacy by requiring employers to dis-close electronic monitoring of their employees happening on their laptops, phones or other company equipment. Workers deserve to know if, how and why their employers are monitoring them through their devices—which brings me to Working for Workers Act, 2023.

Speaker, our proposed Working for Workers Act, 2023, is offering first-in-Canada action. We’re presenting a way forward to attract, keep and prepare people to thrive in the future of work and power economic growth for all Ontario. We are working—government, business and labour—to make that happen. We have listened to the working people of this province and set a course for real progress. It’s an effort that will require all hands on deck as we aim to tackle the historic labour shortages that threatened to hold back our economy—and we cannot let it hold back our economy. We have too much happening right now—the $30 billion just in the automotive sector alone. We can’t hold back the progress that we’ve made. We have to get shovels in the ground. We have to ensure that these industries that are thriving in Ontario have the workforce, the backbone, to ensure that it gets done.

Our government has an ambitious plan to build the homes, schools, hospitals, transit and other infrastructure families and businesses need. But every day, Madam Speaker, we know there are 300,000 jobs going unfilled in the province of Ontario. That one job that gave a shot to my grandpa; that one job that ensured he was able to provide for my father to go to university; for me, that one job, for example, that my mom got in the education sector—these are jobs that we have to ensure are filled. That’s 300,000 paycheques not being collected. That’s 300,000 lost opportunities—the likes of which was the story of my family and so many in this place, regardless of political stripe. Those are lost opportunities that this Premier, this government will not sit on the sidelines and allow to happen.

That’s why we’re working so hard to ensure we’re the most competitive place in which to start a business, to grow the manufacturing sector, to start a meaningful career in the skilled trades.

You saw that we had a delegation from Arizona here. It’s this Premier who understands that we’re not competing against Prince Edward Island—with the greatest of respect to our friends in PEI—but we’re competing on a world stage. We’re competing against states south of the border, we’re competing against Mexico, we’re competing against Europe to attract talent, to build things, to ensure that we’re a leader in electric vehicles, that we’re not just giving rebates to the most affluent to buy EVs mined using critical minerals from a forgotten land, mined using practices that are questionable at best, but that we’re willing to have the struggle, the discussion to ensure equity in the north for First Nation partners, to ensure that we’re mining those minerals in a responsible manner right here, that we’re using clean steel, for example, at Dofasco. I spoke to Ron over the weekend about the incredible work and—if you check today in the news, they talk about the first contract that GM, using clean steel to support our EV—the incredible might that is Ontario today. All of these exciting things require a workforce.

Speaker, Ontario’s ability to select economic immigrants has been proportionally smaller than any other province. The Premier says, and we all know, that we have hundreds of thousands of people who choose Ontario, and I’m sick and tired—for the first time ever in my life, I’ve seen stories of immigrants who are going back home to the country they came from because the opportunity, the ability to own a home here is too out of sight. That is absolutely shameful. We have jobs that need to go to filled, and we call on the federal government to recognize that Ontario is not at par with all other provinces. We recognize that the majority of new Canadians choose this great province, and we deserve the respect and the treatment, as a result, from the federal government.

When Ontario can nominate skilled immigrants for permanent residents who best meet the needs of our communities, everybody wins. If you talk to Mayor Chow, she’ll tell you that. If you talk to Mayor Cleveland and Mayor Logel, who is in my community—they’ll all tell you the same thing.

That’s why, when the Premier worked for months with our federal counterparts to land a better deal for Ontario when it comes to immigration—and I’m proud to say we got that done. It’s this Premier, this government that got that done; this government that recognizes Ontario is a leader in this federation and we deserve that sort of deal.

The feds answered our calls to double our annual allocation for the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program to 18,000 by 2025—and a big shout-out to the team at labour, immigration, training and skills development for working so hard to land that deal, because it has taken months. Speaker, 10 days later that same team announced an additional $25-million investment to the program, and I’m so excited to hear that. This funding is necessary to speed up processing and ensure those coming to Ontario can start working in their professions quicker than ever before. This will help ensure we have the talented newcomers and innovative entrepreneurs Ontario needs to grow and prosper. The Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program allows our province to nominate individuals for permanent residency who have the skills and experience to contribute to Ontario’s economy and industry, like in the skilled trades and health care.

I was down at a LIUNA site this morning—one of their high-rises—and I spoke, and I heard the stories of men and women who have been with their work permits, having to reapply over and over and over again, who can’t get permanent residency because of these sorts of barriers.

Well, this Premier says that just sitting back and pointing a finger to the federal government isn’t enough. We’ve got to roll up our sleeves and fix the bloody problem, and we’re going to do that. And I thank Jason for that conversation, and I thank the team at 183. This is so, so important to our economic competitiveness. But it doesn’t just stop there. It starts with building more friendly training sites, more friendly job sites. And that’s what we’ve done as a government.

Another group of workers we’re stepping up for is construction workers and women in the skilled trades. There are more than 600,000 of these everyday heroes who build our province, but in the next decade we’ll need at least 100,000 new workers in construction due to retirements and job growth. As I’ve said, we need to get those boots on the ground as quickly as possible to deliver the infrastructure projects Ontario businesses and families need—and that includes that promise to build 1.5 million homes by 2031. Yet the conditions our construction workers face are a world away from white collar workers. They work outdoors, often far away from the many things we take for granted in our workplaces. This sounds glib, but what was one of the first things I saw when I got to the new ministry this morning? “Where’s the washroom?” I know people can roll their eyes and laugh, but in all seriousness, that was one of the first things I looked for. On job sites today, those are far too far away. I see members looking at each other, in the opposition. But literally for that woman in the skilled trades, sometimes it’s 180 yards away, and that’s not good enough. We recognize that, and I would call on them to join us in recognizing that that’s not good enough for a woman in construction today. It sounds bizarre, but that is an injustice, and we’ve got to fix it.

That’s why our government recently launched the first inspection blitz targeting these dirty washrooms, ensuring that there are washrooms there for women, ensuring that they’re lit, ensuring that they’re clean. That’s so important, to ensure that people have access to the simple necessities far too many of us take for granted, to ensure that we get the homes built, the buildings built that we need. Since then, our health and safety inspectors have visited over 3,200 job sites and found over 490 violations, but we’re working together to ensure that that’s down to zero. Furthermore, we doubled the number of washrooms, as I said, on job sites and required larger sites to have at least one women-only washroom.

All too often, we’ve heard from women that these are one of the reasons they don’t want to work in the trades. Nobody should have to leave their workplace to find a decent washroom, and it’s just as simple as that. It’s more than the right thing to do; it’s necessary to keep our workers safe.

Careers in the construction sector, we know, offer six-figure salaries with pensions and benefits, and it’s an injustice that as little as 5% of them are filled by women. That’s why we’re working as government to ensure we increase opportunities for racialized Ontarians, opportunities for Indigenous Ontarians, opportunities for women in the skilled trades. It’s an exciting challenge. But as I visit many partners like Hiawatha First Nation in the community that I have the honour of representing, and working in partnership with Hiawatha—when we see the fastest-growing youth population, this presents not only a challenge, but an opportunity for Ontario, and the Premier understands that and our government understands that.

Moving to remote workers and transparency: We know that the world of work has changed. Technology and Internet mean employment is no longer always dominated just by geography. With the click of a button or the opening of a computer, we can connect often to job sites that are hundreds of kilometres away. In the fourth quarter of 2022, 2.2 million workers here in Ontario were working at least partially from home, including 1.4 million full-time Ontarians. While these remote workers didn’t have a desk in the office, their contributions to their employers and our economy are no less valuable. Speaker, our government is working for these workers by bringing forward updates to employment laws that respond to the evolving workplace and changing economy. Under our proposed changes, employees who work remotely would be eligible for the same advance notice as in-office employees in any godforsaken termination. This would ensure that remote employees receive the same eight-week minimum notice of termination or pay in lieu, preventing companies from taking advantage of them and loopholes in the way work has evolved. Thankfully, our economy is booming, and we hope we never see these types of things, but we know from time to time it does happen.

The future of work is here, and our government will continue to lead the country in ensuring workers have the protections they need to find better jobs, earn bigger paycheques in the 21st-century economy.

And we’re not stopping there. Our legislation would also require employers to provide basic employment information before a new worker starts their first shift. Standardization holds both the employers and employees accountable. This would detail things like pay, work location and hours of work, things every worker should know before they start a new job, to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of workers, because when we rebalance the scales for workers, everyone wins.

Speaker, I’ll now move on to the heroes, the men and women in uniform, military reservists. Our government will always stand up for the brave men and women in uniform. When our heroes are overseas or in training, being the heroes that they are, they shouldn’t have to worry. Thousands of people in Ontario are active reservists in the Canadian Armed Forces. I think to Kennedy, who used to work in the environment office with me and so many more like him and many more friends I have in Northumberland–Peterborough South. They put their full-time careers on hold to join important military missions at home and abroad. They step up to provide support during search-and-rescue operations, natural disasters, ice storms, wildfires, conflicts and other major events, and we see more of them with climate change. So it’s so important that we support them.

We know it isn’t easy for military reservists to pack up and leave on a mission, especially if they’re starting a new job. We also know it isn’t always easy for them to immediately return to their job afterward, particularly if they are injured or experience trauma in that mission. That is why we’re proposing a reduction in the length of time workers need to be employed before on-the-job protection kicks in—reservists leave to go serve their countries abroad—down from three months to two months. It’s this government that brought it from six months to three, now three to two. In cases where there’s an emergency at home, we’re proposing there be no length of employment required, which we believe is common sense when responding to emergencies here on Ontario soil, on Canadian soil.

This year, we’ve seen wildfires from coast to coast. We’re grateful for the bravery and hard work of everyone battling to save lives, homes and communities. But it’s more urgent than ever to ensure that when the Canadian Armed Forces need to support these efforts, reservists are able help those efforts immediately, and their jobs are protected; they have a job to go back home to. It’s this government, this Premier that’s saying yes to that.

Speaker, I will now move on to fines for holding passports. This is something that’s foreign to me, and I’m sure to many: Imagine holding an employee’s passport. A key emphasis of our proposed legislation is protecting the most vulnerable workers. As we know, Ontario relies on newcomers to help the labour shortages in our province. Yet despite prohibitions in the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, some businesses continue to take foreign nationals’ passports and work permits. Not every work environment is as loving and as welcoming as many of the farms—I’m from rural Ontario, so I think of Wilmot Orchards. It’s Joseph who puts on the barbecue. He’s from Barbados and is a member of the family. He’s a Rotarian and he’s proudly a member of our community. I think to Algoma Orchards. I think to so many communities that rely on temporary foreign workers and on foreign nationals who come and are members of our community, who are working, quite literally, to put food on our table.

But we’re a big province, and we know that there are bad actors out there and we know that we need to protect the most vulnerable, those who get off a plane and are on the front lines of our workforce, which is why our government is strengthening protections for foreign workers to hold those would abuse them accountable, so they can quickly find our officers knocking at their door, God forbid they do this. With this legislation, we are proposing the highest maximum fines in Canada—I repeat, the highest maximum fines in Canada—for employers and recruiters who are convicted of taking or retaining a foreign national’s passport or work permit. If our proposed amendments are passed, people convicted would be liable for a fine of up to $500,000 for each passport taken and up to 12 months in prison. Corporations would be liable for a fine of up to $1 million.

What we’re saying here is that if you have the bravery to come into Ontario to fill one of the many jobs we need, we’ve got your back. You’re going to be protected. We’re going to ensure that the full force of the law falls on anyone who thinks it’s acceptable to withhold passports. We’re getting serious about that, Speaker, and I’m proud that it’s this government that’s standing up for the most vulnerable, this government that’s protecting them, that’s saying, “If you have the courage,” as my grandfather did, “to go across an ocean to go to a foreign country—perhaps it’s a language that isn’t a language of your own—we’ve got your back, you’re going to be protected and we welcome you, because we need you. We need you in this great province of Ontario.” Anyone who preys on vulnerable members in our community has no place in this society, no place in our Ontario.

Last spring the government raised fines for individuals to a maximum of $500,000 and to a maximum, as I said, of $1.5 million for directors and officers of a corporation. The idea that injuries at workplaces are a cost of doing business is over. That’s ensuring that our workplace health and safety legislation in Canada is among the strongest. So not only on the passport side but also on the workplace safety side as well are we increasing those fines. We will hold lawbreakers accountable. Bad actors will not get away with taking a lax approach to workplace safety. It’s part of our commitment to build a stronger Ontario.

Speaker, I will also, before I turn things over to my incredible colleagues working on the front lines here, touch on extending cancer coverage for firefighters. I’ve got firefighters who live around the corner from me in Port Hope, incredible volunteer firefighters, incredible firefighters who get up each and every day to keep our communities safe. I want to thank them for the work that they do. We’re helping them in this legislation. These brave men and women are there for us in our times of greatest need. As many often say, as we run from the flames, they run into them. They put their lives on the line to save others. They run into those burning buildings while we run from them. We know that we are forever thankful as a province for their courage. In return, we’ve got to be there for them. That’s why in this piece of legislation we’re going to have their backs.

What many might not know is that firefighters die of cancer at a rate of up to four times higher than those in our general population. Every year, 25 to 30 firefighters die of cancer in Ontario. We owe it to firefighters and their families to ensure that they have fast access to benefits for work-related illnesses. That is why we have changed the regulation to make it easier for firefighters, fire investigators and their families to get access to Workplace Safety and Insurance Board compensation. These changes expand presumptive occupational cancer coverage for firefighters and fire investigators to include thyroid and pancreatic cancer. Anyone—and I’ve had this in my own family—who has had to deal with these types of cancers know how devastating that is. We’re saying to firefighters, who are quite literally heroes, “We’ve got your back.”

By presuming these cancers are work-related, firefighters and fire investigators can now get streamlined access to benefits and other critical supports they need and deserve while they focus on one thing and one thing only: their health. These measures were retroactive to January 1, 1960, helping to ensure that those who have these cancers or have had them in the past can get help. I just want to pause there, Speaker: Retroactive to 1960—it’s a big move.

This applies to all firefighters, those who are full- or part-time, and volunteers, as well as firefighters employed by First Nations, band councils and fire investigators. I think of the innovative partnership I’ve seen between Hiawatha and Otonabee-South Monaghan in my own community. We owe it to these firefighters and their families. Once again, it is the right thing to do.

Speaker, I look and I see I only have a minute; I’ve never suffered from a lack of things to say as a politician. This is a good piece of legislation that my colleagues will elaborate on, because I still have more I wanted to talk about, but I’ll close on grade 11 apprentice pathway and just the broader theme of youth, of ending the stigma. When you’ve got a job in the skilled trades, you’ve got a job for life.

I think of the many remarkable young boys and girls when I’m visiting schools. You know what? I’ll just pause and say “new schools,” thanks to this Minister of Education; schools that aren’t being shut down, like they were in rural Ontario by the previous Liberal government. So when I go to these high schools, like Norwood high school, slated on the docket for shutdown by the previous Liberal government—and I’m proud to say that Norwood, which is increasing its population and responding to the Premier’s call to build more homes, has got a high school. The population is booming.

I sometimes get a hard time from my mom; she wants to know when the grandkids are on their way, because we see so many families walking. I see young boys and girls, and it’s so inspiring. Whether you’re new Canadians, whether you’ve lived in our community your whole life, I see families in our community, and they deserve to have a place close to home in which to be educated.

We’re saying to these young boys and girls that when you’ve got a job in the trades, you’ve got a job for life. You’re going to make things in this province. You’re going to build the roads and highways we need, the schools, the hospitals, the long-term-care homes that we need, and we’re working with these municipalities.

I’m truly proud of the work that we’re doing expanding the Ontario Youth Apprenticeship Program. Stay tuned; we’ve got more to come, where we’re going board by board with the incredible Minister of Education to talk about those increases that we’re doing as a government: innovative pathways into the skilled trades; working with labour leaders like the labour leaders I was with this morning, listening to them, saying, “How do we get more men and women?”

I was 60 floors up, looking at the Toronto skyline, literally standing on the floors of soon-to-be apartments for working Ontarians, standing with the men and women. They were about to pour the concrete. It’s exciting, and I saw the sense of fulfillment that many of these workers had in building things a few years later. The biggest frustration, they said, was the permitting process. But I saw—it was just breathtaking: building floor by floor, talking to the workers about what they’re doing.

I’m grateful. I’m grateful for what they do, and I’m saying to them that you’ve got a government that’s listening. You’ve got a government that understands that not everybody needs to go to university. It’s great if you do—we need people there as well—but we recognize that we haven’t done enough in the skilled trades, and we’re going to do more. Stay tuned for Working for Workers 4, and so much more that this great ministry is going to do.

I’m not even a full day in in the Legislature in this new role, but I’m excited. I’m excited to work with our next generation. I’m excited to work with the many incredible men and women who are at this ministry. I’m excited to work with the new incredible political team there, to ensure that we’re responsive to the ever-changing labour needs of this great province, our home, Ontario.

With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague, Speaker. Thank you very much.

Today I’m proud to rise in support for the third reading of Bill 79, the Working for Workers Act, 2023. Madam Speaker, before I start my remarks, I always like to start by thanking God for giving me an opportunity to serve and giving me the health so that I can come and deliver these remarks.

Thanks to the members of the Indigenous community for taking care of this land for thousands of years and allowing us to meet here. Thank you to all the immigrants who came before me and all of us, and thank you for the hard work building our beautiful country.

Thanks to the residents of Mississauga–Malton for giving me an opportunity to serve. I’m here to be your voice.

Finally, before I start my remarks, Madam Speaker, thanks to my immediate family, my extended family and my staff. Thank you for your continuous support and your sacrifice. This is a hard job, but your support and sacrifice always make me serve Ontarians. Thank you, Leo, for helping me out.

Madam Speaker, we’re talking about Bill 79, and I was listening to the new Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development’s passionate remarks. I was looking at the clock and I was thinking he probably could go and finish the full hour, and that probably would not be enough for what we’re doing working for workers. This is no secret: We’ve reached so far. Thanks to our former minister, Monte McNaughton, for all his amazing work. I used to call him the champion for workers. Thank you, Minister, for all your work. You will be dearly missed.

I truly believe that, if passed, Bill 79 will improve the employment experience for workers, strengthen workplace protections and make our labour force more competitive. Under the leadership of Premier Ford, Working for Workers legislation has already helped millions of workers in our province.

While at the same time I’m proud of these accomplishments, there is still a lot more that needs to be done. That is why, in April, we announced further changes that would add to our success by helping to make Ontario the best place to live, work, raise a family and thrive. Talking about some of the things which we’re doing through this bill, Madam Speaker, is we’re increasing corporate fines under OHSA, another way our government is standing up for workers and providing an ongoing commitment to the health and safety of the workers in Ontario.

Madam Speaker, what we’re doing through this, if passed, is amending the Occupational Health and Safety Act to increase the maximum fine for corporations for committing an offence under the act from $1.5 million to $2 million. This would give Ontarians the highest maximum corporate fines under workplace health and safety legislation in Canada. We’re making sure that we are helping our workers to make sure they’re able to serve the Ontarians. For an example, I’ll give you a quote from the former executive director of the London Abused Women’s Centre, Megan Walker:

“The Working for Workers Act, 2023 provides a strong message to those who exploit migrant workers that they will be held accountable for their actions. Combined with the new powers given to ministry officers to levy penalties of $100,000 to $200,000 for each passport or work permit a business or person withholds, the act provides police with stronger tools to take action. The government is giving migrant workers back their human rights, to have control over their own documents including their passports.”

As a human rights advocate, Madam Speaker, I stand in solidarity with this. Simply put, workplace injuries and deaths should not be a cost of doing business.

Another great example, Madam Speaker, is to address the labour shortage. It is important to ensure internationally trained individuals like me, when we come here to Canada, can register in their regulated professions. That is why we have to make sure that everyone choosing Ontario to build a better life can get to work faster by making additional changes to the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act. We need to remove even more barriers that internationally trained professionals face when seeking registration in regulated professions.

I do remember when I came to Canada—and in fact, one of my colleagues, MPP Sheref Sabawy, talked about it in the past as well. When you come to Canada with your family, you have a choice: Either you work towards your professional licence or you feed your family. Most often, we, as immigrants, tend to feed our family because that’s our first priority. While we’re feeding our family, getting licencing is the second priority. By doing this, what we’re doing is actually losing as a community.

Think about the situation: You have a degree, you have the knowledge, but since you don’t have the licence, you cannot fulfill the jobs out there which are going vacant. You cannot deliver the results which are required, and you actually work at the lower salary. In other words, you have less money for your family and you’re producing less for your nation and you’re giving less taxes that can be used to serve the country.

That is why we are making sure that where regulated professions offer alternatives to Canadian work experience requirements, these alternatives do not create new barriers for our newcomers. We’re proposing further changes to ensure that the applications for different licensing and registration are clear. This work builds on past changes, including prohibiting Canadian experience requirements and removing other barriers that foreign-trained professionals face when seeking registration in our regulated professions. Ontario was the first province in Canada to prohibit regulated professionals from requiring Canadian experience as a qualification for registration, except if an exemption is granted by the minister for the purpose of health and safety.

There are many other things, Madam Speaker, in this bill. But, looking at the time, I would say that I’m calling for all in this House to support the Working for Workers Act, 2023. We must build a stronger Ontario that works for everyone. We must take action now to plan for the future and lead by example. I’m confident in the measures we are outlining, the positions we are taking as Ontario to be the frontrunner in charting the way forward as the workplace and the way we work continue to change. Madam Speaker, by giving workers a better deal, we’re not only protecting them, we’re also attracting more workers to Ontario while ensuring that our economy remains stronger in the years to come.

I wish to all our colleagues: Let’s come together, support this bill and let’s join our hands to build a better Ontario.

Further debate?

Today, before I give my remarks to this healthy bill that is before us, I want to welcome each and every member back to the Legislature. It’s a place that we call home away from home, and it’s nice to see all the faces back in the building, back in the assembly and doing great work for the nation of Ontario.

I would like to start by thanking my Mississauga colleague MPP Deepak Anand for—

Interjection.

Speaker, I’m pleased to rise in the House today for the third reading of Bill 79, the Working for Workers Act, 2023. First, I want to congratulate member David Piccini. Am I saying that right?

Interjection: Minister.

Interjection.

It has been a meaningful experience to work with my colleagues to further support and protect workers and their families. As we all know, and as the minister has said before, we need to take our economy working for the future; we need to support all Ontario workers, because an economy that doesn’t work for workers doesn’t work at all. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the Premier for his tremendous leadership and support for this bill and our last two Working for Workers acts. These acts are helping millions of people already, and we will continue moving Ontario forward with this next piece of legislation, if passed.

Speaker, this you’ve heard from the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development about how this bill builds on the success of its predecessor. We have heard how it will help us build a stronger Ontario and leave no one behind. And you’ve heard from the member for Mississauga–Malton, parliamentary assistant, about the many actions we are taking to improve the employee experience, protect vulnerable workers and remove barriers for newcomers.

I’d like to talk now about more ways—through this legislation and changes to regulations—we are going to further protect workers, honour the dignity of our everyday heroes and support the skilled trades to build Ontario.

First, I will speak on employer transparency. For one, Working for Workers, 2023, if passed, would allow us to make further changes to require employers to provide basic employment information when new workers start their first shift. This written information would outline things like pay, work location and hours of work—things every worker should know before they start a new job. It is only fair that people fully understand their work requirements and compensation before they start. Workers shouldn’t be subject to surprises of this nature after they start their new employment. This will help balance the scales between new hires and their employers. And it will help attract workers to our province and keep them here. When we work for workers, everyone wins.

Second, I will address the grade 11 apprenticeship pathway. We are also going the extra mile to support our skilled trades. There are roughly 1.2 million people working in skilled trades-related occupations in Ontario. But at the same time, about one in three workers in Ontario with an apprenticeship or trades certificate as their highest credential is 55 years of age or older. And the average age of an apprentice in Ontario is 29. In construction alone, we will need over 70,000 skilled workers by 2027 to fill positions as workers retire, all while we prepare to build Ontario at an unprecedented speed. We plan to build at least 1.5 million new homes. We need to reach that goal to help workers and families find a place to live, with a mortgage or rental payment they can afford.

Our ambitious infrastructure plans also include subways, highways, child care centres and long-term care for seniors. To build all of this, we need skilled tradespeople. We need more well-qualified, skilled labour. We need more young people, especially—people with their whole career ahead of them.

The skilled trades are full of exciting careers where workers can earn a six-figure salary, work towards a defined pension and have a job for life they can be proud of. And it is an excellent time to find meaningful work.

That is why, as Premier Ford announced in March, we are developing an accelerated apprenticeship pathway that will help students enter the skilled trades faster. Those who receive their certificate of apprenticeship through the program could also receive their Ontario secondary school diploma as mature students. Helping young people to accelerate their careers while maintaining eligibility for a high school degree opens up more opportunities. And at a time when we continue to face historic labour shortages, it permits more students to enter the trades faster than ever before, to help build a heathier Ontario.

We will also start consultations this fall on more ways to make it easier for young people to enter a career in the skilled trades. This includes exploring the potential of lowering academic entry requirements for the trades that currently require a grade 12 education. We will be talking to employers, unions, education stakeholders, trainers, parents and others to make sure our solution builds Ontario in a way that leaves no one behind. We are taking action to address the labour shortage and unlock Ontario’s full economic potential.

Now, regarding clean and safe washrooms, women’s washrooms and PPE, I would like to share that another way we are attracting the next generation of skilled trade workers to build our province is by improving work site conditions in construction and making sure these fulfilling jobs are open to everyone.

Across Ontario, there were 600,000 people working in construction in 2022. Every one of these workers is a hero. Rain, shine, summer or winter, they get up early, put on their gear and travel to job sites to build the homes, roads, schools and hospitals our families need. Yet, Madam Speaker, the conditions these heroes face can be rough, especially the state of washrooms on so many work sites.

In February, our ministry launched the first inspection blitz in provincial history targeting unclean washrooms. Since then, health and safety inspectors have visited over 3,200 job sites and found over 490 violations. The common issues they find on sites are no toilets being provided, facilities that lack privacy, and failure to meet basic cleanliness and hygiene standards. That is why we have taken action to increase the number of washrooms on job sites and introduce tough washroom standards. These rules would require toilets to be completely enclosed and would require washrooms to be adequately lit and have hand sanitizers where running water is not possible. All of our construction workers, both those entering the industry today and those who have been putting in an honest shift for decades, deserve the basic dignity of access to a clean and safe washroom.

Furthermore, we are requiring larger construction sites to have at least one woman’s-only washroom. Many of my colleagues tell me they hear far too often from women that this is the main reason why they have not gotten into the skilled trades. We need to change that, and it will happen if this bill passes. Nobody should have to leave their workplace to search for a washroom. Work sites need to meet the basic needs of all their workers. To attract more women to the trades we need to do better, and we are taking action to do just that.

In addition to improving washrooms, we are making it clear that protective equipment and clothing provided to, worn or used by workers in construction must be a proper fit. It is not only the right thing to do; it’s necessary to keep our workers safe. For women in construction, having access to properly fitting gear isn’t always a guarantee. In fact, women often wear protective equipment manufactured for men, and that should stop now. Everyone should have protective clothing, boots and safety harnesses that fit properly. Women belong on our job sites, and they should see themselves reflected in the protective equipment and clothing that they wear. This isn’t just about safety; it’s about sending the message that these jobs are open to everyone.

Our government is proud of the steps we have taken thus far, and we have seen the results. In the past years, the percentage of new entrants to the skilled trades who are women is up by nearly 30%. But we are not satisfied yet. We are going to continue pursuing measures that will encourage women to join the skilled trades and make sure the doors to these in-demand careers are open to everyone.

I want to take a moment to talk about another group of everyday heroes, our firefighters. Firefighters risk their lives to enter smoke-filled buildings, to rescue people, battling out-of-control blazes and responding to other emergencies. Their work touches the lives of so many people and communities across Ontario. Their work touches the lives of so many people and communities across this great nation. They’re there for us in our greatest need, and we need to be there for them.

Firefighters die of cancer at a rate of up to four times higher than the general population. Between 25 and 35 firefighters pass away every year in Ontario. We owe it to them and their families to ensure that they have easy access to compensation for these work-related illnesses. That is why we made it easier for firefighters, fire investigators and their survivors to access Workplace Safety and Insurance Board compensation. We expanded presumptive cancer coverage for firefighters, including primary-site thyroid and pancreatic cancer.

By presuming thyroid and pancreatic cancer are work-related, firefighters and fire investigators can now get easier access to benefits and the support they need to recover. These measures apply to full-time, part-time and volunteer firefighters, firefighters employed by First Nations band councils and fire investigators. These measures are retroactive to January 1, 1960, helping to ensure that firefighters who have these cancers now, or who have had them in the past, can get the help they need and deserve. We owe it to firefighters and their families. It is the right thing to do.

Madam Speaker, I conclude by calling for everyone in the House to support the Working for Workers Act, 2023. The measures outlined in Bill 79 will position Ontario as a frontrunner in charting the way forward. As workplaces and the way we work continue to evolve, we are balancing the scale between new hires and employers. We are providing remote work protection. We are supporting military reservists, protecting our most vulnerable workers and removing barriers for people who want to work in this province, and new regulatory changes will help us continue to build Ontario by growing the skilled trades and protecting the dignity of everyone who is a hero in these professions, like preparing young people to start rewarding careers in the trades, making sure we have clean washrooms on construction sites and everyone has gear that fits, and taking care of people who risk their lives for us.

By protecting and supporting our workers—

Further debate?

Interjections.

Thank you to the member for that question—it is my first day on the job, and I appreciate that important work—and for acknowledging my family’s history.

You know, I don’t even like the terms “right-wing” or “left-wing” politicians. This Premier has said he doesn’t see Ontarians through that light; he sees Ontarians as people who need to be valued, and that’s exactly what this legislation is doing for workers. It’s supporting breaking down barriers for access to the skilled trades. This legislation is supporting newcomers who seek better opportunity, better access to a job in their field. It’s supporting our heroes: firefighters, reservists and so many more.

I would always welcome a sit-down with that member, and I’m really proud of the work that this ministry has done on this piece of legislation to smash barriers.

I just want to say thank you for your father’s service. Obviously, his father did a fine job, because MPP Yakabuski is a fine role model for all of us in this place.

Interjection.

Interjection.

I think what we’ve said in this legislation here, that we’re protecting workers by protecting their lot when it comes to their experience on the job site—as I went to in my remarks—ensuring that those who seek to abuse the most vulnerable workers are brought to justice and that they have no place in this province of Ontario. It’s improving pathways.

When my grandfather came over, he was able to provide for his family and gradually progress to the point where then they started a shoe store etc. I think what we’re trying to do here is recognize that there are many who seek a brighter future in the province of Ontario. If we ensure that they’re protected when they first land, with respect to the passport piece that I talked about, if their health and well-being are protected, as I alluded to in my speech, and if we remove barriers to credentialing, as we’re doing as well in this piece of legislation, we improve their experience and enable them to get a leg up.

Thank you to the member for that important question.

We know that when there is a fire, there are firefighters to save our lives. Madam Speaker, that is why, in Working for Workers Act 3, we want to make sure that we are standing for those firefighters who are standing for us all the time. That is why we are expanding the list of presumptive cancers to thyroid and pancreatic cancers—firefighting and fire investigations also quickly access Workplace Safety and Insurance Board benefits and services. Our government is making it faster and easier for those heroes and their families to access the compensation and support they deserve. Claims related to thyroid and pancreatic cancer would be retroactive to January 1, 1960. That’s how we’re helping our firefighters.

I’m glad to stand on behalf of the residents and community members of Toronto–St. Paul’s, my home riding, to talk about the government’s Working for Workers Act.

There are many ACTRA workers in my community. There are TVO workers in my community. There are health care workers, PSWs and nurses in my community. And none of them feel like this government is working for workers. Today, we had thousands of health care professionals and allies at Queen’s Park fighting a government that wants to privatize health care.

So my question to this Conservative government is, how is the Working for Workers Act helping public sector workers? How is it helping TVO workers? How is it helping ACTRA workers? How is it helping migrant farmers who are being bullied by bad employers? And does the Working for Workers Act include a repeal of Bill 124—because that would really be working for workers.

It’s a pleasure to stand in my place today.

Speaker, indulge me: On September 25, 1963, the Progressive Conservatives were elected to another majority government of the leader of Premier John Robarts. As part of that 27th Parliament, there was a young man, a 40-year-old man and father of 13, from the little village of Barry’s Bay, who was also elected and, in keeping with the theme of these speeches today, was the first person of Polish descent ever elected to this Legislature. That man happened to be my father, Paul Joseph Yakabuski, and today is the 60th anniversary of his election. I am so proud of the work that he did before me and how he served his people and he served us as our father. I know that none of the things that I’ve been able to do here—or even being able to get here—could have been accomplished without the work of my father before me. So, on the 25th of September, 2023, happy 60th anniversary, Dad. Thank you.

The minister spoke about firefighters. Firefighters are heroes of our community, aren’t they? But they’re also workers—

Interjections.

The number of working people who are accessing food banks on a regular basis has continued to climb since 2018, when the Conservative government was elected. I know that’s the fault of the Liberal government, but it continues to climb every year. In fact, in Toronto, food bank clients with full-time employment have doubled in the past year—in 2022—to 33%.

How is this working for workers if full-time workers are going to food banks?

Welcome, Minister, to your new role, and I want to thank you for sharing your family’s history and background with Stelco.

On July 15, 1946, the USW 1005 went on strike and faced union-busting tactics such as the use of scab workers. Right-wing politicians tried every tool that they had to bust up the union. At one time, an army of hundreds of scab workers armed with rubber hoses, axe handles and bricks attacked the workers at Stelco. In the end, the union prevailed against the right-wing politicians and the scab army.

My question: Will you support NDP legislation to block the union-busting tactic of allowing scab workers?

Question?

Questions? The member from Whitby.

That’s what working for workers is.

Thank you very much, Speaker, and welcome back, colleagues, to our first day following the summer session.

I want to recognize the new Minister of Labour. I recognize it’s his first day officially in the House. I enjoyed his debate. I was listening fulsomely earlier. I love in these afternoon debates that we have the opportunity to get to know each other on a different level. We get that opportunity to hear about each other’s family and background. He shared a little about his father and his grandfather.

My dad actually was here at Queen’s Park today. I didn’t introduce him at introductions because he was outside protesting. Bill Moore, my stepdad, a member of my Unifor Local 598, he worked at Falconbridge for 31 years and he’s been nearly 30 years as a pensioner standing up for worker rights.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree because I’ve been standing up for worker rights for a little over two decades now, first as a steelworker. I was very proud as a steelworker to speak on behalf of workers and represent them as a steward. My passion was always health and safety. Afterward it was my pleasure to be nominated and then elected as MPP for Sudbury and re-elected again. I spent the last five years speaking on behalf of the people of my city and was thrilled to be the labour critic, because labour gets overlooked a lot. Labour is supposed to be a balance between employers and employees. The Minister of Labour is supposed to ensure that balance, but traditionally, we don’t see that. We really don’t see that.

Not to go too far into the weeds, I just want to recognize my dad being here, because how often does your dad get to come and visit you at work?

I’ll be honest with you, Speaker, the first time I came here, when I was elected—I was here once as a steelworker. I sat over here and I was escorted out of the building. When I returned, when I was walking here as an MPP, it was very interesting because it was the first time I ever came to Queen’s Park by myself, the first time I ever came to Queen’s Park walking on the sidewalk and not marching with others, and it was the first time there wasn’t a barricade preventing me from coming through the door. A lot can change in 10 years.

Just because today is Franco-Ontarian Day, I just want to say a few words in French.

Aujourd’hui, c’est la journée franco-ontarienne, et moi, je suis très fier de la communauté de Sudbury—et je suis très fier de cette Chambre et de tous mes collègues. Le drapeau franco-ontarien a été créé à Sudbury. C’est très important pour ma communauté. Maintenant, ce drapeau est un symbole de l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario, et ça, c’est très important. Merci beaucoup à tous mes collègues—conservateurs, libéraux, vert et du parti néo-démocratique—pour ce drapeau ici dans notre Chambre.

This bill was tabled last March and it was rushed into debate. It was tabled just before March break and there were several press conferences about it. Today, actually, in the debate you’ll hear a few things that were brought up that really aren’t in this bill. It’s easy to check because if you pull up the bill and you do control-F, you can search by keywords.

As much as they talk about firefighters—and I really do understand how important it is to have presumptive legislation for people suffering from occupational diseases and cancers—it’s not in this bill. It’s a great talking point. It’s a great headline. I’m assuming the regulation was changed, but it is not in this bill. It just doesn’t exist. You see that in the debate. We saw it in March, and we saw it again this time, where there’s not much to this bill. It’s not that it’s a bad bill; it’s just low-hanging fruit.

This time of year, in my community—well, probably all communities—is when the apples start to spoil and fall on the ground. As bears are getting ready for hibernation, it’s not uncommon in my neighbourhood to see a bear come out from the bush and, if you have an apple tree, probably tear down some of the branches for the ones that haven’t fallen. That really is my image when I think of low-hanging fruit. Those apples that fell on the ground will help a bear get fat, but they’re not really ideal. They’re not what workers are screaming for. I’ll get into it further on.

The idea of having washrooms for women: Absolutely, it’s a great idea, but just having a washroom and having that be your bare standard—no pun intended—just a washroom by itself? That’s not enough.

I worked construction for 10 years. It is freaking cold. If you think it is a delight to sit on a plastic seat in the middle of nowhere as you’re putting up the building—because the building is what breaks the wind—and take off all of your equipment inside this little tiny room where you can barely fit your knees, so you can sit down on a freezing cold seat—if you think that’s working for workers, you’ve lost your way.

I speculate—and I don’t begrudge anybody; we welcome different backgrounds and we share different information—it’s because you’re not talking to workers enough, or if you are, you’re not listening enough. There are whole systems that you can bring in for washrooms that are heated and plumbed. You can have hot showers. If we want to set a standard, if you want to say you’re working for workers and you want to attract people to the trades, then get them off a board with a hole in it, with a pot that holds human waste, and get them into flushable toilets, because that’s how we attract people to trades.

There’s nothing romantic about it. I’m a blue-collar guy. I’m a knuckle-dragger. I did that work, and I’m proud to be part of a union that does that sort of work with miners and labourers coming out of construction. We love it. We like to get dirty. It’s fun. But honestly, if you can improve it a little bit, a couple of gruff guys will growl a little bit, but I’ll tell you: If you improve their work life, they’ll fight you if you try to get rid of it.

When I was a furnace operator, we had to lift boxes of clay, about 20 pounds each, and one year on our health and safety committee, we got a hydraulic lift for it. I remember Rudy—Rudy looked like Clint Eastwood. Back when you could smoke in the workplace, I never saw Rudy without a cigarette in his mouth. Once we had an SO₂ leak, and it was all white, and every once in a while I would see his cigarette glow through the white.

Rudy had a voice kind of like this when he talked, a super-growly voice, and I remember when he saw these platforms, Rudy said, “What’s next? Rainbow-coloured clay?” About a month later, Rudy’s hydraulic lift broke, and I thought we were going to have a work refusal, because lifting 20 pounds of clay every day, every few shifts, every time you do a trip gets hard on the back. You see the insight of it, and so we need to make these changes.

If we want to work for workers, I’m right beside you. I’m 100% aligned. This is my life’s passion. I love working for workers, but that’s not what this bill is doing. It’s more of a headline. It’s the low-hanging fruit of the bill. I want to make sure that we get to better parts of the bill, things that really should be in there.

I mentioned, for example, the firefighter cancer coverage. I believe it’s in regulations—I can’t remember, through the summer—but it’s not in this bill. All through the headlines, they talked about it, as if it was coming in the bill: “We’re going to debate this bill. We’re going to make sure that the NDP doesn’t vote against this.” First, we wouldn’t vote against it. Second, it’s not in the bill.

I remember in debate, people asking questions from the Conservative side: “Will you support firefighters? Why won’t you support them?” It’s not in the bill. It’s like asking if I support mowing my neighbour’s lawn or something. It’s just not here, so it doesn’t make sense to talk about things like that. I think it’s great to say, “We’re very proud that we did this.” I’m very proud that my colleague from London West tabled paid sick days several times. I’m very proud of it. I think it’s an excellent bill, one that should be in here and should be passed.

What I’m saying is that we need to ensure that we put forward good legislation. If you’re going to have a press conference, don’t pretend it’s in the bill; just say, “Hey, we’re changing the regulations.”

The clean washrooms, the washrooms for women—I talked a little about this earlier—I think it’s great, but the bar can be raised and the bar should be raised when it comes to washrooms. Think of the washrooms we have here at Queen’s Park. That’s the sort of washroom that people want in their workplace. I know you can’t get it everywhere; I understand that. But saying, “Porta-potties is the best we can do”—it is not the best we can do.

You can write legislation saying that you’re going to have a trailer that’s going to have running water, that’s going to have soap and water, that’s going to have warm water, that’s going to have a place for people to wash their hands before they eat food. You can put all this in legislation and then say, “Unless it’s impractical or unable to provide.” You can do things like that, but bring the bar up to where it is. If you really believe—and I do believe that my colleagues think this—that the trades are an important job and we’re in a crisis for filling trades, then make it attractive for people.

I know that, traditionally, we think of women as being more delicate and softer, and they shouldn’t have to wander down to Tim Hortons farther away and stuff, but I’m going to tell you, guys would like a decent washroom too. We have all been there. Every single one of you here has been to a public facility that is not very clean, right? Where you’re a little bit happy that you don’t have to sit, that you can sort of stand back. So let’s bring the hygiene standard up for everybody and attract more people to it.

The other thing about this, when I think about washrooms in workplaces and construction sites, is that the regulation is great; put it forward and say, “You have to have washrooms. They have to be on-site and maintained and cleaned.” But I drive back and forth from Sudbury to Toronto for work on a regular basis and not all of the gas stations are open 24 hours. They have these little road stops, these pull-off areas for people who are driving a truck, and they have porta-potties in there. Some of these are okay, but some are not great at all. Some of them are really, really disgusting, and those are MTO ones. Those are ones that the government has their thumb on. If we can’t maintain the ones that the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario is responsible for, how are we going to ensure that we enforce construction sites all across this province with the number of inspectors that we have?

That gets back to why I’m saying that it’s a headline bill. It sounds great for someone who doesn’t work in the area. It sounds great for somebody who isn’t involved with construction sites. But for someone who’s on a construction site, it’s just hot air. It’s a “believe it when I see it” sort of thing.

Farther north, you get past Sault Ste. Marie and those washrooms on the side of the road are closed in winter. They don’t even have washrooms. Those are also provincially owned.

Another thing that was brought up—and I heard it today again—was about the young worker apprentices and how this is a great part of this bill. But, Speaker, this is not in the bill. There’s nothing about the young worker apprentices in this bill. It might be coming in the next one, but it’s not in this bill. And so when we get to questions and comments later on and someone says, “Will you support firefighter coverage or young worker apprentices?”, just make sure it’s in the bill. Do a quick scan.

That’s the sort of thing where I’m thinking to myself that perhaps it’s not so much that the Conservative government is working for workers, Speaker. Maybe that’s not the priority. I think the priority is to have headlines so that other people think that they are. A lot of people, if they’ve never had to deal with WSIB—Workplace Safety and Insurance Board or workers’ comp—believe that it works and that the issues only happen in rare cases, but the reality is, WSIB is a pretty unforgiving animal, and it doesn’t work for most people. For a lot of people who have a long-term injury, they end up on ODSP. They end up in poverty. But if you talk about it like it works, then people might believe that.

We’ve brought forward amendments for this bill. After it passed second reading, we brought forward amendments, and I just want to talk about some of the amendments that were there because it doesn’t really—all of these were voted down by the way, and so I think discussing them sheds a light onto what working for workers really means.

The first amendment that we had brought forward was about expanding the definition of a foreign national. We heard a lot about this. My hat is off to the former Minister of Labour for trying to do something about this. I’m not trying to discourage this. There was a big story in the paper about an employer who had basically held the international workers’ passports hostage, and they had deplorable working conditions. The former minister was trying to do something about it. We wanted to expand the current definition of “foreign national” so that they’d have more employment protection for more people who are working like this. That was voted down. What’s ironic, though, was the example that the minister was talking about that spurred this provincial legislation—unless we expand the definition of “foreign national,” it won’t actually help those workers in that story. That was voted down by the committee.

Our next amendment was—I mentioned earlier my colleague from London West and her Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, a paid sick days act. We brought that forward as an amendment. We said, “If you want to work for workers, here’s how we can do it.” The reality is, if you want to help people in a workplace—if you’re sick, it’s nice to be able to stay home. Each and every one of us here has the ability to stay home, as elected officials. I’m not putting down anybody, because we have really busy schedules and we’re always out there doing a lot of stuff. But if we’re sick, we can stay home. We have that flexibility; a lot of workers don’t, and a lot of those workers who don’t are in precarious workplaces. They’re gig workers, they’re minimum wage workers, and they cannot afford to have a day off, especially with the price of rent—especially with the price of rent right here in Toronto, but across the province. Rents and mortgages are so high that I don’t understand how someone who is sick and who doesn’t have paid sick days can afford to take the day off or can stay home with a child who is sick. I grew up in a family like that. I grew up below the poverty line. I remember going to school and the school sending me home because I was too sick. My mom sent me because she could not afford to have a day off. I don’t even know how I got there—walking to school. That’s the reality for a lot of people. We talk about workers, but let’s not put blinders on—let’s remember that workers include the kids too. Whatever situation the family is in, the kids are in that situation. If the parents are stressed financially, if the parents are worried about making ends meet, if the parents are worried about being evicted, those kids know. They may not know all of it, but they know there’s stress in the workplace. So you’re not just taking care of workers; you’re taking care of the children of the province as well. Further amendments that went into it were also about basically matching the wording of the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act.

During earlier debate, they talked about leave for Canadian armed services reserves—we thought this was such a good idea, that it should be paid leave. You can work this out so that if there is income, it’s supplemented so they don’t fall down. So if you’re involved in your position as a reservist, it guarantees you a certain amount of pay—then you just don’t lose money for being a reserve. We thought it was such a good idea. Why don’t we ensure that the brave men and women who serve our country don’t lose pay for being in the reserves? That was voted down. We felt like it was a good “working for workers” provision; the Conservative government felt otherwise. Included in there, we also thought that—and I didn’t realize this until I spoke with the researcher. The Employment Standards Act: If you have an employee who’s in the reserves—when they go off to the reserves, then you don’t have to contribute to their benefits plan while they’re gone. We didn’t think that was fair. These are people who go above and beyond to serve the country, and we thought that they should get their benefits. We thought it was important. If we’re going to stand here—and we will about a month from now. We’re going to stand and we’re going to talk about Remembrance Day and the importance of people who have served. My colleagues across the aisle—I’ve heard many great stories about family members. One of my colleagues—I can’t remember his riding, but I know he’s very close to his Legion. We believe this—all of us here. I know sometimes this is an “us and them” philosophy, but I believe everyone here understands the importance of our military and the people who volunteer for that. But we felt like they should have their benefits continue while they’re gone, and the Conservative government voted against that.

The next amendment is helping employers transition to the paid leave. We don’t want an undue burden for the employers. We understand that it’s difficult for an employer to make ends meet, as well, especially in tough times like this. So if we’re going to tell employers, as government, “You should pay these people while they’re gone. They’re not making wages, they’re not working in your workplace, but you should pay them”—well, how do we transition to that and ensure that employer is successful? We wanted to ensure the employer was successful so the employee can be successful, so that their kids could be successful. It’s a really great situation, but that, too, was voted down by the Conservative government.

We tried to bring in anti-scab legislation. I’m going to talk about anti-scab later on—anti-replacement worker? I don’t know what you’re comfortable with. Where I’m from, we say “scab.”

The reality is, these extend and lengthen lockouts and labour disputes and strikes. It divides community. It is not good for anybody. It’s not good for the people who cross the line. It’s not good for the people outside the line. It’s not good for the management, the people who have to deal with these relationships afterward. It doesn’t exist in Quebec. For the longest time, it used to not exist in Ontario. If you want to work for workers, it’s a great way to do it. The Conservative government voted no on that amendment.

We wanted to lower the diesel particulate matter to 0.02. There are miners all across the province who have had “Make 20 the Limit”—I’ll get into DPM later on, but it’s 0.02 particulates. Now, to his credit, the former Minister of Labour, did reduce it to 120, but it’s still 100 more than what’s considered safe for the scientific community. So we thought, why don’t we bring this forward? Why don’t we bring this forward so there’s a plan to get to where it is? That was voted down as well.

We spoke very adamantly about OW and ODSP, about giving away personal information of people on OW and ODSP. We read an entire letter. My colleague—I know everyone by their first name; I’m trying to do their riding—from Scarborough Southwest and I each read the letter that came from the privacy commissioner strongly urging the government not to do this. I thought this made sense as an amendment. Sometimes when you’re in a position of leadership, it’s hard to make a decision, but if you have someone who’s an expert in the matter and they’re urging you, you can delay at least. You can say, “Well, yeah, let’s pass this amendment and re-look into what we’re doing.” But that, too, the Conservative government voted against.

We also thought that we would finally introduce the member from Nickel Belt’s bill—I’m a co-sponsor of this one—the Respecting Workers in Health Care and in Related Fields Act. We’re in a crisis when it comes to health care. You may have heard from the noise outside that there was a huge health care rally. It was a big one. It filled the entire lawn. There were a lot of people there. That’s tough to do on a Monday morning. But look, health care workers are out there in spades, so if you think you’re doing a good job for health care workers, the Conservative government really isn’t.

The member for Nickel Belt and I co-sponsored a bill that would create a wage floor and it would provide pensions and guarantees and benefits and for people. It really is how we solve it any time there’s an issue when it comes to filling labour: Basically, you pay people decently, you give them some benefits, you have a pension, you make it a career instead of a gig job that people want to quit, and you attract people and you keep them. That, too, was voted down.

The last one that was voted down: My colleague from Niagara, a strong labour person as well, had brought forward a deeming bill. Now, I know it’s more complex; the title was fancier than that. But really, for most people who understand this, it’s about deeming. It has to do with WSIB. What happens is, you’re injured in the workplace and you’re losing money. You’re not able to return to work. So what the WSIB is able to do is deem you able to do a job, and they can remove you from WSIB. You’re physically not able to do certain jobs, but if they come up with, for example, that you can be a parking lot attendant and they believe that’s a job you’re deemed able to do—and that’s great if you can. But Speaker, the number of parking lot attendant jobs has really dwindled. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but most of them are automated. So if you’re deemed able to do a job, it doesn’t matter if that job actually exists, it doesn’t matter if they’re hiring in that job, it doesn’t matter if you’re able to get the job, you’re removed from the WSIB. This is a thing that punishes workers—workers who are working in the workplace and injured, unable to continue the work, and then the Conservative government right now but whoever is in power at the time, the WSIB is under their mandate. The Minister of Labour has responsibility to the WSIB.

So what happens in that situation is that you have a worker who’s injured, who feels like there’s a safety net for them when they’re injured so that they can get better. And then the pressure—first of all, you don’t make as much money as you did, so you feel that pressure, and then you feel the pressure that you’re going be removed from WSIB: psychological, mental and also financial pressure, knowing you’re not even going to be able to make ends meet. And then you have basically the government of Ontario telling you, “Well, you can get a phantom job.” It doesn’t exist, but you could get one. The only way that works, Speaker, is if you can pay your bills with phantom paycheques, but you can’t. So what you do, actually, instead of working for workers, is you’re punishing workers. So this deeming bill—the member from Niagara Falls tabled it in the last session as well. He tabled it again this session. You could pass this and actually be working for workers, and I’m talking about a lot of workers who have been poorly affected by this bill.

I already spoke about this—sorry, I’m going through my notes. I’m all over the place when I’m talking.

I mentioned this bill was a bill about the low-hanging fruit. Again, I’ll say it’s not that it’s a bad bill, Speaker; it’s just that you could be more ambitious. There’s a lot of work to be done. One thing I think that my colleagues from the Conservative Party and I would agree on is that the Liberals did a very poor job when it came to taking care of workers. I was president of my labour council in Sudbury when the Liberal government was in power. Just before the election, they did a huge survey about what they should do to address workplace issues and what labour laws were important. Basically, about a year before the election, they had a package that was presentable and they sat on it, and basically licked their finger and checked which way the wind was flowing. When they thought they would lose the election, they passed a few things out at the last minute, but they were not a working-for-workers party. It’s an interesting thing, because the Liberal government always wants people to believe that they are who they are in their ads. But the reality, I believe, is that when they run, when they campaign, they campaign to the left. They campaign like the New Democrats, right? But when they come into power, they’re more like Conservatives. You look at the greenbelt, more recently, and privatizing the greenbelt, or I know it’s a hot-button issue, so let’s go with the 407, selling off the 407, something we all owned. That’s something New Democrats would never do. That’s not in our DNA. We don’t believe in privatizing stuff. We think that making a couple of your friends wealthy isn’t in the public interest, so we would never have done that.

What happened is, the Liberals sold off Hydro One to private interests, and hydro now is more expensive than ever. The 407: The number of people who just don’t take the 407 because the cost of the 407 is—well, I haven’t been able to confirm this; I do know it’s the highest in North America, but I’m willing to bet it is the highest in the world—the highest in the world for tolls. And you know where all that money goes? Not in our pockets, not for the people of Ontario who paid to build the place. That money for the 407 goes to private developers who are incredibly wealthy. They’re so wealthy, I don’t think they have to take the 407. They could helicopter into town. They don’t have to deal with travelling on the ground.

I was just talking about your deeming bill and how important it was. This really is a bill that doesn’t address things. The point of not addressing and the low-hanging fruit in March was pretty apparent, but if you went through the last summer, if you saw how bad people are suffering through the summertime, you would see that this is definitely not reflecting the needs of workers in Ontario. We have workers working full-time who can’t afford rent and food—unbelievable. And I’m talking about well-paid workers.

Last summer, I was on the campaign trail. I met an engineer. An engineer pays pretty well. She wanted to save for a house, her and her partner, both with good-paying jobs. She said, “I don’t even know if I can afford my rent.” Something has gone wrong here. I know the Conservative government loves to blame the federal government, but I’m not buying it. There’s some accountability that you have here as well. When it comes to it, when people are working full time—the next generation of kids, my son and younger, they don’t even think they’re going to own a house. The only way they’re going to own a house is when they inherit it. When they think of having a place of their own, “their own” means them and several of their friends. When I was my son’s age, when I was going to school, I worked on the weekend and caught an odd shift and I had my own apartment. The price of housing and apartment rentals in Sudbury was about $100 difference, and you basically chose based on where you wanted to go. Now, there were some really beautiful apartments that were a lot more, but I’m talking an average apartment that you wouldn’t be embarrassed to bring your mom to. You basically picked where you wanted to go. Do you want to be near the school? Do you want to be near the lake? Do you want to be downtown where the bars are? Where do you want to live? Fifty to a hundred bucks’ difference—that was it. Now it’s like an investment. I look at some of the rental ads and I feel like I’m looking at a De Beers anniversary engagement ring. How can your rent be two months’ salary? It doesn’t make any sense to me. There is nothing being done to tackle this. I know the pretence was that the greenbelt was going to do it, but look, no one’s buying it. We’re all friends here. We can say it openly.

I talked about paid sick days earlier. This is a really good bill. I know sometimes you’re hesitant to support a bill that comes from another party, but the reality is that this has been in place in a lot of places for a long time already. New York is one of those areas where it’s been in place. There’s good data about it. I encourage my colleagues from the Conservative Party to look into it, because all of the boogeymen around paid sick days and the abuse and all that stuff, in all of the data they have from New York, haven’t happened. It just hasn’t happened. What has happened, for the most part, is people don’t come to work sick.

Let’s say that I came here sick and then I gave it to everybody, and you go home and you give it to your friends. I’m not talking about COVID; I’m talking about that cold. We have all been in a situation where someone shows up for work, and they have that raspy voice, and they’re like, “Sorry, I’ve got a bad cold,” and you think to yourself, “Great. Now I have a bad cold.” If you have paid sick days, then people don’t come to work sick. They don’t come with that phlegmy, gross-sounding voice that we’ve all suffered through and then give it to everyone else at work and have the productivity go down or have people have to miss days because they get sick. It’s a bill that we need to support.

Anti-scab legislation: I want to talk about this because it feels loaded sometimes for people. I know some people are more comfortable with “anti replacement worker.” I’m old school. A “replacement worker”—I used to be the worker safety rep at the Copper Cliff Smelter. Jody Leveille is my replacement worker. Jody does that job now. If I’ve moved on to another job or if I were to retire, then someone replaces me. When we talk about anti-scab, we’re talking about somebody who is on strike, in a legal position to be on strike or is legally locked out by their employer.

The only strength you have as a worker is to withdraw your labour. More and more companies are multinationals with super deep pockets, so the impact that you can have from withdrawing your labour becomes more difficult. If you work for a worldwide company, one where the CEO might not be able to even point to where you’re located, let alone know that Rudy’s has the best hamburgers in town, your ability to influence them through market share becomes pretty depleted. And it becomes extra depleted when the local government has said that, “Well, if you want to, you can hire and bring in replacement workers as much as you want.”

That’s just in terms of balance, because the Ministry of Labour, you have to remember, is about labour—the workers—and employers too. It’s about both and finding balance to them.

I once got yelled at because I called the minister the “minister of employers” because I felt like he was blind to the need of workers. But it’s because of precedent in the past.

I talked earlier, Speaker, about sitting over here at Queen’s Park when I was a steelworker. I was on strike at that time. I was on strike for a year. The member from Nickel Belt brought forward anti-scab legislation, and it was debated. One of the reasons we got kicked out was because we were incredibly frustrated, because we saw the Liberal government—basically what they did, Speaker, is they got up and they counted how many Conservatives were there, and then they decided to run to the back. I didn’t know these were lobbies behind us. I actually thought of them as little mouse holes they went to hide in because they were too embarrassed. My MPP was one of the members who ran in the back because he didn’t want me to know he voted against it. He just didn’t show up for the vote. I was sitting here. My colleagues, my brothers and sisters from the steelworkers, were in the galleries. We were trying to get this to go forward.

The data is there. The information is there. But the Conservatives voted against it. The Liberals used them so they could say, “It wasn’t us.” The Liberals came into power guaranteeing they would bring back anti-scab legislation. Mike Harris cut it. New Democrats brought it in; I’m proud to be a New Democrat and that we brought forward anti-scab legislation. Mike Harris cut it. He got rid of it. The Liberal Party promised—broke their promise—that they were going to bring it back. I guess you only had 15 years; how are you going to do it?

It was tabled every single term. You can only table once each term, but it was tabled every single time and was brought forward for debate. I watched as it was voted down. That’s heartbreaking when you’re on a picket line.

When you’re on a picket line and you’re looking at your kids—I have three kids. My daughter was young. My daughter was just starting kindergarten back then. When you’re looking at your kids and they’re unable to go to hockey or dance, when they’re not able to participate in certain things, when you’re worried about what’s going to be in their lunch, when every week you’re having spaghetti for dinner—and you know that there’s a government here that is allowing people to go across and extend the length of your labour dispute—to do your job, to use your locker.

In my workplace, Speaker, they gave my locker to somebody. They didn’t even remove the pictures from my locker; they just gave it up to someone else to use. So, every day, this guy came in to do my job and looked at pictures of my kids while taking food out of their mouths. That’s disgusting.

You want to talk about working for workers for real? Anti-scab legislation—I’m going to give you the opportunity to vote for this this year. This is the right thing to do. It’s the time to do it. You want to tell people you’re working for workers? You want to say you’re friends of the union? Put your money where your mouth is. Because I’m not shy to say that I’m supportive of it—at all. And none of my colleagues on this side are.

In fact, when we tabled an anti-scab bill last year, we had too many people co-signing. We had to rewrite the original draft because we had too many people on the list. My colleague from Niagara Falls agreed to remove his name so we would be able to have the people who had actual strikes and lockouts in the area that were using scabs to be on that bill.

My colleague from Toronto–St. Paul’s talked about ACTRA earlier today, with repetitions about the importance of anti-scab legislation. ACTRA’s commercial workers have been locked out for more than 500 days. I think today is 517 days that they’ve been locked out. You know how much help they’ve had from the Conservative government?

Further debate?

As the old mayor of Toronto would say, “Nobody!” Zero. They had no help at all. I asked in this House right here, right here in this chair in the corner office, I asked the Premier how comfortable he was that government ads from the province of Ontario were using these union-busting ad agencies that were using scab workers. Of course, he didn’t answer, because he rarely answers. It was deflected away.

During estimates, I asked the Minister of Labour, “Why do you support scab work?” His thing was, “They appear to be in negotiation. I don’t want to get involved.” I reminded the Minister of Labour that, if you’re sitting on the fence, your backside’s going to face somebody.

The reality though, Speaker, is that if you don’t want to get involved, then don’t use scab labour. There are a lot of ad agencies you can go to. I’m not saying not to advertise. I’m just saying, in the middle of a labour dispute, if you don’t want to show favouritism to the worker side and you don’t want to show favouritism to the employer side, then pull out completely. But don’t think you’re fooling the workers of Ontario if you are hiring and giving money to employers who use scab labour. If you think anyone believes you’re working for workers, you’re out to lunch. You’ve lost the thread.

Bill 124: I’ve got to be honest, Speaker, I can’t believe we’re still talking about Bill 124. This bill is a train wreck. When people look back at the last half decade of this government and they see Bill 124, they’re going to roll their eyes. I can’t believe that any Conservative MPP can go anywhere and talk about workers without someone yelling out “Bill 124” to you.

Bill 124, just if anyone is watching or reading this later on, caps public sector workers at 1%. We are in a level of financial crisis like you’ve never seen before. I can’t remember if it’s 6.5% or 7% just last year alone, but typically the cost of living is 2% to 3% every year. So if you cap somebody at 1%, basically what you’re doing is, you’re giving them a haircut. You’re telling them you’re not taking home as much money as you did last time. Your spending power is going to go down.

We went through COVID, we went through a health care crisis, and the people on the front lines who were deemed essential workers—in health care, in long-term care—all these public sector workers were told, “You are not worth any money.” I want to be clear about this: When you tell someone that they are worth less, you are telling them they’re worthless. That’s what you’re telling the workers.

Bill 124 capped it. I was sitting on this side over here somewhere, but I remember talking about Bill 124 and what it stated, and I said, “You’re going to lose. I’m not a labour lawyer, but, come on, this bill is unconstitutional. You’re going to lose.” I should have put money on it. I should have bet with the minister on it, because in November 2022, Justice Markus Koehnen of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that Bill 124 breached the charter and was therefore void.

You have an unconstitutional law that we told you was unconstitutional—and honestly, Speaker, you know as well as I do that the Conservative government has great lawyers. They’re going to be busy now with the greenbelt. They have great lawyers. They knew it was unconstitutional. They have lawyers on their bench who could have told them it was unconstitutional. If a guy from the smelter can tell you it’s unconstitutional, I’m sure a guy who actually went to law school could tell you. So you have an unconstitutional bill, you table it anyway, and you go through it anyway. You fight and you pay the court costs to fight it. Then the justice for the Ontario Superior Court says, “You breached the charter. It’s void.” And do you go, “Oh, my God, I’m sorry about that,” and repeal it? No. Oh, no. You double down. I think the theory is—I believe the reason the Conservatives do this, Speaker, is because it’s not their money, right?

I talk about Zapp Brannigan—which seems inappropriate for a guy my age. In Futurama, Zapp Brannigan is like a caricature of Kirk from Star Trek. One of the phrases he says is, “I’ll send wave after wave of men to their death to fight my pointless battle.” I think of that when it comes to lawyer fees for the Conservative government. They fight everything. They lose everything, but they don’t care. It’s not their money; it’s taxpayer money. Blow as much as you want—because they will float a bill called Working for Workers and people will think they’re helping them out, and maybe people won’t notice that they’re just blowing taxpayer money left and right on all these ridiculous ideas.

Look, you lost the first time. If anyone wants to put bets—I’m going to say you’re going to lose the second one—I’m taking it. I’ll take any bet that you got on this. You’re going to lose the second one. I have read a lot of arbitrator decisions. They’re not the same as this level, but look, there’s no wiggle room in this. It’s not just that the Conservatives lost, Speaker, it’s that their own witnesses helped them to lose. Their own witnesses proved what they were saying was the opposite of what they were saying. I cannot imagine they’re going to do well in this, but still, they’re appealing the decision.

This has gotten so bad that police officers are now talking to MPPs about Bill 124 and how it affects attracting people to the force, because the wages are capped. We know that our police officers are hard-working. We recognize that. One of our colleagues served as a police officer. When you have a job that a lot of kids sort of play as kids—I think we all played that we were police officers or firefighters; it’s one of the first jobs you understand as a kid. If you can’t attract people to come into that field because of Bill 124, maybe it’s time to listen and figure out how it’s damaging workplaces and jobs.

Bill 124—I mentioned it before—is a wage-restraint law and it capped wage increases to 1%. That was the max you can get. There were a lot of workplaces that tried to bargain below the 1% so people had to fight to get the 1%, which is unbelievable. There were also other workplaces that really didn’t need this. They weren’t going to be affected by it, but they were lumped in there.

When this was tabled in 2019, you could tell this was important. They were elected in 2018. In early 2019, one of the first things the Conservative government said was, “Let’s punish workers. What’s the best way we can do that? Well, let’s freeze their wages at 1%.” The President of the Treasury Board, when it was tabled, said, “We want to shrink the province’s budget deficits.” What he didn’t say, but what I read into it, was, “Let’s shrink it on the backs of workers.” He said that Bill 124 would demonstrate respect for taxpayer dollars, ignoring all the people who were affected by it.

The outcome of this, though, is that with taxpayer dollars, you’ve blown a ton of money fighting this, and you’re blowing a ton of money appealing it. And just like with the Liberal government with Bill 115, you’re going to blow a ton of money on having to pay people out. You are wasting taxpayer dollars by doing this—not respecting them. You’re insulting the workers who are affected, and you’re insulting the workers who aren’t directly affected, because they’re going to have to pick up the tab and pay for your blunder, the Conservative mistake.

Do you know what’s happening because of Bill 124? Through the summer—when we were here just before we rose last time, I remember that one day Jessie who works in my office had to go home early because the smoke was so bad. I said, “You don’t have to stay here.” The smoke was that bad. We have an air purifier now to try to help with it. There were so many forest fires that when I was meeting with my colleagues who were state-elected officials, they were asking me why they got so much of our smoke from Canada. I’ve never seen fires like this—so many fires this summer. It was a hot summer. We said it was a hot labour summer. It was also a hot, burning summer. In Ontario, we were 50 fire crews short. In the summer that we had, when every time you turned on the news there was a fire somewhere, we were 50 crews short. Part of that was because the Conservative government had cut 67% of funding for wildfire management programs—67%; that’s more than half. I’m not great with math, but I know that without nearly 70% of your funding, you’re probably not going to do as good of a job. There was a myth for a long time about doing more with less. Come on, man. There’s no more fat to cut; we’ve gone through the muscle, we’re into the bone, and we’re going to start ripping out the marrow soon. You cannot cut 67% of funding for wildfire management programs and think that you’re going to do a decent job. God bless the workers out there bending over backwards to do this work.

This is what I was told when I met with OPSEU: “The wage-suppressing Bill 124 has negatively impacted many government departments and I am well aware of the high turnover that does persist in Ontario’s aviation, forest fire and emergency services because of low pay and precarious work, which has made the crisis even worse. Ultimately, this means there are not enough experienced fire rangers to lead crews.”

That is not working for workers or respecting workers. That makes things unsafe in a workplace that really is about a hazard and addressing a hazard, that provides safety for all of us.

Near here, USW Local 1998, the Steelworkers union—they’re the staff-appointed union at the University of Toronto—recently voted 95.4% in favour of going on strike, if necessary. I want to spell that out, because I remember the power workers talked about a final vote offer, and the Premier got up and said, “I’ll force them back to work.” This is a strike vote, so just cool your jets a little bit. This gives the mandate, saying that the workers are frustrated and fed up, and that if they can’t reach a deal, they’re going to go on strike; they’ll have a vote to go on strike. The reason they’re saying this and the reason they’re giving their elected negotiating committee the right to call for this job action with such a strong mandate, up to and including a strike, is because the university is telling them, “Oh, Bill 124—we can’t give more than 1%.” The University of Toronto is a university with deep pockets. I walk home sometimes through their campus. You can get pretty tired walking through that campus. It’s a big place. They have a lot of money. They’re doing okay. They know they can’t argue about that funding, the money that they have. What they can argue about, though, is, “Oh, the Conservative government can’t let us do it.” This is what it means for workers.

I don’t see the Conservative government in the corner for workers. I see them in the corner for big business, time and time again. We saw this during COVID. Remember, during COVID, all the small businesses had to close down, but Walmart and Galen Weston’s Loblaws got to stay open? That didn’t help workers. That didn’t even help small business owners. It always comes that way. Whenever we ask questions about labour disputes—“I can’t get involved”. But the minute the Premier hears the whiff that there might be a final offer vote, he says, “I’ll legislate them back to work”—like that; he can’t wait.

There was an interesting development with ONA when it comes to Bill 124. ONA told me that ONA members are leaving their jobs because vacancies were not being filled, creating unmanageable workloads leading to burnout and exhaustion driving employees from the workplace—ONA, nurses. Just out front of these windows, you’ll see a whole bunch of hospitals. Lots of hospitals across the province are just desperate for nurses and health care workers—walking out the door.

One of the members opposite talked about tradespeople retiring—the average age is somewhere around 50—and that they’re walking out the doors. It isn’t just the workers. It’s not a numbers game; it’s a skills game, as well. If I was to be a new nurse, I want to be paired with a nurse who has been around for a long time, who can tell me and teach me what they’ve done.

It’s the same as in the trades. The reason you have an apprenticeship system in the trades is so that, as you’re learning, someone who has been there for a long time can help you improve, show you the things that you need to know, and take the stuff out of the book and show it works practically.

ONA, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, are basically quitting their jobs because of Bill 124—being burnt out. In the arbitrator’s decision on this, they gave them raises on top of the 3.5%; 3.5% this year, 3% next year, roughly about 11% of the two years for the average nurse.

Arbitrators are overruling your decisions to appeal this, because it’s wishy-washy now, because it’s unconstitutional. Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer said the cost to the province will be approximately $900 million, just for ONA alone. There are a lot of workers in the public sector. When you talk about respecting taxpayers’ dollars, you’re not. You’re not. You’re going to be paying them $900 million just for this union alone, and that is if they don’t lose the appeal, because it increases by an additional $2.7 billion if you lose the appeal, which I’m willing to bet you will.

I don’t understand why you tabled it in the first place. I don’t understand why you fought it. I don’t understand why you continue to fight Bill 124, because you keep costing the taxpayers of Ontario more and more money. You keep insulting the public sector workers. These workers that you talk about are the heart and soul? These are public sector workers as well. You turn a blind eye to them.

In estimates, I asked the Minister of Labour, “Treasury Board said that Bill 124 would demonstrate respect for taxpayers’ dollars, so would you agree that you can better respect the taxpayers’ dollars if you could have saved all these lawyer fees and associated court costs?” He didn’t really know how to answer. I think he didn’t know how to answer, because it’s kind of true, right?

Something we could be doing and that should be in this bill is that we should be figuring out how to raise the minimum wage. Now, in my notes, I wrote down that the Conservative government often talks about the number of unfulfilled jobs. The new Minister of Labour said, I think in the third or fourth sentence, that we have got to fill these jobs. We have to pay people enough that they can buy food and put food on their table, put clothes on their kids’ backs, and pay their rent. I was at the Metro picket line on Bloor Street—I was with a bunch of them, but I went to the one on Bloor Street and workers there talked about not being able to buy the food at Metro. Imagine working at a grocery store and not being able to shop at the grocery store where you work. I hear this from tradespeople too.

I know the Conservative government loves to talk about the trades and the jobs are there. They’re great jobs. I was an electrician’s apprentice. I worked in construction. They’re good jobs and they pay well. They are good jobs, but more and more, these workers with these good-paying jobs that the minister likes to talk about aren’t able to buy the houses that they’re building.

I built some places that I couldn’t afford either. That happens, but the reality for a lot of people who are in the trades right now is that they can’t afford a house. There are no more starter houses. There are no more affordable houses.

More and more, we’re saying, “Come and get involved in trades, because you can work all day, long hours, and you’ll never be able to afford a house.” How is that message going to attract somebody? It’s not. It’s not going to. We need to address this.

Now, let’s just talk about the elephant in the room. We have minimum wage. I know it’s a delicate balance. If you’re an employer paying minimum wage, you’re trying to balance the books and all that stuff, but there are a large majority of people or workplaces who pay minimum wage that can—don’t tell me for a second that Walmart can’t afford to pay more than minimum wage. Don’t tell me for a second that McDonald’s can’t afford to pay more than minimum wage. Don’t argue with me that it’s going to raise prices. It’s going to raise prices because they can. We see this every day at the grocery store. Every day in the grocery store, we see this. They raise them because they can. My son who likes one particular brand of popcorn: Why is it at one store, the large chain, $4 more than the smaller store? Because they can.

You’re telling me Galen Weston can’t get a better price than a local mom-and-pop place? Come on. We’re getting gouged. We know it. The people of Ontario know it. They go to the grocery store and they see the price go up. They see that milk is $3 more than it used to be. What’s going on? We’re being gouged.

It’s the same as gas prices. I was talking about this on the drive down. The price of gas in Sudbury is a lot higher than it is here. I’m always told there’s this myth that the reason gas is a little pricier is because of the shipping. Look, if you go to North Bay, it’s about an hour and a half from where I live. It’s always 10 cents cheaper, and they always say it’s the shipping cost. Well, if it’s the shipping cost, then how come beer isn’t more? Because it’s an hour and a half for beer. How come it’s not more for a can of juice or a bottle of pop? How come it’s not more for milk? All of these are liquids that are being shipped. It’s because we’re getting gouged, and we know it. Because they can.

But going back to minimum wage and the cost: The elephant in the room is that people who are working full time can’t pay their bills. That really is something that has to be addressed. And more and more people are going to food banks. I mentioned this earlier with my first question to the Minister of Labour; it had to do with the number of people accessing food banks. We can’t have working people accessing food banks. The previous Minister of Labour, in estimates just a couple of weeks ago—I said that I know this started with the Liberal government. It’s not fair to the Conservative government to say, “Hey, you’re elected, it’s 2018, and now there’s a record number of people going to food banks who are working full time—more than ever before.” It’s a problem they inherited. But let’s keep this in reality. They’ve been in power for five years, half a decade. That number should start to trend down, and it’s not; it’s getting worse, as my colleague said. It’s getting worse.

I think if you want to show leadership in government, let’s put food banks out of business. Let’s tell them, “We have a plan, and you’re not going to be needed in the next five years or 10 years. We’re going to continue to reduce this. You might have to worry about food going bad on your shelves, because we don’t think more and more people should be going to food banks—more and more seniors and retirees, more and more working people, more and more children. We think this is the wrong direction, and we want to turn around the other way.” That’s something that could be in this bill, but it’s not. I believe the Conservative government is pretty happy with people going to food banks. It doesn’t bother them. It bothers me.

The thing, too, with food banks, Speaker, is that it’s cyclical, because if you’re going to a food bank, you don’t have extra money to donate to a food bank. And as more and more people go, less and less people can donate. At one point, people are going to show up and those cupboards are going to be bare, and we’re going to have kids go hungry. We’re going to have adults too, but I feel like a lot of times people are okay with adults going hungry. But kids are going hungry.

Feed Ontario had shared recently, “Ontario’s food banks were visited more than 4,353,000 times throughout the year, an increase of 42% over the last three years,” and “There has been a 47% increase in people with employment accessing food banks since 2018.” That’s a lot of people going—47%. And I’ll remind you that that was since 2018, and the government was elected in 2018. Obviously, they can’t fix the Liberal mistake right in the beginning, but five years later, this number shouldn’t continue to climb. It should be going down. That’s what they should be celebrating. It’s substantial. Daily Bread locally here in Toronto, their stat I had from 2022 was, “The proportion of food bank clients with full-time employment has doubled in the past year”—2022—“to 33%.” That’s 33% of people going to that food bank, just that one Daily Bread Food Bank; it has doubled.

Here’s the other thing about food banks. I only have two minutes left, but I want to talk about this because it is important. People on Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program, people who are on support from the government of Ontario—some are unable to work. Look, you have people on OW and ODSP who have to go to food banks. I spelled this out a couple of other times. If you’re a single individual on OW—Ontario Works, the old welfare system, if people are watching at home and don’t know the latest information—you get $733 a month. I don’t know how anybody can afford rent. Inflation has risen in 2018—since the last stat—by 16.68%. If you’re on disability, you get a little more than $733; you get $1,229 per month to survive, which is $900 below the poverty line. I looked up the numbers just to make sure. The government of Ontario website says that Ontario recipients receive up to $733 a month for basic needs and shelter, so that’s everything to make ends meet. A single person on ODSP with no dependents will receive a maximum of $1,308 per month. So they’re about the same; there’s about a $50 difference between the two stats, Daily Bread’s and the local numbers. We’ll use the higher numbers, though.

My riding, if you want to get a one-bedroom apartment, if you want some sort of dignity and to live by yourself, you’re looking at about a grand. In the former Minister of Labour’s riding, it was $1,200 to $1,400, but a grand is easier for math. So you have a thousand bucks just to cover your rent. On OW, you make $733. That means that every month, you’ve got to come up with $267—every single month: $267.

How do you find a job, how do you move forward in life when you don’t have enough money for food, when you’ve got to find more than $250 just to have a roof over your head and not get evicted? How do you focus on anything else besides basic survival with these terrible rates? It’s disgraceful. It has nothing to do with working for workers.

My clock is up. Sorry, Speaker.