My petition is to “Stand Up for Early Years and Child Care Workers.”

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas child care centres across the province are closing rooms and limiting enrolment because they cannot retain staff in their programs; and

“Whereas child care experts and advocates estimate Ontario may need as many as 65,000 new child care workers to meet the expected demand for $10-a-day child care; and

“Whereas without a strategy to recruit and retain child care workers through setting a salary scale, increasing wages, and implementing decent work standards, parents will lose access to affordable child care; and

“Whereas early years and child care workers have long been overlooked in child care policy-making discussions; and

“Whereas the vitally important work of early years and child care workers has been historically undervalued, with low pay, poor working conditions, and high turnover;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately establish an Early Years and Child Care Worker Advisory Commission to develop recommendations on how to support the early years and child care workforce and address staffing shortages, including through a salary scale, increased compensation and improved working conditions.”

I fully support this petition and give it to page River to deliver to the table.

I want to thank Cathy Orlando, who’s joining us here in the gallery from Citizens’ Climate Lobby, for helping collect these petitions.

“Pause the Expansion of the Methane-Fired Electricity Generation.

“Whereas the Earth just passed through the hottest three months on record;

“Whereas Canada is experiencing the most severe wildfire season on record;

“Whereas the Ontario government is preparing investments for electricity supply for the long term;

“Whereas in light of recent reports by the RBC Climate Action Institute, Dunsky Energy and Climate Advisors and the Sustainability Solutions Group;

“We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario to pause the expansion of methane-fired electricity generation and evaluate the role of renewable energy in the storage, conservation, distributed energy resources and municipal net-zero plans in meeting Ontario’s electricity needs.”

I support this petition. I’ve learned from Cathy’s daughter, Sophia Mathur, to listen to the experts. I’ll affix my signature and provide it to page Huzaifa for the table.

That concludes the time we have for petitions this afternoon.

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 25, 2023, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 79, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi, le travail et d’autres questions.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 79. Much like the previous two bills introduced by the former Minister of Labour, there are a number of important issues addressed in the bill, but it tends to tinker around the edges. There’s a lot of substance missing. It gives the appearance of doing something for workers without actually taking on the most concerning issues.

I would like to start by looking at schedule 1, and I have here notes from the submission to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs’ review of Bill 79, submitted by the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, Workers’ Action Centre and Parkdale Community Legal Services. What they have said is that when the labour minister introduced the Working for Workers Act, he stated that it would strengthen protections for foreign workers. However, Bill 79, as drafted—and no amendments by the official opposition were accepted by the government—will not benefit most migrant workers facing exorbitant recruitment fees and labour exploitation. EPFNA only applies to foreign nationals who have valid work permits or are in the process of applying for a work permit. Many migrant workers fall outside of this narrow application. For instance, recruiters often bring migrant workers to Ontario on visitor permits. Because of the use of visitor permits, the EPFNA does not apply to those workers, who find themselves open to illegal fees and labour exploitation. This bill does nothing for those migrant workers.

The government talks of penalties and increased fines under violations of EPFNA; however, Bill 79 only proposes to apply higher fines to employers and recruiters that withhold passports and work permits. Nothing in this bill applies to penalties for illegal recruitment fees. Evidence exists that migrant workers have been forced to pay as much as $10,000 to get to work in Ontario. Therefore, schedule 1 also should have addressed workers in fear of employee retaliation for raising concerns of exploitation. Very few workers will come forward to raise claims of withheld documents and illegal fees. Those few migrant workers that do come forward and are successful in their claims find that fines and penalties are effectively not levelled against recruiters and employers found in violation of the act.

What we’ve seen is that according to this bill, the fines have been increased, but between 2009 and 2017, only two employers were given a fine—of $250—out of 35 employers found in violation of the EPFNA. Similarly, under the Employment Standards Act, prosecutions of employers in violation of the act went from 79 in 2017-18 to only 12 in 2021. Clearly, we need to increase the proactive enforcement of both the EPFNA and the Employment Standards Act.

Considering the significant barriers that migrant workers face, a complaint-based approach to minimum standards compliance cannot effectively address the systemic mistreatment and wage theft that we see migrant workers face. A more effective strategy of enforcement is through proactive inspections of recruiters and employers of migrant workers. Proactive inspections are supposed to be conducted by the employment standards officer in a manner that protects the identity of individual workers that may have made a complaint. Unfortunately, under this government, proactive inspections have declined from almost 3,000 in 2017 to 224 in 2021. It really begs the question of how sincere the government is in applying fines to wage theft and other forms of exploitation of migrant workers. Indeed, the deterrence of the fines proposed in Bill 79 is negligible if those fines are never actually levied against anyone.

Finally, they have another recommendation. The ministry also publicizes prosecutions under the Employment Standards Act. Given that the ESA and the EPFNA are complementary pieces of legislation and part of the same minimum standards, prosecutions under the EPFNA should also be published. That’s about section 1.

We in the official opposition know that we need to create new jobs as part of our transition to a low-carbon economy. I must say, I’m very interested to hear what the members of the Ford Conservative caucus are prepared to admit about the existence of climate change after our summer of incredible floods and fires.

I’m just going back to some statements that were made in the House at the end of the spring session. At that time, we had drifting smoke from wildfires triggering special air quality advisories for large swaths of Ontario—we recall that here, in this House and outside this building—with Environment Canada warning of high levels of air pollution that can be harmful to everyone’s health, even at low concentrations.

“At Queen’s Park, Premier Doug Ford acknowledged the ‘major impact’ of the blanket of smoke across the greater Toronto area but said the province is ‘responding in full force’ with 142 fire ranger crews, 28 aircraft and nine heavy water bombers.”

Now, I’m going to come to these numbers again later, because numbers can be very deceptive. We don’t know what these numbers compare to, so, in fact, we don’t know whether these numbers and the number of people fighting wildfires are actually sufficient.

“During question period, NDP leader Marit Stiles claimed this isn’t an ordinary fire season and expressed concern about the ‘new normal’ in Ontario as children are forced to stay indoors due to poor air quality.

“‘This is not normal, with the very real impacts of climate change being felt by millions of Ontarians,’ Stiles told the Legislature. ‘Yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry refused to acknowledge a connection between the climate crisis and these forest fires.’

“Ford, who accused the NDP is politicizing the wildfires, pinned the blame on campers and the weather.

“‘I have heard approximately 50% of the fires are started by lightning strikes, the other 50% are people starting campfires and not putting out the campfires properly.... I’m asking every Ontarian, please do not light any campfires.’

“When pressed on whether climate change is contributing to the current wildfire season, Ford dismissed the suggestion.

“‘They happen every single year similar to the floods,’ Ford said. ‘The wildfires fires start every single year.’”

I have another article here. The headline is “World on Fire: 2023 Is Canada’s Worst Wildfire Season on Record, and It’s Not Over Yet.” That was on September 4.

“More than 15 million hectares have gone up in smoke across the country this year, shattering the previous record of 7.6 million hectares in 1989 as well as the 10-year average of 2.5 million hectares.”

Oh, my goodness. And we know that four wildfire firefighters died this summer, one from Ontario, working out in BC. People have lost their homes, communities have been evacuated again and again, and clearly—although it might not be admitted on that side of the House—climate change has arrived. It’s urgent that we deal with it.

In fact, it was interesting: I listened to something on the CBC. It was a series of 30-year-old interviews with David Suzuki, and those interviews 30 years ago were saying, “This is urgent. We absolutely must do something now. We can’t fiddle around.” Well, apparently we are still fiddling around, at least on one side of the House.

I want to move on to wildland firefighters, because there are many issues here. I received a number of copies of this letter, and I will read it. It’s from a constituent in my riding.

“I’m writing to you today to express my extreme disappointment at the Ford government’s cuts to wildfire management programs and unfair treatment of those on the front lines working hard to protect us and our communities.

“Forest fire workers are working around the clock to manage record-breaking fires with minimal resources provided. But the Ford government is gambling with their safety, and our ability to breathe clean air. There are runaway fires burning right now that could have been contained, but there are not enough crews. This year, Ontario is 50 crews short, because the Ford government cut 67% of funding for wildfire management programs.”

This brings me back to the uselessness, or the tactic, of giving numbers—how much money is being spent—when we don’t know how much it compares to and how much is actually missing. So it’s a 67% cut of funding for wildfire management programs.

“High turnover persists in Ontario’s aviation, forest fire and emergency services because of low pay and precarious work. Bill 124”—oh, we’ve come back to Bill 124 again—“has made the crisis even worse. Experienced workers are moving to different jobs where they’re better paid and have more job security. This means there are not enough experienced fire rangers to lead crews.

“Representatives from 14 bases met with the minister to reiterate their demands for:

“—better wages;

“—danger pay;

“—more permanent, full-time jobs;

“—proper training and equipment.

“This government has the power to fix this crisis. It is gambling with our safety with cuts and wage caps across the public sector. As a constituent in your riding, I urge you to listen to forest fire workers and move quickly to fix the crisis.”

This letter is signed by Khelsey Benson, who is from the riding of Thunder Bay–Superior North.

I want to continue on the topic of wildland firefighters. Last night, on CBC News, there was a very sad story, and I’m going to read a little bit of this: “Kim Leblanc is the widow of Thomas Leblanc, a former wildland firefighter who died from cancer in 2010. She fought for almost 10 years to get Ontario’s workers’ compensation system to recognize that his illness was caused by 35 years of wildfire exposure.

“Thomas Leblanc spent 35 years fighting wildfires in Montana, Alberta, British Columbia and his home province of Ontario, but when he developed a cancer linked to firefighting, he was repeatedly denied workplace coverage.

“‘Being outside was his dream,’ his widow, Kim Leblanc, said from the family home in Coldwater, Ont. ‘He loved it. He was like a Dalmatian sitting in the front seat of that fire truck and waiting for the call.’

“In 2009, Leblanc found a lump in his neck and was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, one of more than a dozen cancers considered a presumptive work-related illness in most parts of Canada for structural firefighters.” That means urban firefighters. “That means the illness is automatically accepted as likely being caused by occupational exposure—making it easier to access workplace compensation and supports.

“Leblanc applied to” the WSIB “for compensation but was rejected.

“In all but four jurisdictions in Canada, wildland firefighters are excluded in legislation from the presumptions granted to structural firefighters, who respond to fires inside buildings, fire alarms, chemical spills and accidents....

“Thomas Leblanc died at the age of 54 in August 2010, roughly a year after he was first diagnosed. He asked his wife to keep fighting the WSIB claim.

“‘He said nobody, nobody should have to go through this,’ she said.”

This is something that surely could have been addressed in one of these three workers bills, but it is not addressed, and I know that it has been raised. It’s been raised numerous times.

I just want to go back to some of the warnings that were expressed earlier in this year. This is from June 2, just before we ended our session at the Legislature:

“A water bomber flies overhead of Parry Sound 33, one of the more aggressive fires Ontario rangers dealt with in recent years.

“While provincial firefighters are trying to douse the flames of several forest fires in northern Ontario, their union is raising concerns about how the Ontario government is running the wildfire program.

“JP Hornick, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union (OPSEU), said the province is short 50 fire crews this season....

“A big problem, the union leader says, is how the province has been approaching the recruitment—and retention—of its” firefighters.

“‘Every season [the province] faces the same problem.... There’s a scramble to manage with too few workers.’

“‘What you have is that young workers start but there are too few permanent jobs, and so they leave.’

“According to Hornick, the province offers firefighters three to six-month contracts, rather than year-round employment.

“It wasn’t always this way....

“‘Used to be that in the non-fire season what the rangers would do is clear brush,’ Hornick said.

“‘They would do the kind of upkeep work in other areas of the ministry or across ministries to actually help prevent forest fires the following season and to help with things like snow clearing and whatnot.’

“‘With the cost of living crisis as it is and housing and travel that’s required, people simply either aren’t applying or they’re finding jobs in other sectors where they can find that permanent employment....’

“Adding to the challenge of recruitment is the lure of full-time firefighting work with municipalities—and their more lucrative salaries—which draws a lot of bodies out of the potential pool of firefighters....

“‘It should be a no-brainer that the wage gap needs to be closed, period,’ Hornick said. ‘They need their pay increase, but they also need that contract problem addressed.’

“‘There is no world in which we think that fire rangers should be on short-term contracts at this point with climate change the way it is....’

“The ministry has adjusted to staffing challenges” apparently “by mobilizing slightly larger crews,” even though they were still short 50 crews, “which they hope will provide enough experience to train future leaders.

“The province also has several agreements with neighbouring provinces and states to tackle larger fires, and if needed, can call on reinforcements from countries like Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand.”

But it’s important to note—I had a very long conversation with an experienced fire crew leader who had been around for a long time, and what he said to me is that you need at least seven years’ experience fighting specific kinds of fires. For example, in northern Ontario, that would be boreal forest fires. He said it’s great when the international firefighters come, but they can only assign them to the simplest kinds of fires to put out because they don’t have the experience with the kind of fires that they’re facing. They need people to have permanent jobs so that that experience is built up over time. There are certainly young people out there, and I know of young people—because I met the father of one this summer who said his son had been a wildland firefighter. He had hoped it would be his career, but he got wind that there were only going to be part-time contracts available, so he quit and moved into something else.

In conclusion, again I want to emphasize that the work of wildland firefighters could have been addressed in this bill. The WSIB protections could have been addressed. They’re not here. It’s critical if we’re going to face climate change. Thank you very much.

This is titled “Stop the 413 GTA West Highway.

Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government is pushing ahead with plans to build Highway 413, a redundant and wasteful 400-series highway through the greenbelt that would cost taxpayers an estimated $10 billion or more; and

“Whereas according to a TorStar/National Observer investigation entitled ‘Friends with Benefits?’ powerful developers and land speculators with political and donor ties to the Premier and the” Conservative “Party of Ontario own thousands of acres along the proposed highway corridor and would profit from its construction, suggesting that this $10-billion taxpayer-funded highway is about serving the private interests of the Premier’s friends and donors, not the public interest; and

“Whereas the Ontario government’s expert panel concluded in 2017 that Highway 413 would be a waste of taxpayer money that would only save drivers 30 to 60 seconds on their commutes; and

“Whereas that expert panel identified less costly and less destructive alternatives to new highway construction, such as making better use of the underused Highway 407, just 15 kilometres away; and

“Whereas Highway 413 would pave over 400 acres of greenbelt and 2,000 acres of farmland, destroy the habitats of at-risk and endangered species, and pollute rivers and streams; and

“Whereas building more highways encourages more vehicle use and increases traffic and congestion; and

“Whereas the highway would cause significant harm to historic Indigenous sites;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop” its Conservative “plans for building Highway 413.”

I couldn’t agree more. I’ve affixed my signature and am handing it over to Devyansh.

This petition is called “Support Bill 21, the Till Death Do Us Part Act.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there are 38,000 people on the wait-list for long-term care; and

“Whereas the median wait time for a long-term-care bed has risen from 99 days in 2011-12 to 171 days in 2020-21; and

“Whereas according to Home Care Ontario, the cost of a hospital bed is $842, while the cost of a long-term-care bed is $175; and

“Whereas couples should have the right to live together as they age;

“Whereas Ontario seniors have worked hard to build this province and deserve dignity in care;

“Whereas Bill 21 amends the Residents’ Bill of Rights in the Fixing Long-Term Care Act to provide the resident with the right to be together upon admission and to continue to live with their spouse or their partner;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Minister of Long-Term Care to call Bill 21 to the Standing Committee on Social Policy to find a compassionate solution to provide seniors with the right to live together as they age.”

It’s my pleasure to affix my signature to my petition, and let’s get this done.

We’re going to move to questions for the member. Any questions? The member for Flamborough–Glanbrook.

I heard the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook say that she’s proud of the government’s progress on climate change, so maybe she hasn’t read the Ontario climate change impact report. She wouldn’t be alone, because nobody in the province got to read that report because this government buried it. They received the report in January and they quietly, quietly slunk it out in August.

Just so we’re clear: On every measure, this government is doing so poorly when it comes to climate. Ontarians are going to see worsening and severe impacts in every single category. This is a government that is just completely unprepared.

Your acknowledgement of the work that firefighters do in this province—it is so important to hear that message because they are on the front line of the deliberate negligence of this government to invest in climate change and to invest in firefighters.

My question to you is, why do you think that this government does not have the backs of firefighters who are keeping us safe all across northern Ontario and the rest of the province?

I have two points. The coverage is not explicit enough in the bill as it is for firefighters.

Regarding climate action by this government, I simply need to point to the greenbelt and the giveaway of farmland; the giveaway of farmland that we’re seeing in the Hamilton area and the loss of wetlands and the things that they were told—“Absolutely, do not do this.” They were begged for months and months and months: “Do not do this. It will be harmful to the environment. It undoes anything else you might be doing to address climate change.” You can’t just take away with one hand and do something over here and expect they will never come together.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s nice to see you back in the chair this afternoon.

I was listening intently to the comments by the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North. You did ask, “I’m interested to hear what the members of the government feel about climate change and what the Ford government has done to address climate change.” And I’m very proud of what our government has done to address climate change. I want to just remind the member, and I’m sure you recall, of the $400-million investment we made towards manufacturing green steel at the Dofasco in my hometown of Hamilton. We made the largest investment in the world in manufacturing electric batteries for electric vehicles. The largest transit expansion in North America is being currently done under this government, under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford. Of course, we also opened the first provincial urban park—one of the first provincial parks in decades.

My question to the member opposite is more about firefighters. Do you agree with expanding the coverage that we are now providing firefighters?

How would you better this bill to impact disabled people who get injured on the job?

Next question?

We’ll have to move to further debate. I recognize the member for Guelph.

Oh, we’ve got an answer coming. We’ve got an answer.

I want to thank the member for her debate. I’m going to have to ask a very quick question. I have a constituent who has had wage theft occur. I just wanted to know what you think this bill, Working for Workers Act, could do better in order to help people recoup their wages from employers who have wage theft among their own staff.

It’s an honour to rise for third reading debate on Bill 79. I’d like to open my comments with a focus on schedules 6 and 7, the Ontario Disability Support Program Act and the Ontario Works Act.

I want to make three points. When I saw that these acts were being opened, I was hoping the government was going to make a commitment to ending legislated poverty, not only because it’s the right thing to do, to stop forcing people to live in poverty—think about it: If you’re on Ontario Works, you make about $1,200 a month. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Toronto is $2,500 a month; in my riding in Guelph, it’s about $2,000 now. How can we expect people to live on $1,200 a month?

Especially, I would also think the government would be interested in ending legislated poverty because it costs the province $33 billion a year, putting added pressure on our health care system, our justice system, our social service systems. So why don’t we more than double ODSP rates to bring them above the low-income cut-off line, end legislated poverty in the province of Ontario and save $33 billion?

Second, I was hoping they would actually improve access to the program, because I can’t tell you how many people in my riding are denied access to ODSP when they clearly have a disability and then have to go through months and months of waiting for their appeal to be heard while they’re living in even more legislated poverty of $731 a month. That’s cruel. It’s not what we as Ontarians are about.

Finally, the government talks a lot about ending red tape, so why don’t we end red tape for people living in poverty? Why don’t we end the penalties of having your benefits reduced if you’re actually living in the same space with someone you love? I was hoping when I saw these schedules open that that’s what the government was going to do.

Next, in the brief moment I have left, I want to talk about schedule 1, because, yes, I think we need to do better by migrant workers in this province. I believe that the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act should apply to all migrant workers, period, not just those with permits, because we want to make sure we end this practice of exploitative recruitment of migrant workers. Two, we want to make sure there are fines for all infractions, not just for permit seizures. And three, we need to have proactive inspections if there are going to be any teeth to the increase in fines under this schedule.

Speaker, I’m happy to now accept questions from the opposition.

We also have to understand that we need proactive government action to ensure that we fight harassment, sexual and gender-based violence in the trades as well and in all professions, because we want to make sure that when women enter the trades, they’re entering a workplace that is safe for them and free of harassment. I hope that all of us can work across party lines to ensure that happens in Ontario.

Thank you to the member from Guelph for his remarks this afternoon. One of the areas that I think is very interesting in this bill is the efforts being put to encourage more women in the trades. We know that we have an extremely big shortage of workers in all of the skilled trades, and one way to address that is certainly to attract women into a profession that pays good wages.

When I was lucky enough to meet a number of women who were training to be electricians, they were talking about how this job was giving them an opportunity—they were single parents—to provide for their family. They felt very fortunate that they were in a profession that paid fairly high wages.

One of the things that we’re doing is changing facilities so women feel more comfortable on job sites, for example. I just wanted to get your opinion on women in the trades.

Thank you to the member for his comments this afternoon. I have definitely been listening to all debate across the House today.

The member from the government side talked about encouraging women into the trades, which we all know is a fantastic thing to be happening, but I think she was putting her words towards things that aren’t even in the bill. She was referring to washrooms being on job sites as an encouragement for women in the trades. I think we could do much more than that to encourage women to enter the trades, because it’s a great job and a great living to be able to support their families on.

You touched on some sexual assault training that should be happening on the job sites also. Do you have any other thoughts? And do you think it would have been important to put that into this actual Working for Workers legislation?

It does seem to be a government that is good with some kinds of infrastructure but really lousy with workers and proper employment and paying decent wages and making sure that they actually have protection for when they are exposed to hazardous materials in their job. I truly don’t understand. I know that there are members on that side of the House who do understand the risks of firefighting, but I do not understand why that side of the House does not respect wildland firefighters enough to pay them properly and make sure that they are covered for work exposure to carcinogens. That needs to happen now; it could have happened months ago. It needs to be in this bill.

The minister knows full well that there are very, very legitimate concerns about how nuclear energy is going to roll out. If there is no space on that side of the House to actually entertain those concerns, they are not doing their job as a responsible government. Thank you very much.

I’d also like to mention that this is also taking place with workers in the trucking industry—

I would love to get an answer to my question. It’s well documented what the NDP critic for energy and environment has said and how he feels about continuing to have our province powered by nuclear, which makes up 50% to 60% of our electricity every day. Our nuclear sector employs 76,000 people in this province, Madam Speaker. We know how the NDP critic feels about this. He’s against nuclear in Ontario.

I’m just wondering how widespread it is in the NDP caucus, because the NDP member from Thunder Bay—now, I know the Conservative member from Thunder Bay is supportive of our nuclear assets, but the NDP member for Thunder Bay: Is she for or is she against our Ontario nuclear advantage, which isn’t just powering Ontario but has the potential to allow other jurisdictions around the world to do what we have done and eliminate coal-fired electricity generation?