How come you didn’t do it when you were in office?

Questions?

My thanks to the member for Ottawa South for his participation today in debate.

I’m glad to hear that the member is going to be supporting this legislation. He’s correct that this is an iterative process. I for one have no doubt that we will see a Working for Workers Act 5 come at some point in this chamber, and I think that does speak to our commitment to that iterative process of getting ideas. I know, under the leadership of the minister and the Premier—they’ve shown a willingness to listen to those ideas.

I know that the member opposite, as we are now in government, has served in government as well. I’m wondering if he ever brought forward the idea of super-indexing WSIB benefits when he was serving in government. I know it’s something that we’ve heard a lot of support for. It’s something that I know, hearing from those who are living with the—

I want to go back to the issue of pay transparency and pay equity. They were coming up on the anniversary of Equal Pay Day, April 16—and that day represents how far into the next year women have to work to earn what the average man earns in the previous year. So we have a long way to go when it comes to closing the gender gap, and this bill does not help in any way.

In fact, I would like to say that the Equal Pay Coalition had this to say at committee—and you were at committee: “Bill 149 does not advance these protections” for women. “It leaves women vulnerable to employers lowballing their pay while the fig leaf of Bill 149 shields their actual discriminatory pay practices from view.”

So I also would like to know why this government has not enacted the legislation or why this government thinks that women don’t see that this is simply just fluff when it comes to their real need to increase their real earnings to put real food on the table for their real children in this province.

I would hope that maybe I’ll get an explanation of super-indexing and why we need it. Why is it something that’s undefined about—“We’ll give more than the cost of living.” I think it’s because we’re having a debate of what the cost of living is. There’s a dispute between a couple of parties as to what WSIB should be paying out. That’s probably what it is. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but I’m saying it’s oversold. I think what’s happening now is, it has become oversold. And what we really should be focusing on is expanding coverage—wildland firefighters, PSWs, DSWs. I brought that forward with the bill with regard to PSWs and DSWs. I’ve done it five times—five times—and debated it twice. I did it while we were in government, and I’m just going to continue to push it because I think it’s the right thing to do and we need to do it.

Next question?

Thank you to my neighbour for those remarks.

I was listening intently when you were talking about people who are not covered by this bill. You’ve been a champion for PSWs and DSWs, and I respect you for that.

I’m wondering if you could also talk about the gig workers who continue to be left behind by what I would call window-dressing legislation. What these folks are are workers. They wake up in the morning; they strap something on their back, if they’re delivering food; they drive cars for ride-sharing services; they show up for work; they do their job. But interestingly, they’re only paid for engaged time—when someone is in their car. The DoorDash deliverer is massively, massively underpaid for the actual work that person does with their e-bike, if they use an e-bike. I’m wondering if you could, my friend, please explain the unfairness of that situation and why this bill should be addressing that.

I appreciate the member opposite.

I want to go back a little bit to my question earlier and perhaps change to another subject.

Part of the regulatory changes that came under the Working for Workers Four package included the addition of a number of different poisonings, actually, to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act; namely, chlorine, ammonia and hydrogen sulphide poisonings. This is now part of the presumed work-related occupational diseases that are under this part of the legislation. I think it’s important. I have no doubt at all that the member opposite has support for this particular part of the legislation—to add some of these areas for presumptive coverage.

My question is—he’s saying, “You’re starting, but you’re not going very far. It’s a step in the right direction, but that’s about it.” How come they never brought forward any of these changes? They were there for 15 years.

Why couldn’t you make all these changes that you think are so wonderful and need to happen today?

I think back to my time door-knocking in the last provincial election. I had the opportunity, when I was in Beamsville, a very beautiful town in my riding, in Lincoln—I was going up to a door that I remembered distinctly from my by-election. I try to knock on every door in my riding at least once between elections, and then also I go out during the election—between elections, more to get a sense of people when they’re not as engaged in what’s happening and just to kind of feel where they’re at. I remembered that that had been a bit of a negative door, but I thought, “Do you know what? Here we are. It’s six years later. I’m going to give it another shot and see. Perhaps this fellow”—and it was a vague memory that it hadn’t been the most positive interaction. I had come forward and said, “Will you be supporting me?” “No, I’m not a PC.” Okay. That’s all right. “That’s the beauty of a democracy” is usually my response to people who say that they’re not going to be voting for us.

I walked up to the door and there was a fellow—I could see him coming out of his work truck. He looked over at me. He had a lot of paint on his outfit, and he had just come home from work. I think it was about quarter to 5, if my memory is correct, on a Thursday. He said, “Sam, I remember you. You came here four years ago.” I said, “Well, it was six years ago.” He said, “Do you know what? I’m going to vote for you guys this time.” I said, “Oh, are you?” And he said, “Yes, I’m a member of the painters’ union, and painters know that Doug Ford is building things in Ontario, and Doug Ford supports painters and workers in Niagara.” And I said, “Well, thank you very much. Can I put up a lawn sign?” He paused and said, “Well, I don’t know if I’m there yet.” So I walked away, and we door-knocked for a little more. There were about seven or eight of us, I think, in that subdivision. About 45 minutes later, I heard someone—“Sam, never mind. You can put up the lawn sign.”

So it’s just a little story, but I think it speaks to the understanding that the people of Ontario and the people in my riding of Niagara West, the hard-working men and women who go out every day in so many different aspects of our economy, who work hard to put food on their table—not just to put food on their table, but to put something away for a rainy day, to put something away for their children’s university education or perhaps skilled trades school. They believe in our government because they see that we are taking action and that we’re not just using words.

I think that today’s legislation is a part of that legacy that we are building here as Progressive Conservatives, as the government of Ontario that has now brought forward not one, not two, not three, but four pieces of omnibus legislation—really quite substantial and weighty pieces of legislation—that are adding protections for the working men, the working women of Ontario, to ensure that they are getting the respect that they deserve; that bad actors, bad employers, those who will not respect the rights of workers, those who will not step forward to ensure that they are being treated with dignity and respect in the workplace and outside of it, won’t get away with that in the province of Ontario.

So I’m very grateful to be able to speak to this legislation and share a little bit about some of the benefits that this legislation is going to be bringing forward. There are a number of different pieces to it, and I think the key take-away is that we want to ensure that workers have better jobs with bigger paycheques, closer to home, and to do so in a way that is safe and that is supported by the government of Ontario and by their employers—that they are supported by those who should be there to ensure their best interest.

Speaker, one of my friends who worked for a number of years in the service industry—we were speaking a little bit about this legislation and also some legislation that came out in 2016. In 2016—credit where credit is due—we saw the former Liberal government bring forward legislation that banned the retention of tips by employers; that they were not allowed to be retaining tips and claiming that they were for employees. In some cases, you would actually pay a tip to someone who had done a really good job, assuming that it would go to that person. And my friend told me, “No, it was very common practice”—and I won’t name the employer, because I know that they have changed that practice, thankfully. But they had a practice of retaining a portion of the tips, and I was shocked. The time we had this conversation about this was not that long ago. I said, “Well, how recently was this?” And this was in 2016, actually, that this had happened, before this introduction. I think that when I spoke with her, someone who worked very, very hard in the service sector, who took great pride in her work, who is now working in forensic pathology, who is doing incredible work in that field and working with various agencies to ensure that that work is happening—she said, “Yes, and the problem is, even though, now, it is illegal, there are still bad actors who will do this because workers don’t always necessarily understand that it is illegal.”

It’s very important, then, that as a Legislature, as a government, as members of provincial Parliament in our communities, we take a piece of legislation like this piece of legislation, Working for Workers Act 4, and use it to, again, reiterate the message that you deserve better wages, you deserve fair pay for hard work, and we are going to ensure that you are not being taken advantage of by bosses. So this legislation builds on the legacy that we’ve now seen some successive governments take some action on to say that workers deserve that respect. They deserve to have measures in place that will respect them and ensure that their tips are being shared in a way that is transparent, in a way that is focused on workers, and that is not creating a situation where people are being penalized for something that’s not their fault.

Earlier, we heard the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler speak about when she worked in the service industry and would have an employer who told her that, well, if there was a loss, if there was a dine-and-dash, that was on her. In the province of Ontario, we know that’s not right.

So this legislation now builds on those moves to say that we also need to have transparency around what that tip-sharing practice is, to give more tools to those employees when they are in that sector, so that they don’t have to wonder about whether or not something is legal or not, but they actually have it in front of them and they can read it easily; it’s apparent, it’s transparent, and it’s something that they’re able to go to in reference, perhaps in those conversations with someone who is trying to sneak around the rules or someone who doesn’t even know the rules themselves. It provides a better level of support for those workers in our communities.

That’s just one little piece of this legislation; there are a number of aspects to it.

I think of all of the new Canadians who have come to Niagara.

Over the past decade, we’ve had a massive influx of new Canadians, people who are hard-working, who believe in a better future for them and their children, but are unable to get some of the jobs that they should be able to get due to Canadian work experience requirements. So what we’re seeing under this legislation are changes to that so that we don’t have people using the Canadian work experience requirement as a crutch to avoid hiring people who are qualified for that position, but rather saying that no, we believe that if you have the skill set, you have the merits and you’re able to do that work and do it well, all other things being equal, you shouldn’t have that prevent you from being able to work in the province of Ontario.

We believe that we need to have a work-life balance in Ontario. I can’t believe, actually, that here in 2024, it took us—and this is no disrespect to any of the ministers or any of those who have brought forward other pieces of legislation on this. But to have a right to disconnect, I think, is such a foundational, important aspect of so many people’s lives. For ourselves as MPPs, of course, it’s a little different; we are elected with the amazing responsibility and gift of being able to stay connected to people 24/7 when we’re out and about, when we’re in the community and also just at home. It’s an expectation, and I understand that. But for most people, they go to their work, and they put in their time, and they work hard. They should be able to go home and enjoy time with family and friends—or, if they aren’t able to do so, if there’s an expectation that they’re going to be on call, to have that clarified, to have that transparently laid out. This legislation helps ensure that we have that as well.

It’s about increasing services for those who are under WSIB, ensuring that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board is able to provide them with super-indexing, with more than just the cost-of-living increases that they already receive, to really provide them with additional supports.

There are a number of different measures in this legislation, Speaker. I only had a chance to touch on a few of them, but I wanted to add my voice in support of working for workers, because we know it’s important that every member in this chamber recognize the contributions the hard-working men and women of not just Niagara, but every corner of this province, make to our culture, to our society and to our economy, and show them with legislation like this that we have their back. So I proudly stand in support of it, and I thank you for your time this afternoon.

We heard the government side stand up time and time again, talking about our record with the Liberals.

I just want to remind the member from Niagara West that, actually, your party was the official opposition under a Liberal government for 15 years.

I want to remind everybody in the House and anybody watching at home—do you know when the Conservatives supported the Liberals the most? It’s when it came to anti-worker legislation like Bill 115, where we saw a mass protest across the province. The Conservatives supported the Liberals on that. The Conservatives don’t believe in anti-scab legislation.

So I want to ask the member from Ottawa South: Why do you think it is that the Conservative government will not pass anti-scab labour legislation?

I think—the member puts it quite succinctly—what’s happening right now is just the beginning; it’s just the start. It’s just the low-hanging fruit—deliveries, taxis. It’s going to go through our economy, and it’s going to be our sons and daughters and our grandsons and granddaughters who are going to have to work in a situation where there are two classes of workers. That’s just going to expand. One class of worker will have more rights than another. That’s what’s happening right now.

I just think that we have to be looking at what’s going to happen 10 years from now, 20 years from now. How are we going to address that? How are we going to make sure that there’s a proper balance between employers and employees? I know that’s important to people in here. We all want to make sure that our families, our neighbours, our friends are treated fairly. I just think that we’ve got to address it, and we haven’t done that so far.

Here’s what I’m trying to say: There are people—wildland firefighters, PSWs, DSWs—who aren’t covered by WSIB. There are 13% or 14% of WSIB cases that are extremely difficult and challenging, and people are waiting and they’re suffering. Maybe, instead of super-indexing, we should be investing in that. That’s what I’m trying to say. It’s about the people.

The super-indexing? I understand why we’re doing it: because there’s a dispute, and it gives the government flexibility. But it’s not like it’s going to be something that’s a bonus to workers. What the bonus should be is more people being covered.

Oh, by the way, on Bill 115: I think I did a large mea culpa on that last year. I’ll do it again. But that was a mistake and—

Interjection.

My point in this whole debate is, there needs to be more coverage of people, more people being covered with WSIB. We need to address people who are suffering because their cases are complex. There are people who, pre-1988 or -1985, are stuck getting only so much money. It’s not a huge amount of people. Collectively, together, we have to address those things. I think that it’s really important for us to do that.

Questions?

It’s always nice to have a sort-of colleague or somebody just up the road from me in Niagara Falls stand up and talk about labour rights.

I thought I’d be pretty clear in my question to him. You raised the issue around painters. Now, it’s my understanding—and what I saw in the past is that painter is a pretty hard job. A lot of painters end up getting injured on the job, and they end up having to claim WSIB. Then, because your government won’t support deeming, they end up living in poverty. So my question to you is, why do you continue to vote against getting rid of deeming in the province of Ontario?

Well, I’m glad that the member opposite spoke about the importance of the WSIB, because this is a government that has shown through this legislation once again the benefit that we understand the workers of Ontario have as individuals, as people who are deserving of value and of worth and of human dignity.

That’s why, in this legislation, we’re bringing forward changes to allow proposed super-indexing. It’s going to allow additional indexing increases beyond the regular annual adjustment, which will empower the government to make regular or additional payments to those injured workers: those who have, through no fault of their own, gone into a setting or had an experience that caused them to now rely on this service. So it represents a significant step in delivering on our government’s commitment to supporting injured workers, and it could mean up to an additional $900 on top of cost-of-living adjustments this year alone. That’s substantial funding. That’s substantial money, real money, in the pockets of hard-working Ontarians, and I’m proud to support that.

I’m reminded of a recent visit I made with the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, David Piccini, when we visited Local 837, the LIUNA local in Grimsby, and saw their new, state-of-the-art training facility that they have there. They spoke about the incredible amount of Ukrainians, actually, whom they’ve been able to help with the grants that they’ve received from this government. They’ve been able to provide them with workplace training. They’ve been able to provide them with opportunities. They’re building the Ontario Line. They’re helping to build the housing of tomorrow. They’re helping to build the long-term-care homes that our seniors and those who are more vulnerable are living in, and they’re so proud of those contributions that they’re able to make so quickly after coming to this, their new home.

I think that’s a testament to the multifaceted approach that we’re taking as a government to addressing the skilled trades shortages. It’s not just the Canadian work experience on its own; it’s also promoting more skilled trades in elementary school, providing more training opportunities through our labour partners, providing more opportunities through a number of different avenues, also working with the Ontario Youth Apprenticeship Program and recognizing that there are many steps to this. Again, it’s an iterative approach that any government has to take. It’s never one-and-done, and we’re going to keep getting it done.

I just want to thank the member for his speech and debate today. I guess my question talks about the labour shortage. We need more workers. We all know we need more workers, skilled workers. When I walk down the main street in my community, there are help wanted signs everywhere. We’re building condos galore in Etobicoke–Lakeshore, but there are a lot of newcomers who may not have jobs. So we have a labour shortage, and there are people without jobs. How does this bill help newcomers to Canada and get them in the jobs that they need?

Next question.

The member was talking about—I’m sure many of us have experienced being servers in restaurants and attendants, customer service in gas stations etc. We all know that those are very important things.

The government, under schedule 2, is talking about educating workers on how employers can’t withhold, deduct or require money to be returned in situations where a customer doesn’t pay for their meal at a restaurant or someone doesn’t pay for their gas. But the government member fails to acknowledge that under part V, the wages section, section 13, of the ESA, it’s already there. That law is already there. The problem is, it’s not being enforced.

Will you commit to actually enforcing schedule 2 so that workers are actually treated fairly? Because it doesn’t make sense that this bill—you’re promoting workers, but you’re not enforcing the law so it could actually work for workers, that piece of legislation and schedule 2.

I want to thank my colleague for his comments on this important legislation this afternoon. In my riding of Simcoe–Grey, there is a large restaurant and coffee house population, which have many employees, from the youngsters starting out with their first jobs, as two of my sons did, to those who are working more permanently in that sector. Many of the restaurants employ various tipping models, whether it be pooled, shared or some other system. I’m hoping that the member can comment: What does this bill do to protect workers in terms of tipping mechanisms?

I’m glad to provide an update to the member, and I know that the member opposite will be happy to hear that there are improvements in enforcement that are coming through. There have been a number of inspectors hired. There has been a substantial increase in the compliance officers, I believe, through the Ministry of Labour, as well, to ensure that there’s not just awareness of the existing provisions and not just an enforcement of those existing provisions, but also a strengthening of those provisions.

That’s something that I believe the member opposite, who has served in this House for a number of years—many years now—has experience with, where there’s perhaps a piece of legislation that technically already has something included, but it’s not strengthened, it’s not strong enough, it’s not proactive enough, it’s not responsive enough to the needs of workers, or it’s not responsive enough to the changes in the economy.

And so, through this piece of legislation, we’re not saying, “Well, you know, it’s there. It’s good enough. Off we go. It’s already there. No need to touch this one. All hunky-dory over here.” No, that’s not what we’re doing. We don’t believe in good enough. We believe better is always possible, and that’s what this legislation is doing, by strengthening those existing provisions, ensuring that we have properly resourced compliance and enforcement, and ensuring that workers are respected in Ontario.

When I go and I have a good meal or my wife and I maybe go on a date—which isn’t too often anymore; with a couple of little ones at home, it becomes a little harder—we always want to leave a good tip to our server. We want to show respect for the hard work that they put in and the way that they made our evening special. When we do that, we want to ensure that they are receiving that tip. I know I’ve heard from those who in the past said, “Well, it’s not always clear what’s happening with that tip,” and it’s not even clear always for the consumer, it’s not clear for the employee, and it’s important that it is, for the sake of transparency, across the board.

This is going to be laying out not just a flexible direct deposit option for those employees, so that they know where it’s going, but also it’s going to be requiring disclosure of tip-sharing policies, to enhance transparency for everyone.

I’d be happy if the member opposite had some information he wanted to send along. I’ll gladly give it a read, see what needs to be included and speak with the minister. I know he has been a strong champion for that iterative approach that says we’re not going to say that this is the end, that this is the conclusion of our work to protect workers and work for them. There’s always more that we can do, so I’m sure we’ll have more ideas in the coming days and have more packages coming as well.

Report continues in volume B.

A question for my friend from Niagara West: I enjoyed his comments about the work he has done, the experience he has had in those good, getting-dirt-under-your-fingernails jobs, which reminds you of what life is like for a lot of people in this province.

But I was asking the member for Ottawa South—and I know the member was paying attention—and we do have a double standard in labour law right now. We have a lot of people who get that dirt under their fingernails giving people rides all over this city in rideshare online services or delivering food, but they are not paid for all the time they’re working. They’re only paid for the time they actually have someone in their car.

I’m wondering if the member can reflect on that unfairness, because despite the fact that he and I may be on different sides of the political spectrum, we both agree to people’s rights and their right to be compensated for their employment. Can the member comment on that absence of that in this bill, and would he advocate to have it in there?