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?

I would like to begin by congratulating our new Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, Minister David Piccini. I would also like to thank the former minister, the representative from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, Monte McNaughton, for all of the work that he has done on this bill, and of course our parliamentary assistants, the representatives from Mississauga–Malton, Deepak Anand, and Scarborough Centre, David Smith, for their work on Bill 79.

The efforts by the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development on the Working for Workers Act support the goal of our government to help more people find meaningful work and combat the province’s historic labour shortage.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in support of Bill 79, the Working for Workers Act, 2023. With more than 800,000 people relying on social assistance and approximately 285,000 jobs unfilled in the province, our government is making it easier for job seekers to get the help they need to find better jobs tailored to their individual needs. Recognizing this, our government is taking the necessary steps to stimulate the labour market and to ensure that workers feel looked after, two specific areas being firefighters and the armed forces. Those are the two areas I will be focusing on this afternoon.

In both of these occupations, workers risk their lives for the well-being of the population and experience adverse side effects while doing so. Firefighters can die of cancer at a rate four times higher than those in the general population, and 25 to 30 firefighters die every year in Ontario. Thyroid cancer and pancreatic cancer are some of the more common types associated with the occupation, yet not currently covered by the WSIB. This proposed legislation has provisions to make it easier for firefighters, fire investigators and their survivors to get access to WSIB compensation.

The importance of supporting firefighters hits close to home for many, especially those in the Hamilton area, as one of our own, Captain Bob Shaw, passed away due to his exposure at the Plastimet fire. For those of you who don’t know what the Plastimet fire is: In July 1997, plastics recycler Plastimet Inc., located on Wellington Street North in Hamilton, erupted in flames and continued to burn for four days straight. It was not until afterwards that people learned the severity of this fire. More than 400 tonnes of PVC and other plastics were stored at the facility, and throughout the several days of burning, dioxin and other hazardous chemicals were released into the air.

Madam Speaker, I’m going to turn now to an article that was published 20 years after the Plastimet fire in Hamilton’s CBC News. “The Plastimet fire burned for days—but its effects lingered for years.

“On July 9, 1997, a raging fire broke out in an industrial recycling factory on Wellington Street North. Toxic chemicals filled the air as the plastics burned—you could see the smoke billowing into the air as far away as Niagara Falls. Almost 300 firefighters responded, many of whom suffered short- and long-term health issues in the wake of the fire.

“It was the largest plastics fire in Canadian history. It was also a catalyst for change, directly altering the way firefighter health is monitored in Hamilton, and the way firefighters with health issues are compensated in Ontario.”

The CBC went on to interview a number of people who were on site that day. “Rob D’Amico, secretary of the Hamilton Professional Firefighters Association, deployed to the Plastimet fire.

“It was a typical warm summer night. Rob D’Amico was out in the truck doing inspections with his crew when they started hearing radio chatter about a fire in the area.”

“‘We didn’t think much of it at first,’ he said.

“But the chatter continued. After four or five emergency upgrades to the alarm, they were called in to help.

“‘When we got there most of the building was engulfed.’

“His crew was ordered to set up an aerial tower from their truck, so they positioned themselves on the nearby train tracks.

“The smoke rose hundreds of feet in the air, he says. ‘It was unbelievable, nothing I’ve ever seen before.’

“At the time, all they could focus on was putting it out. But after the smoke settled, many firefighters were concerned about what they’d just been exposed to.

“‘Many of our guys had rashes, their skin peeled off, they had lung issues, coughing,’ he said. ‘I remember the smell of chloride in the air when we got there. We didn’t know exactly what was burning, but it didn’t smell good’”—we know now.

I recently sat down with members of the Hamilton firefighters association, who spoke to me about the importance of expanding the coverage provided by the WSIB to firefighters. The efforts put forth by these members, as well as many more throughout the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, have resulted in great advancements, such as coverage for 19 cancers now, as well as a screening program and medical exposure monitoring program available to any fire department in Ontario in hopes of catching the disease early.

Madam Speaker, I’m also very fortunate to have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with men and women who have served in Canada’s military. Many, many moons ago, when I was working as a reporter, I covered many stories when I was based in Petawawa at CFB Petawawa and at RMC Kingston. I also had the opportunity to travel to Doha, Qatar, in 1991, during the very first Gulf War, to cover Canada’s military presence on the base there called Canada Dry One. These experiences resulted in a profound connection that I have to the Canadian Armed Forces, which only solidifies my support with what is laid out in Bill 97.

Thousands of people in Ontario are active reservists that put their full-time careers on hold to join military missions at home and abroad. We need to recognize their sacrifice and enable the process to be as smooth as possible. That is why our government is proposing to reduce the length of employment needed before going on reservist leave to two months of continuous employment, rather than the current three, and no length-of-employment requirement if the leave is for assisting during a domestic emergency. We are also proposing to create a new leave to help reservists recover from injuries, physical or mental, after a deployment.

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Flamborough–Glanbrook, which is a rural community, the skilled trades play a critical role. Bill 79 is in alignment with our government’s efforts of investing nearly a billion dollars since 2020 to break the stigma, to attract youth, to simplify the system and to encourage employer participation in the skilled trades. Although Ontario has added close to 700,000 new manufacturing jobs since we formed government in 2018, we still have a huge shortage. With more than 100,000 unfilled skilled trades across the province today, it is crucial that our government commit to attracting more young people to a good career in the trades.

That is why, if this legislation is passed, it will require students entering grade 9 beginning September 2024 to earn a grade 9 or 10 technological education credit as part of their Ontario secondary school diploma. This will create new pathways to jobs in STEM and the skilled trades, which is necessary, as projections state that by 2026 approximately one in five job openings in Ontario will be in a skilled trade-related field.

This legislation will combat historic labour shortages experienced by the province by allowing students in grade 11 to transition to a full-time skilled trades apprenticeship program. Once receiving their certificate of apprenticeship, these young workers can apply for their Ontario secondary school diploma as mature students.

This will help encourage more young people who are thinking of leaving high school before they actually are able to achieve getting a grade 12 diploma to stay in school, to acquire a trade, to be able to move on and perhaps buy a home, get married and raise a family. This particular route will be open to both girls and boys. Young girls, as we have mentioned earlier, will be encouraged to pursue a career in the trades.

Additionally, our government plans to commence consultations this fall with stakeholders such as employers, unions, trainers, educators and parents on further efforts to make it easier for young people to enter the trades. This could look like altering academic entry requirements for certain skilled trades in Ontario to allow students to enter the workforce sooner.

In the Hamilton area, both the Hamilton International Airport and our port are of particular interest for us in encouraging more workers into the trades. The Hamilton International Airport is the busiest overnight cargo airport in Canada. It actually received the very first shipment of COVID vaccines in Canada, and our Premier was waiting on the tarmac to accept them. The airport is also home to a classroom developed out of a relationship between Mohawk College and KF Aerospace. Students experience in-class and hands-on learning to become airplane technicians.

Also, Madam Speaker, the Hamilton port is the busiest port on the Great Lakes. Once again, the skilled trades play an integral role. Recently, our government awarded $3.7 million to Heddle Shipyards through the Skills Development Fund. This investment will help 300 shipyard workers, apprentices and job seekers get the training that they need in the growing ship-building sector. This is just another example of a relationship between Mohawk College and a local business where some students received both in-class and hands-on training focused on improving and refreshing the technical skills necessary for work in the shipping sector.

Madam Speaker, there is a very real shortage of skilled workers in all of the trades. For example, we need over 100,000 skilled workers over the next 10 years to fill positions in the construction industry, and that as we prepare to build Ontario at an unprecedented rate.

The people of Ontario are experiencing a housing crisis. The riding of Flamborough–Glanbrook is one of the fastest-growing in Ontario, and our province is welcoming hundreds of thousands of new Canadians each year. They will need a place to live. Our young people, like my own sons, who are at that age where they want to buy a home want to realize the dream of home ownership, as many of us here in this chamber have all realized.

In order to do that, we must address the shortage of homes in Ontario. We must build more homes, and we cannot do that without the workers to build the homes. We need more people in the construction industry. We need more framers. We need more people in the electrical industry. We need more plumbers. We need people to fill all of the trades, and the work that we are doing, including the measures that we are presenting today in this bill, will help address that particular shortage.

Our government’s commitment to build more homes faster cannot happen, as I’ve said, without the labour force to do so. Apart from the credit requirement, another way to encourage jobs in the trades is through enforcing better working conditions on the job site. In the case of construction specifically, amending construction project regulations for properly fitting PPE and amending existing hygiene provisions will further support women pursuing a career in the trades.

I was reading up on one of the issues on PPE, and it was really something I hadn’t thought about, but when you think back to jobs that historically were filled by men, the PPE—the equipment, the clothing that workers in the skilled trades wore and continue to wear—are generally designed for men. It’s not unlike what happened with us when we first were able to sit in the chair. We were fitted out in a uniform, if you will, that had been originally designed for a man. So these women who now want to pursue a career in the trades are using ill-fitting, for example, PPE because, again, it was made for a man.

This particular bill will address those issues. It will require more attention to be paid so that women can actually have proper-fitting PPE. It’s going to be part of a measure to make job sites safer for women.

The other part that I think is very important: I know a lot of my colleagues would not and would never probably want to use any of the washroom facilities on a job site. In this particular bill, Madam Speaker, Ontario is proposing to require women’s-only washrooms on construction sites and, as we talked about the PPE, to ensure that women have properly fitting safety gear.

These proposed regulatory amendments are part of a comprehensive strategy to meet labour demand and to bring better jobs and bigger paycheques within reach for more people, but particularly for more women. The proposed improvements will encourage women to be able to enter the field and feel more comfortable in using the toilets that are on-site. They will feel safer. There will be better lighting. They will have to be cleaner. Sanitizer will have to be made available.

Ensuring female workers have access to at least one women’s-only toilet facility on a construction site where five or more toilets are required, reducing the distance workers need to travel to get to toilet facilities when reasonably possible: As I said, these proposed regulatory amendments are all part of a comprehensive strategy to meet labour demand and to bring better jobs and bigger paycheques to all people across Ontario who are interested in pursuing a career in the trades, but in particular to women, to encourage more women in the field.

I also want to talk a little bit about, Madam Speaker, some of the—just bear with me here. This was about foreign workers and what we are doing to address some of the issues that are facing vulnerable workers, foreign workers in particular—I know it was raised by one of the members opposite earlier. To build a stronger Ontario, we are protecting vulnerable and foreign workers by making sure they are safe, they are protected and that they are treated fairly.

Ontario is introducing new legislation that would, if passed, strengthen protections for vulnerable and foreign workers by increasing the maximum fines for employers and recruiters that are convicted of taking or retaining a foreign national’s passport or work permit under the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009. Despite being outlined in the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, some employers continue to take employee passports and work permits. By increasing maximum fines under the act, individuals or corporations could be liable and convicted for taking or retaining passports or work permits.

Madam Speaker, enhancing the labour market has been a particular focus of our government. In 2021, our government introduced the first Working for Workers Act. We have made amendments in 2022 and now in 2023 as well, responding to changing circumstances in order to better Ontario.

The first act introduced measures to make it easier for workers to spend time with their families and loved ones by requiring employers to have a right-to-disconnect policy. We also banned the use of non-compete agreements, ensuring fairness for our workers by allowing them the opportunity to advance their careers and by helping smaller and growing businesses find the skilled workers they need. We also acknowledged the importance, as I mentioned, of immigrants for stimulating our labour market. We made it easier for internationally trained workers to practise the professions they trained in when we welcome them to Ontario.

The second act made Ontario the first province in Canada to establish a minimum wage and other foundational rights for digital platform workers who provide rideshare, delivery and courier services. This helps level the playing field.

Madam Speaker, these changes proposed in the Working for Workers Act, 2023, build on the successes of the Working for Workers Act, 2021, and the Working for Workers Act, 2022, and are part of our government’s plan to make Ontario the best place to live, work and raise a family.

Another question?

Thank you. I appreciate the question.

Absolutely, additional provisions to protect women in the trades should have been included in this legislation. As a matter of fact, there’s a number of things that should have been included in this legislation. It’s very narrow in its scope on almost every single schedule in this bill. I think if we’re going to talk about working for workers, we need to create the workplace conditions that make work safe for all workers: free of harassment, sexual and gender-based violence. We also need to make sure that when workers are injured, they’re actually taken care of, which was one of the things that I think was missing from one of the schedules of the bill that talked about injured workers. I think there are many ways in which this bill could have had an expanded scope to create a bill that truly worked for workers.

Ça fait tout le temps plaisir d’avoir la chance de parler, puis aussi de poser une question.

J’entendais la collègue parler, sa présentation. Moi, j’ai un neveu qui a travaillé comme sapeur de feu. En plus de ça, il était un « crew leader ». Il a fait ça pendant des années, puis il a changé d’emploi parce que—je lui ai demandé : « Pourquoi, Travis, tu es parti, que tu n’es pas resté dans le milieu? » Parce qu’il était un « crew leader ». Il était bien respecté. Il aimait ce qu’il faisait. Mais il se sentait dénigré. Il se sentait comme s’il n’était pas respecté.

Premièrement, il n’était pas bien payé. Il dit : « On se fait débarquer dans des lieux de travail et on n’est même pas compensé pour vivre dans des tentes, vivre dans des conditions qui, on peut dire, sont assez difficiles, là. » Puis ils se font déménager assez souvent. Le gouvernement a eu l’opportunité d’adresser, de payer—on sait que la province brûlait cet été, là. On a vu un tapon de feu—on voit comment il y a eu d’impact à cause de la planète qui se réchauffe.

Comment le gouvernement—j’aimerais que la députée réponde à ma question. Vous avez eu l’opportunité. Pourquoi ne pas rémunérer ces personnes-là comme il faut, et leur donner des augmentations—pas 1 %, comme le projet de loi 124? Retirez le projet de loi 124, puis rémunérez ces personnes-là, puis donnez-leur aussi des payes de—comment est-ce que je te dirais ça—

Thank you to the member opposite for her debate time. I definitely listened intently as she raised the Plastimet fire. We know the case of Bob Shaw and the cancer that he obtained through that, and the presumptive legislation that came from that fire and Bob, due to the work of Andrea Horwath, who was the previous leader of the NDP and is now the mayor of Hamilton, who worked diligently to ensure that that legislation was passed. We’re pleased to see that expanded, but I find it unconscionable that it is not in this legislation.

Can the member please explain why they do not feel it is necessary to embed it in legislation and ensure that it is there to support firefighters forever in time?

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that.

I want to commend the member for Flamborough–Glanbrook on her remarks today on Working for Workers. I had a question. It’s something dear to my heart; I’ve been involved with the 1st Hussars back in Sarnia–Lambton. Could you speak a little more about the expansion and improvements to the military reservists and what we’re looking at doing there?

We’re going to move to questions.

The member for Flamborough–Glanbrook to respond.

I want to thank you for your very thoughtful comments on everything that’s being brought forward with this bill. The member brought up a very interesting point. I was listening to the adjustments of PPE, which is something I’ve actually heard personally from constituents: women forced to wear PPE that was designed for men and perhaps less safe as a result. I’m wondering if the member wanted to comment further on what this will do for women in the trades.

Firefighters, as we know, and as I mentioned in my remarks earlier, die of cancer at a rate of up to four times higher than the general population. On average, 50 to 60 firefighters die of cancer yearly in Canada, and half of those are actually in Ontario. That is why, Madam Speaker, our government is making it faster and easier for these people and their families to access the compensation and support that they deserve.

Now, the proposed changes by our government would presume thyroid and pancreatic cancers to be work-related and streamline the assessments of workplace injury claims. These claims related to thyroid and pancreatic cancers would be retroactive to January 1, 1960. The changes would apply to full-time, volunteer and part-time firefighters, firefighters employed by First Nations, band councils and fire investigators.

One of the things that we are doing is we are addressing reservists and troop shortages in the Canadian Armed Forces who feel that they are overburdened. We are going to be introducing new legislation that would guarantee that reservists can return to civilian jobs, for example, after deployment even if they need additional time off to recover from either physical or mental injuries.

Reservists are not paid while they are on reserve leave. However, their employment is deemed to be continuous. Seniority and length-of-service credits continue to accumulate. Employees on a reservist leave are entitled to be reinstated to the exact same position if it still exists, or a comparable position. The employer is not required to continue any benefit plans.

Our proposed change would also make reservists eligible for job-protected leave when deploying abroad or upgrading their skills.

In terms of some of the provisions in this particular bill that we are speaking to today, they will simply help them when they are seeking coverage after they have been exposed to toxic chemicals. Also, it will expedite and make it easier for them to get their WSIB benefits.

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to be able to weigh in on Bill 79, the Working for Workers Act, at third reading. I don’t believe I had the opportunity under second reading before the Legislature rose, so it’s a great time to be able to stand up and speak on behalf of workers and to really talk about what New Democrats would do for workers in the province of Ontario, which we know is very different than what we have seen the Ford government do.

They have claimed to be supporters of workers, and yet we have seen several examples of where they’ve clearly not been on the side of workers: for example, cancelling and freezing the minimum wage for three years when they first came into office. It was just put into place that workers in this province were finally going to get an increase to minimum wage, something that the New Democrats had to fight the Liberals forever to be able to get them that minimum wage increase, and when the Ford government came in, they cancelled that increase right away, of course, once again affecting and attacking the most vulnerable people in our province.

Sick days: We, again as New Democrats, had fought with the Liberals to get paid sick days put in place, and the minute the Ford government came in, they cancelled those paid sick days. We’ve seen what happened during COVID when people did not have access to those paid sick days and we had to fight tooth and nail, really, the Conservative government to be able to get paid sick days put in place. But now they’ve also been cancelled, as the time has run out on them, and, quite frankly, we’re seeing another rise in COVID cases. We have our hospitals in Hamilton, for sure, who are now asking people who work within the hospital system to wear masks once again, so we know that those paid sick days are so critical to the fabric of our community.

Someone who is working day in and day out in this province is probably just making it. Many folks are just making it. With the cost of rent, with the increased cost of mortgages, with inflation rates, with the cost of food, we know that people are living paycheque to paycheque more and more, each and every day. When you don’t have that safety net of a paid sick day, it puts families and homes—their valuable homes—at risk, and that is something that we really don’t have room to allow to happen.

I can tell you, I hear on a daily basis from friends of mine who are at risk of being homeless. They’ve lived in homes for years that they’ve rented, and now those landlords are selling those homes. They’re terrified about where they’re going to go, and to be able to pay the rent. One, for instance, is a teacher in an elementary school and works part-time as a bartender at night to be able to make the difference, to take care of her and her kids. She is one of these people who are facing eviction, and she has no idea where she’s going to go. She has health concerns. She can’t just not go to work, and she has to be able to feed her family. This struggle is real for her, and I feel for my friend, but there is just not the affordable housing that our community needs.

Another woman I know—again, another single mom—her place is also for sale, and she is struggling, trying to figure out how she is possibly going to make it work. She’s like, “I think I can pay up to $3,000 a month. That’s stretching it, but I think I can make it.” Now, that’s a lot of money—$3,000 a month, just to be able to afford to pay the rent. These are the workers in our province. These are the people who this bill is supposed to be about, and yet there is nothing in this bill to protect the workers of this province.

What else did I see in here? What else have you done? Was it Bill 28 that tried to stomp on the charter rights of Canadians? We’ve seen what happened there, as people across this province protested day in and day out, until this government had to reverse their decision—which is something that we see happen on a regular basis around here. The greenbelt decision being reversed is probably the fourth time, I think, in the six years that this government has been elected that they’ve had to reverse course on legislation they put forward, backtrack and come back in with new legislation to make up for the mistakes that they have been caught with.

I think the only mistakes that this Premier truly thinks he has made is that he gets caught, and that people stand up to him, and they are the workers of this province—

Constitutional rights—there we go. That one went there.

Bill 124, again, is another hit against workers that we have seen in this province: nurses, correctional workers, any public service worker. They’re left out to be able to receive the increased wages that their bosses, I’m sure, are receiving. They’ve been frozen at a 1% increase, and that hurts when we have a 19% increase in inflation of food in our communities. A 1% increase just certainly isn’t going to cut it.

I’ve been looking at some information, as I was a speaker the other evening at the Frozen in Time town hall, to talk about ODSP and OW and how those rates have been frozen for so many years, and the effect that that has on our community and what it has on folks. The reason that I’m raising this is, well, first of all, because they need to be increased—doubled; there’s absolutely no doubt. A person on ODSP is making $1,227 a month; a person on Ontario Works, $733 a month. The average rent in Hamilton is $1,800 a month for a one-bedroom, probably pretty-much-nothing apartment, so those folks are definitely struggling.

But what that brought up to me in this point and why I wanted to raise it is because in my notes from that town hall that night, I talked about Canada’s Market Basket Measure, which is a formula to determine how much an income has to be, to be able to survive in the community. For folks in Hamilton to be able to live modestly, it’s $49,952. A person earning minimum wage is not coming close to that mark, and it’s forcing them into extreme poverty. It’s forcing them into tents in our communities.

We’re seeing this time and time again. We have so many people who are going to work every day; they’re sleeping in tents, they’re sleeping in cars, they’re couch-surfing, they’re living with their parents and they’re just trying to figure out how to make it work in the province of Ontario when they simply cannot afford to do so.

Another thing in this bill in schedule 4 is the collection of personal data from post-secondary institutions relating to employment services programs in the province. So I’ll take you back again: People who are on Ontario Works or ODSP, the employment services were rammed through our local municipalities—and it was a knowledge base, it was a relationship base where they understood our city or our small little town or wherever the person lived, and they could relate to the jobs that made sense there, what was working and what wasn’t.

When this government again decided to attack the most vulnerable people and thinks that the best social service and social safety net is a job—even when you’re disabled, they think that everybody can go to work—they contracted out the employment services. They took it away from our municipalities. Hamilton is a municipality that bid for the contract to be able to provide this service, and they lost the bid. They lost the bid to a private company. This is how it went—“contracting out of employment services for the Muskoka-Kawarthas, the Peel region and the Hamilton-Niagara region. The Hamilton-Niagara contract has been awarded to American firm Fedcap. The Peel region’s services will be contracted out to WCG, a subsidiary of Australian company”—

Thank you.

We’re going to move to further debate.

Thank you for the question. Yes, our government has a really ambitious plan to build across Ontario, and to deliver on that plan, we need all kinds of workers and we need women in the trades. Currently, only one in 10 construction workers in Ontario is a woman. To attract more women to these really well-paying and rewarding careers, we need to make our job sites safe and welcoming.

The standard for PPE fit and sizing in construction has historically been a male body. This has made it harder for women and others outside of the standard fit and sizing to find equipment that properly fits the proportions of a woman’s body, with many having to refashion ill-fitting garments or equipment to fit, potentially compromising the effectiveness of the PPE. The proposed changes would clarify and make explicit the requirement that PPE and clothing be a proper fit, taking into account all factors, including consideration of diverse body types.