I’d like to welcome the members of the U of T NDP, including Chaitri Shah, Francesca Policarpio, Jake Barton, Avreet Jagdev, Amareena Saleh, Marie Kinderman, Asima Kidwai, Tuneesha Roy, James Sinton and Samuel Sarjeant.

I would also like to welcome to the House Patrick Porzuczek from the reopen-the-Minden-ER group.

I also want to wish the very best to my new legislative assistant, Ayesha Khan, who is also in the House.

I’d like to give a warm welcome to my constituent Patrick Macklem, who is in the House. Welcome.

It’s my pleasure to welcome to the people’s House Patty Coates, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. Thank you so much for being here with us today, sister.

Welcome back, everyone.

I’d like to introduce Patrick Macklem, who’s the professor emeritus of constitutional law from the University of Toronto. He’s in the west members’ gallery.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Welcome back, Speaker, and colleagues.

This summer, people across the province of Ontario were feeling the strain of the rising affordability crisis, a cost-of-living crisis, a housing affordability crisis, and meanwhile, they’ve watched their government lurch from scandal to scandal, crisis to crisis. Now we’ve seen the resignation of three cabinet ministers and two senior staffers so far.

Speaker, my question is to the Premier: How can people trust this Premier to work for them when he has spent the last five years putting his friends and insiders first?

The government said they were going to clean things up. That’s what this Premier ran on, and now he’s embroiled in a scandal that has seen ethics laws broken. Three cabinet ministers have resigned in disgrace or ran for the exits. Staff in the Conservatives’ inner circles are leaving under a cloud of suspicion, and they’re lawyering up, Speaker. The Premier has said the buck stops with him, so let’s hear from him.

Will the Premier finally come clean and explain his personal involvement in the greenbelt scandal?

People out there thought something was wrong, and now we have two independent officers of the Legislature who have confirmed it. The Conservatives rigged the system to benefit their friends. I mean, it’s so bad that it’s being turned over to the RCMP.

Speaker, my question to the Premier is, has he spoken to the RCMP about the circumstances of the greenbelt carve-out?

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—

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?

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?

It’s a pleasure to rise today and welcome back my colleagues after our summer. I’d also like to congratulate our new Minister of Labour. He’s obviously a quick study and I appreciate his comments this morning.

My question to the member opposite—and I thank him for his comments as well. In my riding, I have Base Borden. Base Borden has been proudly training our armed forces, the men and women of our armed forces, since 1916. This past August, I was at Peacekeepers Park, in Angus, and heard retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie speak about our proud history of peacekeeping: 59 UN peacekeeping missions going back to 1949, and over 160,000 Canadians who have committed to keeping peace in the world.

My question to the member opposite is, we know that reservists play a key role in that, and this legislation guarantees them the same types of health benefits when they come home, including mental health. I’d like to know if he supports that.