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.

I would like to thank my colleague from Kitchener South–Hespeler. I’m very happy to stand today to support this bill, which is actually one of a series of bills, Working for Workers, which I was so proud to be supporting since Working for Workers 1, Working for Workers 2 and Working for Workers 3.

We know that when given the opportunity, Ontarians will work hard and achieve much. That’s why this government is obligated to protect workers and open up opportunities so that every dream can be fulfilled. Already, the first three pieces of legislation, Working for Workers 1, 2 and 3, are helping millions of people by extending economic opportunities, increasing protections and supporting newcomers. Now, Working for Workers Four will continue this hard work by opening up opportunities and increasing transparency in the workplace.

To start, we are ending the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of workplace harassment and violence. I’m glad to hear that this government is consulting to end the unscrupulous practices that shield and protect abusers. Our government’s proposal will protect victims from being pressured into bad agreements and settlements. There must be accountability for any abuse that takes place in the workplace. We are committed to supporting victims, ensuring their rights are preserved and restored.

The goal of this bill is to have a fair treatment in the hiring process as well. Our government is increasing transparency for workers, making sure that they are being treated fairly and respectfully. This is being achieved in multiple ways.

Firstly, we are mandating that inclusion of the salary range is in the job posting. Workers want transparency when applying for a new job. The changes would require lawyers to post information about compensation on the job posting. This is a common-sense solution that has been implemented in many other provinces. It is preventing employers from taking advantage of employees and wasting their time keeping everything for negotiation or a specific judgment of the employer when he already does the interview.

So prior, for me as an employee applying for a job, to walk into this interview, I would have preferred to know if that job’s range of negotiation is meeting my requirements. Is it the range I’m looking for? And then, the negotiation would start from the minimum range to the upper wage, not from nowhere, from zero to whatever.

The Employment Standards Act is already very clear that employers cannot pay workers less based on their gender, but there is still more work to do to ensure gender equality.

By forcing employers to be transparent about salaries, Ontario will be levelling the playground. This will ensure fairness and equality is being applied before a job application is even posted.

Secondly, we are requiring employers to disclose the use of artificial intelligence in the recruitment process. In the old days, job applications would be manually reviewed by an employer to find the best fit. Now, artificial intelligence can automatically sort hundreds of job applications in a minute. When used fairly and respectfully, this technology can be used effectively to help both employers and employees, helping employers to cut the time for sorting through those applications and helping the employees by finding the right skill set for the job. I’m very supportive of all the different technologies, especially new technologies, given my background in technology for 38 years, but we need to make sure that we are cautious of the ethical, legal and privacy implications of this new technology. This bill would set the ground rules for the ethical use of AI.

The bill would also provide access to employment opportunities for all workers by providing more oversight for regulated third parties. The amendments for the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act would improve accountability and transparency. Certification, licensing and high-end processes should be standardized, formally written and subject to documented oversight. This will have a positive impact for foreign-trained professionals like newly immigrated professionals, like me—I am an internationally trained engineer—removing barriers that are preventing highly qualified, internationally trained individuals from having their qualifications assessed and approved.

Last spring, I was very proud to stand alongside the then Minister of Labour as the Professional Engineers of Ontario announced that they were the first regulators to remove Canadian experience requirements from the credential system. Last month, I was attending one of the PEO events, and I was told that almost 50% of the new applications are very well-trained professionals and engineers who are actually new immigrants, that don’t have the Canadian experience. So they now can apply. They were prevented from applying before.

I’m happy to hear that now, a high percentage of those applicants are those with foreign experience and new immigrants. That shows that this piece of legislation is working. More than 50% of the applications—this is huge.

Now, we are continuing to remove Canadian experience requirements from all the provincial requirements and from job postings. Highly qualified individuals deserve to have an opportunity to work here in Canada without discrimination.

Canada is accepting many new immigrants who are highly qualified. Before entering this country, prospective immigrants must submit their certifications, degrees and diplomas—documents to prove that they are highly skilled, highly trained professionals—because they get points for that. Canada accepted these immigrants because we have a need for those skilled professionals.

However, once they arrive in Canada, immigrants often are shocked to face the reality that they are not able to practise their profession. In some cases, they are actually not able to apply to get their professional credentials. Canadian experience requirements are stopping people from getting the jobs they are trained to do. Many immigrants end up working for minimum wage jobs for years because the barriers are preventing them from getting a job in their industry.

Trust what I’m saying, because I was there; I was one of them. I hit that wall before. I know it. I too also have a very personal experience of the impact that Canadian experience requirements can have on delaying career advancements—both me and my wife as well, as a foreign-trained doctor, IMG, international medical graduate.

It’s a win-win situation when highly qualified immigrants get a chance to work in their field and contribute to the province’s economy. It is a win-win situation. They need a job. They came to this country to start their new life based on the qualifications they have and they were accepted based on. We put that upfront as a requirement because we needed those professionals but, when they arrive and they can’t work, none of the two sides achieved anything: not the professional who arrived here to start the new job or the province who accepted them to do the job but didn’t give them the licence or the credentials to do the job. Neither of the sides achieved anything. By those changes we are proposing in this legislation, it’s actually a win-win situation for the newly immigrated professionals and for the province who needed these professionals; they needed them in the job. Immigrants can provide for their families. Businesses have access to the talented, skilled workers they need and we accepted.

I’m very happy to be standing here today to support this piece of legislation as part of this series. I know that there is more to be done. I hope we have Working for Workers 5, Working for Workers 6—hopefully soon. Thank you.

Questions?

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—

Speaker, Friday was a rough day in Sudbury. On Friday, the Sudbury Action Centre for Youth, SACY, announced they’re closing their doors. They weren’t able to make ends meet, weren’t able to make payroll. This is an organization that really helps youth—marginalized youths, transgender youths, youths who are homeless and youths who are using drugs, and provides service and support for them. This is part of a bigger problem when it comes to drug use across Ontario.

In 2019, I brought forward a private member’s motion to declare a medical emergency in northern Ontario for opioid use and opioid deaths. I was voted down by the Conservative government, but I think we could have that same motion, a mercy motion, for all of Ontario right now. The death count from opioid-related deaths since 2018 is 20,000 Ontarians who have died—20,000.

Meanwhile, Sudbury has been waiting for 30 months for a response on a supervised consumption site. For an arbitrary reason, the Conservative government decided they were going to cap the number of supervised consumption sites to 21. To date, we only have 17, and still no funding for Sudbury.

Another bad news story in Sudbury was that, on Friday, Réseau Access was giving notice to their last employee, the only employee who was able to stay at our supervised consumption site, The Spot, because of no provincial funding, even though they have been operating for a year and three months.

It’s a sad day in Sudbury, Speaker. It shouldn’t have come to this. It’s going to be difficult in the days ahead.

I want to talk about something important to me and my constituents: getting all-day, two-way GO train service to Niagara Falls. This isn’t just about trains; it’s about making life better for all of us.

I’ve been fighting for this alongside my community for 10 years, when I first ran for office. Remember that by-election in 2014? The Conservative candidate said no to GO. The Conservatives also said no to the new hospital. But my community and I have never stopped fighting, and we’ve made progress. We have GO train service that doesn’t meet our needs. It needs to be consistent two-way, all-day service.

Metrolinx is expanding GO train trips all over Ontario, yet Niagara Falls is not on the list when we have 14 million tourists every year. Our region is growing and so is demand for better transit options. Our ridership keeps climbing—last year alone, a whopping 67% increase. Over 630,000 people hopped on and off at our GO station, an increase of 377,000 in 2022.

We need to ease the traffic on our highways, protect our environment, help support tourism and give commuters a break. I’ve raised this numerous times with different governments and the CEO of Metrolinx. I will continue to advocate for the increased service that Niagara Falls deserves and it needs.