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.

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.

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

Interjections.

That’s what working for workers is.

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.

I listened to my friend from Brampton North intently. I have a question for him, given the intent about Working for Workers. There’s another bill before this House that would seem to suggest the government’s commitment to this may be a little fickle. I’m thinking about transit workers, the people who were there to move us around in the middle of the pandemic, who put themselves at risk, who are facing situations of violence on our transit system all the time—and we’ve talked about that in this place. Schedule 1 of Bill 131 before this House allows the TTC here in the great city of Toronto to enter into agreements with other regional transit authorities where the collective agreement signed with employees in those transit systems would not apply.

Can the member from Brampton North clarify if he believes in the value of collective bargaining agreements, if he believes that those collective bargaining agreements negotiated in good faith with employers in transit should remain in force in any transit arrangement this government comes up with?