I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills.

It gives me a lot of pleasure to stand up in the House and speak to this bill this morning. I want to begin by thanking our great minister and the team at his ministry for putting together this bill and for continuing this work.

I also want to, frankly, give a shout-out to our wonderful previous minister, Monte McNaughton, for the work that he did over the course of our Working for Workers bills. I remember reading an article about him where the author wrote that he had taken the unusual step of travelling Ontario and actually listening to people, and I think that these Working for Workers bills that our government has been issuing really show that, and I know that our current minister has really latched onto that constant consultation and open-mindedness, and we’re really seeing that now.

My cousin’s partner is a tattoo artist. She worked at a tattoo parlour in London, and she was really hoping to open her own tattoo parlour. We didn’t know each other super well at the time, but we ended up having a conversation where she explained this to me. It turned out, for over a year, she had put off that step to open her own parlour because the agreement that she had signed as part of her work with the existing tattoo parlour had a non-compete clause in it that said that she couldn’t open a tattoo parlour within something absurd like 500 kilometres of the existing parlour.

I don’t have any background in employment law, but even hearing that, I was like, “I’m pretty sure that’s not okay,” and then I did two seconds of research and was like, “Yes, that’s definitely not okay.” But that’s something that had prevented her for over a year from actually manifesting her dream, which was to open her own tattoo parlour, which she now has, and it’s doing wonderfully.

But again, my cousin’s partner, Mel, is not the type of person that is going to, generally speaking, be able to come to Queen’s Park; she just happened to have a boyfriend whose cousin was a lawyer. And yet it’s people like her, people who rent stylist chairs, people who work in salons, who frequently had these types of clauses in their contracts who are now going to be benefited by this.

I also really, really appreciate the care that this bill shows to workers in the restaurant and service industry. People who work in that industry are really the ones that make our lives worth living. We go to work, but a lot of our fun, our relaxation is going for meals, going shopping, experiencing things in the service industry, and without those individuals performing those jobs, we really wouldn’t have access to that.

I personally believe that every single person should have to work as a server at some point in their life to know what it’s like. I have a long history of working in the service industry, as a younger individual, I started off cleaning floors in a vet clinic, ended up as a baker at Tim Hortons for several years and then a bartender at Holiday Inn and eventually working my way up to fine dining. Sometimes I say I’m not sure if this means I was either a really terrible server or a really terrible crown and politician, because I have never had a day as a crown attorney or a member of provincial Parliament that had as much stress and terror in it as an average day as a Tim Hortons baker or working in fine dining. I have never had a work nightmare about being a crown attorney or an MPP, whereas I have had multiple work nightmares about abandoning my tables mid-shift. It’s really, in many ways, the closest thing I can think of to door-knocking: Every table you approach, you have absolutely no idea how the interaction is going to go, but you have to keep smiling the entire time.

I remember when I first started these positions, many of the places that I worked had me do unpaid trial shifts and also told me that I was responsible for dine-and-dash, so if I failed to make sure that a customer had paid, that was going to be docked from my tips or my wages. I was probably smart enough and cantankerous enough even as a young person to know—I was like, “That’s essentially just loss that you incur as a business. It’s similar to shoplifting. There’s no way I should be responsible for that.” And I think the only time it ever happened to me, I revolted somewhat and ended up not having to pay. But, again, many people that are in this industry are young, are naive, are vulnerable, are not in a position to go up against their employer and say, “I’m not going to do this.” So by addressing this dine-and-dash issue as well as the issue of gas drive-offs by specifically including gas stations, that’s incredibly important. I believe it’s the member for Mississauga–Malton who is particularly passionate about the issue of gas drive-offs, because there have been people who have been injured and died trying to stop people from leaving a gas station without paying because they in no way can possibly afford the cost of that person’s fuel, essentially, and their employers have told them they were responsible. Again, these are workers who do not have the ability to come to Queen’s Park en masse with a union representative to strike, to picket, and yet they have been heard and their issues have been addressed.

Moving forward a little bit as far as my own feelings about this bill, from being a server and then onwards, I also really noticed and appreciated the requirement that salary information be posted, and the reason for this, I think, goes beyond simply the idea of having clear expectations. As we discussed quite a bit two weeks ago, we are still not at wage parity. Women are still earning approximately 87 cents to the dollar as men do. And when you are looking at salary negotiations, negotiation research shows that women are still, I think it’s less than half as likely as men to actually negotiate their salaries, to negotiate what they’ll be compensated for.

When you look into the research of salary negotiation, one of the things that is identified as specifically empowering women is having some objective information available about what colleagues or peers in the industry are making, because it gives you a set point to build off of. Generally speaking, women still end up 30% lower than men simply because they go in asking for less.

By posting an actual salary, we are eliminating in many ways that—anyone that has ever interviewed somebody, even for our executive assistants, who has asked that sort of cruel question: “So what do you expect to be paid?” What kind of question is that to ask somebody? Particularly, somebody young or entering a job for the first time, somebody that is desperate to have this job. It’s really just juggling on a tightrope to be able to identify in a split second what you think you are worth.

Again, when you look at negotiation research, men tend to refer to negotiations about salary as sort of like a fight or a wrestling match; whereas, the most common thing that women compared it to was going to the dentist. When you look at that attitude that they have towards it, you can really see how we can continue to lose the battle as far as wage parity between the genders.

So in doing this, I believe that we are going to significantly impact, in a slow but still important fashion, women’s ability to negotiate their salaries because we’re giving everybody—but I’m particularly talking about women—that little bit of objective information about this, and that is the range or the starting point. And I can actually have an objective point in order to base my own negotiation off of.

As I said, I really do believe that what this bill is and what all of the Working for Workers bills have been is a cumulative effort of travelling Ontario, of listening to people, of listening to people that may not have union representation as well as people that do and of trying slowly, gradually and carefully, with the balancing of interest that any government must always do, to address those needs and to make sure that our workers in all industries—but particularly service industries, which is about 6%—are being represented.

So I will certainly be supporting this bill with a great deal of excitement. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it. I will hand off the remainder of my time to the member opposite.

Good morning, and thank you to my colleague for his remarks this morning. He mentioned newcomers to our province. Even in my rural communities in rural southern Ontario, we’re seeing a lot of newcomers—which is wonderful—in our communities, contributing to our economy, coming to work in our province. Newcomers are essential, obviously, to ensuring Ontario continues to grow.

Does the member opposite believe opposing this bill means that the members who are supporting existing practices that keep newcomers from being able to work in the fields that they are trained in—does he believe this is the right decision on their part?

Next question?

I enjoyed listening to my colleague the member from Sudbury.

I do want to remind the member from Essex that from 2013 to 2018, this province led the G7 in jobs and growth, and we were in the top three for foreign direct investment for those five years as well, so we can throw that stuff back and forth.

The reality is that the Working for Workers Four Act isn’t working that hard for workers. There are good things in it, but they are watered down. One of the things I think we have to grapple with in here, as the member mentioned, is the fact that the nature of work is changing. We’re now having a second class of employees who are employee contractors. It’s not just going to happen with delivery people. They’re traditional jobs. They’re the same jobs. They’re not new jobs. It’s going to happen all across our economy, so we actually have to watch how corporations are treating people who will be doing this work for them. It’s just starting now.

But the question that’s really on my mind this morning is: How often did the member from Sudbury get sent home from school?

As much as I enjoyed the deputation from my colleague in opposition, he is talking about the stuff which is not included in the bill as much as discussing what is included in the bill. Of course, there are unlimited possibilities to include things, but we are discussing the things which are already included in this bill.

Part of that bill is talking about some of the steps we are taking to protect individuals who have suffered at the hands of bad actors and abusers, and eliminating the use of NDAs in workplace misconduct. Do you think that the members opposite are doing the right thing by opposing those meaningful changes?

I want to thank the member from Sudbury for really pointing out the many, many ways that this government is actually working against workers, and certainly working against those who have permanent injuries, where we have seen people living in poverty on the one hand and not able to access benefits, and on the other hand we hear a government that brags about how much money they’re giving back to employers.

The question I wanted to ask about is really about misclassification and wage theft. I’m thinking about the trucking industry. We’re seeing this misclassification with Uber drivers and so on, but in the trucking industry, I’m aware of a great deal of wage theft that’s not being addressed. Also, this classification of drivers as “Driver Inc.”, which was supposed to be banned, is still very much taking place. Those workers have no benefits whatsoever if they get into an accident. They’re kind of high and dry.

The member from Mississauga–Erin Mills.

Questions?

I want to thank the member for Mississauga–Erin Mills for your comments, and also the member for Kitchener—

Interjection.

This is the Working for Workers bill. I was at a protest recently at city hall with gig workers, and they were talking about how they’re making $6.37 an hour because this government passed another Working for Workers bill that stripped them of their protections under the Employment Standards Act. In fact, it actually makes them—gig workers—a separate category of workers that are not entitled to the protections, such as minimum wage protections. Some of these gig workers are making $6.37 an hour.

My question to the member is, should this government repeal that legislation and allow gig workers protections under the Employment Standards Act? I’ll ask it to the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills.

I really thank my colleague for the good question.

Again, I’m not saying that this bill will solve all the issues we have. We have some issues come, as your colleague was talking about earlier about the change in the working environment. There’s a lot of contract work, not full-time jobs. There are a lot of new job descriptions, even job nature, which weren’t there, that maybe are not covered under some of the bills. Definitely it’s fair to look into every situation and try to make sure everybody is protected.

This part of the bill protects what we can protect, but if there’s any need for more, I think there will be a Working for Workers 5 coming.

Next question?

My question is for either member. I’m still trying to wrap my head around super-indexing in this bill and why that’s more important than a couple of things, like some workers, pre-1988 or -1985, who are really disadvantaged, who are on WSIB—the 13% of cases that are complex and get dragged out and create hardship for people.

I also mentioned I have a private member’s bill that talks about protecting workers in group homes and retirement centres. The challenge is, they’re not covered by WSIB simply because of their employer. They’re doing the same work as other people are in long-term-care homes, but they don’t have the same employer, so they don’t have coverage, and many of them have multiple jobs. It’s a big risk for them. I’ve talked to this minister and the previous minister about it and they’re supportive of it. I’m encouraged by that.

I guess my question for either member is: Do you think that there’s some things that we could do at the WSIB to actually alleviate some of the risks and suffering, in some cases, that are happening to people out there who don’t have coverage or who have coverage but aren’t getting satisfaction?

I want to thank both my colleagues for their comments this morning.

My question is to my colleague from Kitchener South–Hespeler. I appreciated her comments about her front-line experience as a server in the hospitality industry, but I know she’s also a lawyer. My question is: There’s an obligation in Ontario for employers to provide a workplace that is safe and free from harassment, and I’m wondering if my colleague could please comment on the regulation of the use of NDAs in the case of workplace sexual harassment, misconduct or violence and how that’s going to further protect our workers across Ontario.

I would like to thank my colleague for the question. Again, I wouldn’t say yes or no, because that’s another part—WSIB is another part and not in this bill, so I didn’t study it. We need to study it; I understand. Again, it’s always a work in progress. We need to look into those cases and understand what the impact is.

But, again, when we talk about legislation, we are talking about an umbrella. We are talking about a very high-level framework. When it comes to regulations, which can explain what’s within the legislation—how we can apply it and how it will be applied—then we can look into smaller details of that.

So, yes, I would say that we could look at something like that and see where it fits into this, but in the overall scheme or picture, I think it’s included in some way or other.

Thank you to my colleagues for their comments on this Working for Workers bill.

The member for Kitchener South–Hespeler said women earn up to 30% less than men when she was talking about pay transparency. There was a bill, the Pay Transparency Act, 2018, that would have helped to address this and put some real teeth to the bill. This schedule of the bill duplicates the title but doesn’t have the enforcement in it.

I was just wondering if the member could explain to me how, with this schedule, all you have to do is say that the range—I said in my debate between $1 and $1 million. But if the range is 30% of a range, how does that help close that gender pay gap if women are just being told that the range in pay is varied between 30%?

Thank you for the question. Yes, I think this is an excellent movement. The use of NDAs in this type of situation can really lead to the exact opposite of, really, ethically what we are trying to accomplish, which is making sure that people are kept safe and protected and aware of any misconduct, whether it be harassment, discrimination or anything else.

I think what has happened here has been almost a case of what I call common-law creep, where it is not actually a defined policy or part of the legislation. However, it has become typical practice to do this, to the point that it has become very challenging, as counsel, to not do it.

It’s great to see that the Canadian Bar Association is so strongly in favour of this as well. Clearly, we have a case where the experts themselves are recognizing that this is an issue and are very committed to it being resolved. So I think this is an excellent course correction on the common-law creep that can happen.

As a woman, my feeling on this is that this gives me a significant amount of information that I would not have had before, but my own personal advocacy style remains to instead focus on initiatives that may support girls to understand their own worth, versus a later addressing of an earlier systemic issue.

What I am seeing in a lot of our work and education as far as STEM programs, STEAM programs, getting girls into coding and robotics, that type of thing—that’s really where I think that we are creating a generation of girls who will become a generation of women who don’t go into a discussion like this already doubting their own potential.

You’ve heard my comments on women, but I think that my comments apply to essentially anybody who is vulnerable or trepidatious when entering any type of salary negotiation.

Like I said, many of us have had the experience of hiring for our constituency offices or for executive assistants and looking into the face of some eager young person—I’m a bit of a chicken, and I would often have the chief of staff do the interview with me. Having the chief of staff then ask this poor kid what salary they are expecting—which is a question that I stopped using, because I just don’t think it’s effective.

Again, by giving people that range of expectation, it allows them to focus on their own work about what they’re going to do as far as trying to get this job, but also going in with an objective piece of data that will help them to negotiate.

The proposed legislation is taking aim at non-transparent business practices such as not disclosing salaries until after the interview process.

Could the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler speak about how eliminating these steps will help employees and job seekers take the next steps in their careers?

To the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler: This Working for Workers bill makes some changes to the digital workers protection act. I wanted to ask the member, doesn’t she think digital workers would be better protected if they were covered by the Employment Standards Act and were not forced to work at jobs where they earned $6.37 per hour instead of a proper minimum wage?

I’m pleased to be here to speak about Bill 149, which amends various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters. This is an omnibus bill. It changes four schedules.

We have heard the MPP for Sudbury speak very eloquently and practically about what this bill means, but I also just want to put it in context.

The kinds of jobs that you can get in Ontario today are not the kinds of jobs that you could get 20 or 30 years ago. People want good-paying jobs, where they have a career, where they have benefits and the possibility of a pension, where they can afford to pay their rent or their mortgage, where they can save some money and put it aside, where they can live a good life here in Ontario. Unfortunately and deliberately, for many people that’s not the kind of work that they have in Ontario today. Increasingly, the kind of work that is available to people in Ontario is contract work, precarious work, just-in-time work, low wage work, where you cannot afford to pay the bills, and where the kinds of benefits and pension that people typically got in the past are not available for many people anymore. It has created a situation where we are seeing the working poor and the middle class having to work harder and harder and harder for less, and we’re seeing a real concentration of wealth at the top. It is exacerbating the inequality that exists in Ontario today. I think it’s a shame, and I think that should be reversed. Does this bill do that? No, it doesn’t.

This bill has some modest improvements, and I do want to go through some of them. The first one was the decision to provide presumptive coverage for esophageal cancer for firefighters. This is a good move, and I want to thank the MPP for Niagara Centre for his advocacy to convince the government to do the right thing for firefighters, to ensure they have presumptive coverage for esophageal cancer, because we know that if you are an urban firefighter, you put yourself in very dangerous situations. You go into the fire, you go into a building or a house, when everyone’s just trying to get out.

Given the way homes are made today, the way furniture is made today, there are a number of pollutants and toxins—glues, fire retardants—which can cause, in the long term, cancerous conditions. We know this. So it’s a good move to ensure that people who keep people alive, who stop fires, are protected when they get older.

What is a shame is that what we didn’t see in this bill is for presumptive coverage to include wildfire fire workers. As the MPP for Sudbury pointed out, urban firefighters go in with a ventilator, but forest wildfire firefighters are wearing a wet cloth, and that’s not the kind of coverage that you’d expect given how dangerous being a forest wildfire firefighter is today. We just went through the worst fire season in Canada’s history last year. We expect fires to get worse. Firefighters, wildfire firefighters, are an essential service, and they should be protected, so we would have liked to have seen that in the bill.

The other piece that we see incredibly modest steps being taken on is around providing additional protection to people who work through a gig app such as Uber. This is really prevalent in my riding of University–Rosedale. Many students will also be gig workers in order to have enough money to pay for rent, and this bill, quite frankly, just doesn’t do enough to protect them. What we’re seeing with this bill is that it sets a minimum wage standard, but only for when workers are actually engaged, which means they have a job and they’re biking or driving there. So all that time where you’re waiting for a job, you’re not paid for. That’s absurd. That’s like having a customer service person at McDonald’s only being paid when they’re dealing with a customer. That’s absolutely absurd.

What’s also absurd is that this requirement to set a minimum wage floor doesn’t take into account that workers have to pay for all their expenses: driving a car, gas, insurance. What happens if they get into an accident? All those costs have to be borne by the employee, by the worker, and I think that’s a real shame. It means that in some cases, these workers are being paid very little: $4 an hour, $6 an hour. You cannot live on that in Ontario. You cannot live on that in Toronto. So we see that as a shame.

The MPP for London West has, very sensibly, put forward a bill that is called the Preventing Worker Misclassification Act, which provides a simple ABC test to determine whether a worker is a contractor or whether they are an employee. In many of these cases, these Uber workers, these gig workers are employees. They should be paid a minimum wage. They should be protected by the Employment Standards Act. They should have access to rights, and they should have access to benefits, and they don’t, and that is a shame.

We would have liked to have seen the Preventing Worker Misclassification Act to be included in this omnibus bill, in order to provide and lift the working floor of thousands and thousands of workers who are earning less than minimum wage, and we don’t see that in this bill. They—