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.

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.

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”—

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?