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.

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.

With all due respect to the member from Flamborough–Glanbrook, you keep saying that this is in the bill, but the provision for washrooms for women, not in the bill; the provisions for presumptive legislation for firefighters, not in the bill. It’s a disservice to the people of the province of Ontario when you say something that couldn’t be further from the truth.

Here’s my question. National Steel Car in Hamilton: We know there were three deaths in less than two years in Hamilton. Quoc Le, Fraser Cowan and Collin Grayley all lost their lives on the job in what is known around Hamilton to be a very, very dangerous work site.

Your government cut workplace inspections, and very rarely do you inspect and very rarely do you levy fines. When you do finally levy fines, those awards never go to the grieving families who are left without a loved one to provide for their families. What do you have to say to the families of Quoc Le, Fraser Cowan—

Privatization—and not even in our own country to be able to provide services to the people of Ontario is absolutely shameful. And now we’re seeing in legislation that they want to be able to collect personal data, that they want to be able to get that data. What do they need it for in the States? It always makes me question them.

“Under the new model, providers only get paid for employment services functions provided to social assistance recipients when a job-match is made, with fees set according to the difficulty of the case.” So it’s a performance-based framework that we have given to another country to be able to deal with and to support, which should be support services and employment services to the most vulnerable people in our communities.

Interjection.

Let’s just take a scenario of someone on Ontario Works: They’re making $733 a month. They’re definitely struggling. Let’s take it a little further—let’s take it as someone who is currently in a tent in one of the parks in our city. They’re making $733. They could have some mental health issues. They could have some addiction issues, or they’re getting clean from addiction issues. But what comes with all of that? Do they have a place to wash their clothes? Do they have a place to have a shower? Do they have a place to get good food intake to be able to go to work? Now we have an employment service that has no idea what’s happening in our community going to force this person to get a job and being paid to get this person a job. How are they going to work when they have nowhere to sleep, nowhere to clean, nowhere to brush their teeth, nowhere to eat, unless they’re eating out of food banks? And when this person fails, the person goes back on the list and they’re able to get another placement, and they get paid for the same placement again? I’m not really sure.

We do have some cases that have been sent to us about these same employment services and problems that people have had, so I have a couple of case summaries here, but I just want to touch on a few aspects of it. Remember, this is employment services; they’re supposed to support these same individuals to get them into the workforce and whatever they need. They’ve been denied gas money, which they should be entitled to, to travel to approved activities—being told incorrectly that she didn’t qualify for assistance for going to college, and confidentiality issues with her personal information being shared in ways that she did not authorize. And now, here, we see in this legislation the government doubling down. So I’ve talked a lot about that.

There are a few other things—and time goes fast around here when you have a lot to say, so I’m going to leave it there. There are obviously issues with that that I’ve raised my concerns about.

I want to talk about schedule 2. Schedule 2, I believe, is—a reservist who needs to have time away from their work to be able to serve our country. I wholeheartedly agree with this. I think whatever we can do for someone in the reserves is still not enough. But I also want to remind the government that those same reservists come home. We deploy them. We send them to war. We send them to things that no one should have to see. They do that to protect us or to protect others, and we do nothing to protect them when they come home.

In Hamilton, we have identified—and this number is from last year, so it may even be more than that now. We have identified 97 homeless veteran individuals on our streets of Hamilton alone—Hamilton, surrounding, we have over 300.

I was working with the former Minister of Housing on bringing a Homes for Heroes project to the city of Hamilton, wraparound supports—to ensure that veterans in our communities have a safe place, with the supportive wraparound supports around them, to ensure that we’re getting them back to their families, getting them back to their loved ones, getting them back to work, getting them into a healthier place. Unfortunately, we have not been able to find land.

I don’t know what the developers on the other side are saying—

Interjection.

I’m not bashing her on it. I don’t know what is happening over there. I really want that land. That’s all I know. I know that the veterans in our communities deserve to have that space, and I think it’s an actual great model going forward of how we can do supportive housing in our communities. We know that Homes for Heroes has already happened in Kingston, and I think London was another one that was on the list as a possibility, but Hamilton is critical to be able to have that support of the Homes for Heroes.

There are lots of folks in Hamilton, veterans, who are ready. They’re at my fingertips. When I call them, they’re going to be there, ready to jump on those committees to support that initiative and bring Homes for Heroes to Hamilton.

I’m going to leave that portion there. I do want to talk very quickly in the less than two minutes I have left about the things that, again, are missing from this bill. We’ve heard of the presumptive legislation; that is nowhere to be seen in this bill. We have scoured it. It is not here.

We’ve heard a lot about washrooms and facilities on construction sites, to encourage more women on-site. Well, I think not just women, but everyone deserves to have a clean bathroom when at work, and that, again, is not in this bill. There is nowhere where we can find that in this legislation, and yet those are the main talking points if you listen to the government go on throughout their debates. The things that they’re talking about most are the firefighter presumptive legislation and the facilities for women on job sites, neither of which is in the bill.

If the members wanted to talk about these things through debate, it’s unfortunate that this wasn’t built into the bill, particularly the presumptive legislation for firefighters. That should be in here. It should be written in gold. We should be so grateful for what they have done and what they have given up to protect us. That legislation should be in here, front and centre, for everyone to see and to ensure that it is in legislation forever; that this government, when they decide that they’re just going to flip on their heads, can’t remove that too, like they did the paid sick days, and like they did for the increase for people on social services, and like they cut—I’ve said the minimum wage, the paid sick days.

There are so many things that we’ve seen this government reverse, that people need. I would hate to see that presumptive legislation be another one of those things, because they didn’t put it in legislation.

Oh, boy. Privatization.

I want to thank the member for her presentation. Schedule 5—and there are other schedules in this bill—talks about raising fines. You know, a government likes to look tough when they’re punishing those who are misbehaving, and one of the ways in which, of course, they like to say that is by raising fines.

When they’ve done studies on the matter, they find that to discourage bad behaviour, to discourage the breaking of rules, it’s not so much the level of a fine but the chances of getting caught that discourages, but we have a government that has shown in many different areas that they’ve reduced inspections as a result of their activities and the decisions that they make. What are your thoughts on that matter?

You know, there are so many things that we could do to ensure that workers are supported and regulations are in place, like better safety training on the job—we know that that has been left to the unions to be able to do that work, and I’m so grateful for them, but ensuring that the dollars are there to fund them and to support them.

I think increasing wages, increasing benefits, making sure that people have proper pensions, WSIB coverage, get rid of deeming—these are the types of things that people in this province need and want and have been asking for, for many years.

The government needs to truly stand up for workers, stand up for people who have been injured, stand up for families who have lost loved ones on the job by focusing on these kinds of issues.

We’ve seen the increases in our food banks. We have seen more tents pop up in our communities. You want to do something? Double the rates. When they actually have rates and they can somewhat afford to live, then we get them into the job field. You can’t stick someone who lives in a tent out to work when they can’t even afford to eat.

Think about a mom with a special-needs kid who doesn’t have an EA in the classroom and has to go and pick her kid up from school because they can’t handle the kid in school; there’s nobody there. What’s that mom going to do? She needs that paid sick day to be able to make up that cost.

But instead, we’re telling mom, “Listen, you’re going to struggle with supports because your kid hasn’t had any supports for autism, and we’re going to not keep the kid in school because we don’t have enough adults in the classroom, and then we’re going to tell you that you can’t pay the rent because you couldn’t go to work that day.” Paid sick days are a social safety net for vulnerable people and people who are working in our community.

Do you think that this bill, Bill 79, has done enough for sick workers—workers who get sick and need sick days on the job?

We’re going to move to questions for the member.

I thank the member for her speech. One of the things that I know is definitely within the bill is the credentials recognition. I know I’ve spent a lot of time in my professional engineer association finding foreign-trained engineers who were not able to get licensed. Certainly to make sure that we have our employees—or, rather, our citizens and permanent residents—have a chance to make a go of it is important, to work in their fields.

The proposal that the government has put forward includes several measures to help clarify the existing legislation where there might have been some gaps and to help people start work in their fields of choice, faster than ever. Would you agree that this is a move in the right direction and helps address the province’s labour shortage in critical sectors?

We’ve seen remarkable improvements under the new format compared to the old system, helping job seekers find gainful employment so that they can support their families. Would the member opposite agree that we should be doing everything we can to help those on social assistance find meaningful work?

To the member opposite: I know one of the issues that’s been coming into my office lately has been the terms of work, and this piece of legislation appears to address that, giving basic information to employees about their employment as soon as they begin. Having a written record of what your responsibilities are in terms of work is an important step to ensure that workers know what is expected of them and what the requirements of their employment may be.

Would the member opposite agree with the proposal in the legislation to require employers to provide new hires with information about their terms of employment?

It’s exciting to be back in the House for the fall session and I’m honoured to be standing here today in support of Bill 79, the Working for Workers Act, 2023. I want to thank my colleague the former Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development for asking me to speak in support of this bill—a bill that will reduce labour shortages, address workplace safety and protect the rights of workers. I want to offer additional thanks to the member from Scarborough Centre and the member from Mississauga–Malton for their hard work on this important file.

This bill builds on legislation previously passed in 2021 and 2022 which has tangibly improved the day-to-day lives of Ontario workers. I’m confident that this bill will build on that legacy to create better outcomes for Ontarians across the province.

Legislation previously passed included the right-to-disconnect policy, which allows Ontarians to draw a clear line between work and home life. We also banned a common practice of employers using non-compete clauses, allowing workers greater freedom to apply their skills and advance their careers without fear of reprisal from previous employers. We’ve removed many barriers for internationally trained workers so they can access jobs and master qualifications and skill sets for jobs right here in Ontario. We also require recruiters and temporary help agencies to be licensed as a means of protecting vulnerable workers, which is an issue very close to my heart.

That list certainly isn’t exhaustive by any means, but the positive changes seen here were expanded. We saw the establishment of foundational rights and protections for digital platform workers who provide rideshare, delivery and courier services to all of us; improvements in the level of employer transparency when monitoring electronic devices such as computers and cellphones; and an enhancement of workplace health and safety by increasing the maximum fines for operators and directors of businesses that neglect to provide a safe working environment.

Speaker, over the last few years, our government has done a lot for workers in Ontario, especially those—and those have been very well received by the public, but our work certainly isn’t done yet. Today, I’d like to talk about this third critical piece of legislation which, if passed, will build upon previous legislation in very substantive ways. I’m extremely passionate about this specific legislation because these changes will provide all workers with tangible enhanced benefits. These enhancements will have positive impacts on the broadest spectrum of workers across Ontario and particularly safeguard some of the most vulnerable workers in communities like mine in Chatham-Kent–Leamington and Pelee Island.

As a former OPP officer, I understand the inherent risks and challenges of front-line workers and what they face on a day-to-day basis, particularly those who work in emergency services. Ontario’s volunteer and professional firefighters work tirelessly every day to protect our communities. Firefighters answer a wide range of calls for duty that range from traffic collisions to chemical hazards, building collapses, structural fires and natural disasters. I was so proud of the firefighters I worked alongside from Leamington Fire Services and Chatham-Kent Fire and Rescue and the many professional and volunteer services I encountered all across Ontario. As a member of the OPP’s emergency response team and public order units, I had the privilege of serving in communities large and small all across Ontario. Wherever I went I witnessed the dedicated, selfless, highly trained fire personnel who answered the call of duty at any time, in any weather. These were the people who rushed into danger when others had to flee. On more than one occasion I know that I was able to return home to my family safely because of the efforts of a firefighter.

Nevertheless, this risk comes with great personal risk, both immediate and long-term. Firefighters do have a cancer rate four times higher than the general population. It’s not coincidental. Despite modern personal protective equipment, firefighters can still be subjected to exposure from fire, smoke and a wide range of chemicals that can, over time, cause a number of cancers and other diseases. If passed, this bill will expand the list of presumptive cancers to include thyroid and pancreatic cancer, two of the most prevalent, so firefighters can access the benefits and support services they need and they’re entitled to through the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. This bill would apply to full-time, volunteer, and part-time firefighters as well as those hired by Indigenous band councils. Most importantly, to ensure no one gets left behind, this legislation, if passed, will be retroactive back to January 1960. Speaker, similar legislation has already been passed in Manitoba, Yukon, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. Now it’s our time to support those who support our communities every day.

Our former minister, his parliamentary assistants and their entire dedicated staff conducted extensive stakeholder consultations, and this specific portion of the bill was the number one ask from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. This summer we witnessed the bravery, skills and selfless efforts of firefighters who worked across northern Ontario and in communities all across the province to keep Ontarians safe amid some of the most trying conditions. This bill will serve to safeguard thousands of firefighters from across Ontario and create a legacy of support to those who place themselves in harm’s way.

Speaker, another important feature contained in this bill directly addresses the unprecedented labour shortage in Ontario. Presently, Ontario’s employers report that over 300,000 jobs remain unfilled. To deliver on our ambitious infrastructure plans, there are going to be 100,000 construction jobs required to be filled in the next 10 years alone. There is, however, a clear disparity between supply and demand, and we need to act now to fix it.

To address the disparity and to encourage our high school students to pursue stable, high-paying and rewarding jobs in the skilled trades, this bill develops a clear pathway to apprenticeship as early as grade 11. I’ve witnessed first-hand how early exposure to opportunities in the skilled trades can inspire high school students to pursue these in-demand careers, through visits to Blenheim District High School, John McGregor Secondary School, Ursuline College Chatham and my alma mater, Leamington District Secondary School. We saw first-hand the excitement that is building in young people being exposed to and pursuing skills in the skilled trades.

Throughout my riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington, there is excitement growing because people know we’re making these investments right now. Recently, I was joined by my friend and former colleague the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development to announce an investment of over $460,000 through the Skills Development Fund for 24 youth from Chatham-Kent, providing financial support as they pursue training and apprenticeship in high-demand trades.

To succeed, Ontario employers will need to attract both men and women with a wide range of interests and skills to fill the current and future vacancies, knowing that of the 600,000 people currently working in Ontario’s construction industry, only 10% are women. Most of these jobs were perhaps deemed traditionally male because they were viewed as physical, physically demanding, even dirty. But the reality is, both men and women, with the proper training and mentorship, can succeed in performing the wide range of tasks necessary to have a successful and long career in any one of these trades.

One specific limitation that was identified as being restrictive was access to PPE, personal protective equipment, and other gear that properly fit and could be comfortably worn by a wide range of body types in both men and women. Now, modern equipment is designed, marketed and available to suit men and women in all shapes and sizes. This bill, if passed, will codify this into law to ensure properly fitting PPE is accessible to any man or woman wanting to pursue a career in the trades.

One further modernization to job sites across Ontario that was long overdue and will be remedied if this bill passes is access to clean, women-only washroom facilities. Although it may seem trivial to those not working outdoors in the elements for long periods of time, access to well-maintained, private, gender-specific washroom facilities is a necessary component to attracting and welcoming both men and women to the wide range of jobs available in the trades across Ontario—jobs that anyone can be proud to do to support their families.

This bill, if passed, remedies both issues by requiring that appropriate, proper-fitting PPE is available and provided to both men and women, and that well-maintained, gender-specific washrooms are available on all job sites. To do so, our government will ensure that both men and women feel welcome, feel safe and they’re fully able to participate in these well-paying, stable jobs in industries across Ontario.

Speaker, our competitive advantage and our recipe for our success is to truly grow Ontario through our hard-working people. Working for workers means investing in the training and skills, ensuring all workers feel safe, welcome and protected, and allowing workers to flourish and contribute in a meaningful way to their families and to our economy. The return on this investment will allow our people to grow Ontario. This legislation, if passed, will ensure the most in-demand careers are more attractive and more accessible to all.

Another action this government is taking to address labour shortages and to ensure more Ontarians receive a stable paycheque is expanding social services and helping people find those meaningful careers. Speaker, over 600,000 people in this province are on social assistance programs. Many are seeking to find good, meaningful jobs to support themselves and their families. This bill will tangibly help Ontario job seekers access these very resources by expanding enhanced employment services to London, Windsor-Sarnia, Kitchener-Waterloo, Barrie, Durham and Ottawa.

Employment service programs can be a critical stepping stone for all job seekers to find meaningful careers that match their skill sets and interests. Through job matching and job coaching, a wide range of people—including citizens with disabilities, youth with barriers, and newcomers—can find a fulfilling career that provides them with financial autonomy.

I’d like to note that we unveiled the first round of this program in Peel, Hamilton-Niagara and Muskoka-Kawartha with great success. Already, Speaker, the program has helped 17,000 people, including 5,700 on social assistance programs.

These programs give people the tools they need to gain independence and support themselves and their families.

I look forward to the expansion of all these services across Ontario—for active job seekers to get their first job, apply their skill sets and interests in a different direction, or advance their careers.

In addition to providing Ontarians with easier access to employment, we’re also taking action to ensure employees are protected in the workplace. One of the ways we’re doing so is by ensuring workers have comprehensive employment information at the beginning of their very first shift; this includes a written agreement regarding pay, hours of work, and work location. By doing so, we’re clarifying expectations and obligations both for workers and their employers. Clear, written communication from the outset will create the conditions for a transparent, mutually beneficial working relationship between employer and employee, with better potential for successful outcomes and reduced opportunity for anyone to be taken advantage of.

Although opinions may vary, for better or for worse, COVID-19 led to many changes in our workplaces—particularly where we work. In the latter half of 2022, over 1.4 million workers in Ontario had exclusively remote jobs, and an additional 800,000 worked on a hybrid model, working a portion of their hours at home and the remainder in an office or other workplace. Naturally, these workers deserve the same employee protections that all in-person employees receive, but there is currently a gap in the legislation. An amendment to this bill will ensure that remote workers are afforded all the same opportunities and protections that their in-person counterparts have.

For example, the proposed legislation would require companies to deliver eight weeks of minimum notice of termination and adequate compensation with pay-in-lieu, if necessary. Although it seemed sensational when we first heard about it, we’ve witnessed too many examples of workers across industries—including some of our most prominent tech companies—receiving impersonal, mass notifications of a job loss via a virtual call or even through the media. This is truly unacceptable. As a government, it’s our responsibility to protect workers and ensure they have ample notice of layoffs so that they can be supported and adequately plan for their future. These small changes can make big differences in the everyday lives of any worker in any industry and will prevent workers from being disrupted in providing for themselves and their families.

Speaker, I now move that the question be put.