I appreciated listening to my colleague’s remarks. As I’ve travelled the province in the last couple of months visiting traditional home builders, modular or factory-built home builders, there’s one common theme: We need 1.5 million homes built in this province and we need the people to build them. No matter how much automation we invest in, we still need the skilled trades’ talent and expertise to get these houses built. The biggest concern these builders have is where we are going to get the labour. It is the number one constraint to their capacity, their growth, their potential.

My question to my colleague is how is this bill going to help accentuate, facilitate and, most importantly, complement the capacity increase we need to get more homes built and faster in this province?

It’s always an honour for me to rise and add the voices and perspectives of the wonderful people of London North Centre here in this chamber.

As I rise today to debate Bill 190, I’m reluctant to use the title itself because I often find that with this government there are unintentionally ironic titles to pieces of legislation that they create. As I take a look at this bill, I want to consider following the money, because, quite frankly, with much of the legislation that this government enacts, they simply don’t respond to the cost-of-living crisis that we see here in our province, and the plight of workers who are struggling to make ends meet, to pay for a roof over their heads, to pay their utility bills and to put healthy food on the table for themselves as well as their children.

The Fraser Institute actually just released a report just today that shows the trend of incomes in Ontario over the last two decades. It is entitled Ontario’s Two Lost Economic Decades: 2002-2022. It finds, by using a big-picture perspective and using several key indicators, that minimal economic progress was made for Ontarians during this time and that we actually lost ground relative to the country. It found that the GDP per-person growth was the second worst nationwide; business investment per worker over the 20-year period was only 61% of the national average. Here in Ontario, businesses are not investing in their people. The report was created by Ben Eisen, senior fellow from the Fraser Institute, and Eisen states, “On a number of important economic metrics, Ontario is lagging the rest of the country, which ultimately means Ontario workers are falling behind, along with opportunities for them.”

As we follow the money, I can’t help but also need to communicate to this government, despite their ideological opposition to health care workers as evidenced through Bill 124, as well as their ideological opposition to education workers with the bill that was until it wasn’t, we see a lot of really punishingly low wages for people across health care sectors.

I had the opportunity with the MPP from London West and the MPP from London–Fanshawe to meet with the RNAO and Janet Hunt, who spoke about so many issues that are facing nurses in the community sector. They gave us really harrowing stories about trying to struggle to meet clients’ basic needs, while being paid dramatically lower than their peers.

I should also point out that when we consider wage parity, that the Ontario Nonprofit Network pointed to a number of different places in which the province is a laggard and is making sure that people aren’t being paid what they deserve. For registered early childhood educators, if they work within a school board or a municipal centre, they will make roughly $25 an hour whereas those working in a not-for-profit licensed child care will earn $18 an hour.

In home and community care, PSWs are paid a fraction of what they deserve and what they’re worth. In home and community care, they earn 17% less than those in long-term care. But also, those home and community care PSWs earn 21% less than hospitals.

The list goes on: child and youth workers, disability support service workers, language instructors, settlement counsellors, social service workers—all in the community-based non-profit sector—earn $10 an hour less than hospitals, school boards and child welfare.

When you consider drop-in and shelter workers, those who are employed in not-for-profits will earn roughly $15 an hour, whereas those in municipal respite centres will earn $30 an hour, twice as much.

The Ontario Nonprofit Network has shown through its reporting that when you consider pay and benefits all together, people earn 30% less than they ought to be. And that’s something that this government could answer.

Recently, CUPE had actions trying to show this government how little they were being paid as a result of Bill 124 and seeing real degradation of their pay over the last several years. They’ve been handed excuses and delays. I would like to quote CUPE Local 8916 president Shaun Steven who said, “Our members work very hard behind the scenes to ensure that members of our community have access to health care and support for their needs at home and in community clinics, and we deserve a settlement that takes our hard work and the cost of living into account.” I could not agree more, Speaker. This is something that the government could act on, should act on, yet has chosen not to act on.

The RNAO has provided the following quotations, and this is from front-line workers: “In the community, we have clients who are waiting weeks to get routine procedures done because we are so short. Sometimes, the wait is so long that the client gets an infection or cannot wait any longer and must go to the ER to get care. This is a cycle that repeats.”

And another RNAO member stated, “We are struggling to find people who want to work in the community because their pay is so much lower than bedside nurses’, yet they are expected to do the exact same work. Our patients in the community are sicker than before.”

And from a veteran nurse who stated, “Historical decisions made in the 1990s are showing now, everywhere from changing how we fund health care from a nursing-hour model to a per-bed model. Nurses have been calling for change and warning about this for decades, and now, we are stuck having to pay for it.”

And another health care provider: “In the community where I work, I am frequently given a list of up to 14 patients to see in a day. It is often impossible to see all the patients in a day without going over my time but then I don’t get compensated. I get paid per visit but the patients they send to the RN are some of the sickest and need thorough assessments. Often I am called at the end of my day to go see someone whose condition has changed and family have called in looking for help. I then must call my other clients and tell them I can’t make it to see them. It often leads to angry words as they feel abandoned, and they then have to go to ER for whatever it was I was meant to do for them.”

Speaker, this is unconscionable that workers are being treated in this way, and this government is well aware of the plight of wage parity, and yet they simply choose not to act. During the tour for the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, we heard again and again and again that wage parity is an issue affecting people across the province, yet we see legislation that’s titled purporting to support workers and yet ignoring their inability to pay workers properly.

But if we also follow the money, taking a look at the way this government has ignored some of the systems that they are responsible for, I also think about injured workers in this province. I think about the WSIB that has long not stood up for people who have become injured on the job. There was a 2015 study, and it found that 46% of injured workers will live in poverty nearly five years after their injury; 46% of the workers who really need the help, who are disabled, are stuck in poverty. Speaker, that was not the system the WSIB was created for. It was created to support workers, not to deny them.

There’s also been many, many recent studies showing that—and this is actually studies done by the Ministry of Labour that have shown the WSIB’s claims allowed rate has fallen from just under 2% of employed workers in 2004 to just over 1% in 2013. The number of fatalities and the number of critical injuries is going up, and yet there has been almost no change in the amount of claims being allowed by WSIB. We have to ask why that is. If we’re seeing numbers going up in terms of injuries and fatalities, how is it possible that that number is remaining stagnant?

Furthermore, if this government would like to support the title of its bill, it would do things such as getting rid of deeming. Deeming is the practice used by the WSIB to pretend an injured worker has a job that they do not actually have; it’s a phantom job. It’s used as an excuse to withdraw and to cut and to make sure that they are holding back money from that person who is injured and unable to work.

If this government really wanted to support workers, they would actually listen to physicians that attend to these injured workers. It’s been long exposed in Prescription Over-Ruled—which was created by a number of different doctors as well as the Ontario Federation of Labour. That has shown the stories of workers who were injured and were then supposedly treated by doctors who never actually saw them, never actually spoke to them, who looked at a piece of paper and made decisions based on a piece of paper.

I want to share, from that Prescription Over-Ruled, Keith’s story. Keith’s name has been changed to protect their identity:

“Keith suffered a brain injury and serious spinal injury when he fell eight feet and landed on his head. Despite immediate and ongoing physical and psychological distress, receiving treatment remains a constant struggle for this injured worker.

“Keith was working underground at the time of the accident. Unfortunately, his helmet came off during the fall and offered him no protection. When his head struck rock, witnesses say that they thought he was dead.

“In contrast to what Keith’s medical team has advised, the board has decided that he does not have a permanent injury. Even though Keith has a solid and consistent work history, and even though he sustained three spinal compression fractures from the fall, they are calling his ongoing pain ‘pre-existing.’

“While the board originally funded some physiotherapy, they ultimately turned down the physiotherapist’s strongly worded request for ongoing treatments to manage Keith’s continuing chronic pain. His condition has continued to degrade, and requests for more therapy—at the recommendation of a health care professional—continue to be denied. Now, he is on so many medications related to his pain that his doctors ordered him not to drive and functioning day to day is a struggle.

“But Keith is suffering from more than physical pain. Shortly after the injury, Keith’s doctor became concerned about his depression and poor sleep due to a possible brain injury. As his treating physician, he suggested Keith see a psychologist. The WSIB denied this request. When his depression reached what his doctor called ‘profound levels,’ he again requested psychological support for his patient. He was again denied. Some two years later and many requests later, Keith was finally granted limited sessions, though any activities related to brain injury rehabilitation or occupational therapy (both of which the psychologist has strongly recommended) have been flatly turned down.

“While Keith’s mental health has been improving, his psychologist remains concerned that he struggles with severe depression, a lack of purpose and is at risk of suicide. Their funded sessions together are now complete. His psychologist doesn’t anticipate receiving approval for more, but even if they do, it will take months.

“Every medical professional in Keith’s life agrees that he needs continued physical and psychological support in order to regain and retain some quality of life. The WSIB—who are not doctors and who have never met Keith—have ignored the recommendations and requests of all of them.”

Speaker, as well, I’d like to turn to some of the words from our excellent labour critic, the MPP from Sudbury, who in the line of his following the money has pointed out quite rightly that this government has made a lot of promises and changes within this legislation, yet much of it will never really be realized.

In Working for Workers, we call this a “headline bill” or pretending to be tough on bosses. As our critic pointed out, the fine maximums have been changed for violations of the act from $50,000 to $100,000 for an individual. Also, it should be noted that currently, under the ESA, corporations can already be fined up to $100,000 and repeat corporate offenders as much as $500,000. But it should be pointed out—and this was very well pointed out by our critic—that the highest fine levied in 2022 was $31,250. If we’re following the money, we can increase the thresholds all you like, but if that’s not actually going to be enforced, if that’s not going to be levied, then it is relatively meaningless.

In addition, our critic pointed out that in 2018-19, there were 2,345 proactive workplace inspections, but a few short years later, in 2022-23, there had been only 788. It’s like they don’t want to know what’s going on.

And if we follow the money further, stolen money, wage theft—money that belongs to workers, that this government is aware of but is not getting for those workers—is ridiculous. In 2018, that number was $10 million. The Workers’ Action Centre stated—and this is Ella Bedard—that workers need proactive inspections to ensure employers obey the law, and we need effective collection of stolen wages when the Ministry of Labour has ordered an employer to pay back workers’ wages. How can it be possible, Speaker, that the Ministry of Labour can order an employer to pay back workers’ wages and the workers don’t actually see that money? But that is what happens in Ontario.

Between 2020 and 2022, there were 8,400 successful claims, and that amounted to $36 million. But the province was a failure—an abject failure—in making sure workers got that money. They recovered less than 40% of the money that should be in the pockets of the hard-working people here in this province: $36 million was owed to workers and only $13 million was collected.

So, Speaker, in Ontario, we see legislation that talks about bad actors, and yet we see a government that is not actually holding them to account. How is that possible? Why do we have titles of legislation that are strangely ironic? Why do we have words that are not enforced? Why do we have actions by the ministry of labour itself that are not being completed, that are not being effectively taken care of? Think of that $23 million that should be owed to people, that they have worked for. They should not have to go and settle for a province that does not have their back, that will not look after them.

So, Speaker, I will say that, with Bill 190, it’s not all bad. It is not the worst piece of legislation, but it is the kind of legislation that I do think time will show that this title is yet again strangely ironic, that there are so many opportunities for the government to do the right thing to look after things such as wage parity across health care sectors and across community support services. They could look after workers by ensuring that the money that was owed to them by their employer was returned to them. They could make sure that people who are injured on the job have the protections that they require, that they’re being treated properly, that they’re being treated fairly, that they’re not being deemed, that they’re not having phantom jobs.

Further, Speaker, a very last thing, if this government really wanted to stand up for the working people in this province, they would pass NDP legislation to make sure that scab labour is something that is not allowed in this province. I’m very thankful that the government has listened to the advocacy of the great team with the official opposition and has expanded presumptive coverage for firefighters. There’s so much that is missing within this bill.

I hope that this government will take the time, pay people what they’re worth, make sure that the money that they have earned actually gets into their pocket, that bad actors are taken to task and are forced to pay what they owe people.

It’s unreasonable to think that the province is not doing its part to make sure that people are being paid what they deserve.

I want to thank the member from London North Centre for his comments. I wanted to just get a sense from the member as to—actually, schedule 3 of the bill, which speaks to the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act. This has been cited as a barrier that exists for people to get registrations in their particular trades and that certainly affects those that are new to Canada, new to Ontario as well as our young people. I’m looking at this section, and I’m feeling that this is actually a good section to include in the bill, given that it does provide for a number of different processes and simplification of demonstrating your qualifications.

So I would like to know if the member opposite is in agreement with that particular schedule and any thoughts that he may have on how we can better qualify our workers in Ontario today.

Thank you to the member from Windsor–Tecumseh for the question. When we look at schedule 3, it does amend different legislation to require regulated professions to set out requirements for reasonable alternatives to documented proof of qualifications. But the minister unfortunately has yet to explain, in all of the press events, what this is really truly meant to address. Is it possible that this is in consideration of foreign professionals who may not have documentation to be able to establish credentials by other means? It’s really not clear.

But I want to thank the member for the question, and I do hope that the member did receive all of the petitions that were delivered to them by their CUPE local calling for wage parity for community health care workers. I hope that you will advocate for them, for your people and make sure that they’re paid properly.

Thank you also for talking about WSIB. There’s some irony, because I’ve been fighting very hard to get WSIB coverage for wildland forest fighters. But there are many, many problems with WSIB: 46% of permanently injured workers live close to or under the poverty line; 9% live in deep poverty. We also know that this government boasts frequently about a 30% cut to WSIB premiums to employers and then a return of $1.5 billion to employers.

And what really worries me, and perhaps you can comment on this, is that the government talks about having cut costs to employers, so they’re talking about bringing in all these new industries. Sounds great, but they’ve thrown workers under the bus. That’s what it sounds like. So, what protection is going to be there for workers when we already know that they are not being supported for injuries that they have now? There will surely be injuries in these new workplaces, and there’s not going to be anything there for them. Can you please comment?

Further questions?

I’d like to thank my colleague from Thunder Bay–Superior North for an excellent question. You’re absolutely right; we have seen that 46% of injured workers live in poverty. That is a cost borne by them. It is detrimental to their life, to their health, to their future, to their entire family, but it is also financially unsustainable for the province as well, because they end up on ODSP. Really, when we have a system that is meant to protect workers, it’s absolutely disgraceful that workers are receiving less. The WSIB is turning more people down even though injuries and fatalities are going up and then returning that money to employers. They are taking that money that should belong to someone who was injured for their support, to make sure they are able to be healthy, to be in their homes with their families, and yet they’re turning it over as though it’s some sort of gift. How can this government have a piece of legislation that has the word “worker” in it when they are overseeing a system that denies workers, that deems them to be able to do phantom jobs, that will pretend that their injury or their illness is pre-existing? It is absolutely unconscionable.

The province itself—and I will say as well, I want to commend the member for reaching out to their Local 4268 and bringing their cause here to the chamber. But this province, this government actually uses scab labour when it comes to the creation of advertisements. During the ACTRA strike, they were not content to actually pay workers the respect that they deserve, the trained professionals. But this is all about, again, following that money. Scab labour is something that benefits employers. It benefits this government, clearly, directly.

If this government were to actually, legitimately, authentically and practically stand up for workers, it would make sure that scab labour was something that was illegal across the province. It’s as simple as that. The government could do it today; we would support them. We can pass anti-scab legislation today.

Further question?

I rise to support the Working for Workers Act.

As we gather here today, I am filled with a deep sense of pride for our province, Ontario. Ours is a land of opportunity, a place where dreams can take root and flourish. We stand at the crossroads of progress, poised to build a future that is brighter and more prosperous than ever before.

We want our province to continue to be the best place to live, to work and raise a family. That’s why our government is steadfastly committed to working with employers, unions and workers alike. Together, we are forging a path forward, one that ensures workers can find better jobs and bring home bigger paycheques.

Speaker, Ontario is grappling with the largest labour shortage in a generation. Over 237,000 jobs remain unfilled, costing us billions in lost productivity. This is a call to action, a rallying cry for all hands on deck.

Through our Working for Workers Acts, we are taking decisive action. We are providing crucial support and protection for Ontario workers, addressing the historic labour shortage and attracting global talent to our shores because we understand that good, meaningful jobs are the cornerstone of strong families and communities. Every paycheque not earned is a missed opportunity, a chance for a brighter future squandered.

As the world of work continues to evolve, so too must our approach. Our government remains steadfast in its commitment to positioning Ontario as the premier destination for workers, businesses and newcomers alike. Together, we will chart a course toward prosperity and success.

But our vision extends beyond the horizon of today. By investing in our skilled trades workforce now, we’re laying the groundwork for a stronger, more prosperous Ontario. Together, with a unified effort, we will build the future our province deserves.

Let us not forget the vital role that women play in our workforce. They are the backbone of our economy, yet too often their contributions go unrecognized. That ends now. Under the government’s leadership, young women aspiring to excel in skilled trades can count on our unwavering support. We are not merely paying lip service; we are taking action.

Our Working for Workers Act is a testament to this commitment. If passed, it will usher in a new era of protections for workers, ensuring their health and dignity are safeguarded at every turn. We will hold exploitative bad actors accountable, making it easier for Ontarians to pursue a career in trades.

But our work is far from done. We must ensure that every worker, regardless of gender, feels safe and supported in the workforce. That means addressing online harassment, providing clean and sanitary facilities, and conducting a comprehensive review of fatalities in the construction sector.

Speaker, our achievements stand as a testament to our unwavering commitment to the people of Ontario. Over the past years, we have made significant strides in building a stronger, more prosperous province for all. First and foremost, we have invested $1.5 billion in the Skilled Trades Strategy, ushering in a new era of modernization and promotion of the trades. This investment has not only bolstered our economy, but it also opened doors for opportunity for countless individuals seeking to pursue rewarding careers in skilled trades.

But our investment in trades development doesn’t stop here. With over $1 billion injected into the Skills Development Fund, we have supported over 600 projects, training over 500,000 workers across Ontario. This investment is not just about numbers; it is empowering individuals to reach their full potential and contribute meaningfully to our society.

In the past year alone, Ontario witnessed the highest number of apprentice registrants in over a decade. This surge in registration is a clear indication that our efforts to promote apprenticeship and remove barriers to entry are yielding tangible results. Furthermore, we have taken bold steps to support workers by eliminating apprenticeship fees and cutting journeyperson’s fees by half. These measures not only make it easier for individuals to pursue careers in the trades, but also demonstrate the commitment to supporting those who keep our economy moving.

Ontario’s manufacturing sector has seen remarkable growth under our leadership. In fact, we welcomed more manufacturing jobs than all the 50 US states combined. This is a testament to the confidence that businesses have in Ontario. It is a premier destination for investment and growth.

Since 2018, Ontario has created 700,000 jobs, providing opportunities for individuals and families to thrive. Our historic investments in training and skills development have played a critical role in this success, with close to 600,000 Ontarians now working in construction, more than at any point in our province’s history.

Moreover, our commitment to workplace safety is unwavering. We have slashed WSIB premiums in half since 2018, reaching the lowest point in over two decades. Additionally, we have increased health and safety fines to the highest in the country, sending a clear message that the safety and well-being of workers are non-negotiable.

Our efforts have not gone unnoticed. Eight unions endorsed us in the last election, recognizing our commitment to pro-worker policies. This benefits all Ontarians. By streamlining processes and welcoming skilled workers from out of province, we are positioning Ontario as a prime destination for trades professionals. In 2023, over 60% of candidates accepted via the OINP program had expertise in technology and skilled trades, and this underscores our simple yet effective model welcoming those who have the skills Ontario needs to grow and prosper right here in Ontario.

Speaker, our achievement is a testament to what can be accomplished when we work together toward a common goal. As we look to the future, let us continue to build on our successes and strive for an Ontario that is even stronger and more prosperous for generations to come.

As we reflect on our achievements and the progress we have made, it is essential to acknowledge the importance of diversity and inclusivity in the skilled trades. Our government’s message is clear: Skilled trades are open to everyone, and we are proud of the steps we have taken thus far, as evidenced by the historic increase of 28% in new entrants to the skilled trades who are women in the past year alone.

However, we’re not resting on our laurels. We recognize that there is still work to be done. We remain committed to pursuing measures that will further encourage women to join the skilled trades and ensure that the doors to these in-demand careers remain open to everyone, as well as for females.

To reinforce our commitment to supporting women in skilled trades, we are taking concrete steps. For instance, we are requiring menstrual products to be accessible on certain construction sites. This initiative ensures that all workers, regardless of any gender, have access to essential resources, enabling them to be comfortable and focused at work. But our dedication to improving workplace conditions extends beyond this initiative. We are mandating clean and sanitary washrooms, along with a regular cleaning schedule, setting new standards for workplace hygiene and comfort. By prioritizing the well-being of our workers, we are creating a better workplace environment for all employees.

Moreover, we recognize the evolving nature of our workplaces and the challenges that come with it. That’s why we’re proposing to expand the definition of workplace harassment under Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act. This expansion would include virtual workplace harassment and sexual harassment, adapting to modern communication methods and providing comprehensive protections for all workers. In addition to expanding the definition, if passed, we plan to consult on workplace duties concerning workplace harassment. This includes establishing potential thresholds and standards to create a safer and more respectful workplace. By clearly defining responsibilities and expectations, we aim to foster a culture of respect and accountability in every workplace across Ontario.

Speaker, at this point I would like to thank our Minister of Labour, the PA and the entire ministry for their commitment to supporting workers, promoting diversity and ensuring worker safety knows no bounds.

Let us summarize the accomplishments that we have made over the past few years. Well, we have invested $1.5 billion in the skilled trades strategy to modernize and promote the trades. As I said, we have invested over $1 billion in the Skills Development Fund and over 600 projects to train over 500,000 workers.

Ontario has the highest representation of women and visible minorities in the skilled trades in Canada.

Last year, Ontario had the highest number of apprenticeship registrations in over a decade. Our government eliminated apprenticeship fees and also cut journeypersons’ fees by half.

Ontario welcomed more manufacturing jobs than all 50 US states combined. Ontario has created 700,000 new jobs since 2018. Thanks to our historic investment in both training and skills development, close to 600,000 Ontarians are working in construction, more than at any point in Ontario’s history. Employment grew by 183,200 positions in 2023 alone, with 93% being full-time jobs.

Since 2018, WSIB premiums have been cut in half, and are at the lowest point in over two decades.

We are going after bad actors by increasing health and safety fines to the highest in the country.

Eight unions left the anti-worker policies of the NDP and the Liberals and endorsed us instead in the last election.

By allowing many out-of-province skilled workers to register within 30 days, we are streamlining processes and positioning Ontario as the prime destination for trade professionals.

In 2023, over 60% of the candidates accepted via the OINP program had expertise in technology or skilled trades. Our model is simple: welcoming those who have the skills to Ontario to grow and to prosper.

At this point, I’d like to share something that I’m seeing in my own community. I’ve been sharing a lot of experiences with parents who, in my time when I raised my children, were only focused on sending them to computer science, doctors, dentists and those kinds of professions.

And for almost 20 years now, I’ve been hearing how manufacturers have not been able to succeed in Ontario because of the taxes, because of the WSIB and a lot of other things. And I also see that they have been screaming out so loud that they have no workers, and they have been asking us about getting apprenticeships.

And I have to say, seeing it with my own eyes, this has been changed for the past five years. Slowly but surely—I should not say “slowly” because they have worked so fast and the changes came along so fast that, right now, we have over 700,000 jobs created.

All those accomplishments that I just shared are the work that we have done since 2018, and a lot faster in the last two years, which is why I have to say thank you very much to our minister and whole ministry that has been working so hard to help us and lead us to this point. I know there is still a lot yet to be done, and we will continue to work on this. That’s why we are putting this bill forward to continue to guide us towards better goals.

In closing, let us remember the strength of Ontario lies in its people, in their resilience, their determination and their unwavering spirit. Together, we will overcome any obstacle, scale any height and build a future that is brighter and more prosperous than we have ever dared to imagine. We are only starting to do it, but we’ll continue to make this a good thing for Ontario and a better future for our next generation.

Thank you to my friend from London North Centre for his comments.

I’m glad he brought up the issue of anti-scab legislation, which we’ve pushed for for a long time. By coincidence, I received a call from my friend Paul McKee from Unifor Local 4268 in Niagara. Unfortunately, they’ve been on strike and now the company has brought in scabs, and it’s led to some very serious safety issues. I’m going to be calling this employer over the weekend and telling them what I think of the use of scabs. But we all know that belonging to a union is the best way to be safe on the job, the best way to make sure that you get paid, the best way to make sure you get benefits and decent pay.

This government could’ve used this legislation to bring in anti-scab measures. Why does he think they haven’t done that, and how important is that to workers in his area?

I thank my colleague from the opposition for the wonderful speech. Again, we talked about that multiple times. No one solution will be good for every aspect to fix everything, but at least that’s a step towards some of the anomalies in the system; for example, that the percentage of women in the construction industry is very low, and studying some of the reasons for that—sanitization of the washrooms and the harassment in the environment and how tough it is and every other aspect of being in the construction industry.

Given the fact our government has a very ambitious plan to build 1.5 million units, do you agree with me that this is a step to encourage women to get into this industry, as 40% of the—

Further questions? I recognize the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington.

Thank you, Speaker, and good afternoon. I want to thank my colleague the member for Richmond Hill for an excellent presentation. I know that before politics she was a successful and long-term employer. Based on that experience and now your experience in politics, I’d like to know how the hiring and employment experience is being made fairer under the Working for Workers Five Act in your opinion.

Okay, time for questions. We have the member from Toronto Centre.

Thank you for that wonderful presentation. I’m curious about the intention of the bill and how to ensure that workers in Ontario are adequately protected. Of course, we all recognize that wage theft is a significant issue, and oftentimes it’s hard to track, hard to prosecute.

I’m just very, very curious to understanding how we can address that particular crisis with respect to wage theft if there isn’t actual enforcement. So can the speaker kindly speak to that particular operational piece? How are you going to get this enforced?

I think it’s important for us to recognize that workers will oftentimes fear reprisals from calling out and asking for wages that are owed to them if their employer holds all the power. And what I’m looking for in this bill is, how is this bill protecting workers against actions such as wage theft, where they are not going to be facing termination if they are demanding what is duly owed to them?

Thank you, member from Toronto Centre. Yes, I believe I’ve covered how we have protected our workers, especially on the construction sites. We make sure that we give them the dignity and respect that they deserve, and even a simple thing—we think it’s simple, but it’s really not simple in making sure sanitary—the washrooms that they are using on a daily basis.

I still remember when we go to different events that have construction sites, when we go into the washroom, it’s not an easy thing. But not only have we kept it sanitary; we are also caring about the women that will be using it if the site is going—if that construction is going on for more than three months and we have over 20 workers, we will have the products that are needed for this. So we are doing everything we can to protect our workers and give them the comfort, dignity and respect.

But in this bill, we are also making sure that we control the bad actors and make sure, if they are not doing their part as good employers, they will be fined. The fines are getting more and more—like, double what they used to be. We also care about the employees’ safety in everything that they do. Perhaps in my business, it’s not as much of a concern—safety—but in other areas there are safety concerns, and we have been working on those through this bill.

Back to the member from Richmond Hill. I’m going to stay on the topic of wage theft. I’m discouraged to hear that, in the member’s own words, there isn’t enough or anything in the bill that deals with the matter proactively, trying to stop wage theft in Ontario.

So I want to be able to highlight the fact that, if we are raising the fines for bad employers, that is a good thing. But I also want to point out that the Workers’ Action Centre has noted that higher fines will not actually protect workers in the face of wrongful dismissal because what’s really needed are proactive inspections and meaningful collection on orders, and that’s not in the bill. My question to the member from Richmond Hill is, why is it not in the bill?

I want to thank the member from Richmond Hill for her comments. I also want to congratulate the Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity for her work in increasing the number of women moving into good-paying careers in the trades.

To do that, we need to create an environment that’s both healthy and welcoming for women to work in the trades. I’m wondering if you could comment a little more on how this bill helps create that welcoming and healthy environment.

It’s a pleasure to rise today on behalf of the people I represent in London West to participate in this debate on the fifth iteration of the Conservative’s working for some workers agenda.

I want to focus my remarks today mainly on schedule 2, and also on schedule 4. Schedule 2 is the section of the act that deals with changes to the Employment Standards Act. In particular, I want to talk about the change that is introduced to allow employees to be sick, to stay home from work without requiring a sick note from a doctor.

Certainly, in my time as MPP, I have done quite a bit of work on what kinds of changes are needed in the Employment Standards Act to support workers who are sick in this province, and certainly removing the requirement for a doctor to provide a sick note is something that is long overdue. It was in place in this province, in fact, prior to this government getting elected. In the dying days of the Liberal government, when they were desperately looking for measures that would maintain some kind of popularity, with their backs to the walls they brought in some much-needed changes to the Employment Standards Act and labour laws in Ontario. One of the changes they brought in, as I said, was to remove the requirement for sick notes for employees who had to be absent from work because of illness.

The other change that they made, thanks to the incredible advocacy of the labour movement in this province, worker advocates and NDP members on this side of the House, was to ensure that workers who are sick get to stay home without losing their pay. Because we know that paid sick days are a critical public health measure to enable, in particular, the lowest-wage workers to actually stay home when they are sick, because too many workers who are sick in this province worry that if they stay home on an unpaid sick day, they won’t have enough money at the end of the month to pay the rent, to buy the groceries, to pay the utility bills. So one of the most important things that we can do to protect public health in the province and also to support workers in the province is to provide paid sick days. While this legislation very sensibly removes the requirement for sick notes, it doesn’t say anything about ensuring that sick days are paid.

I also want to give a shout-out to the Ontario Medical Association, to all of the family physicians in this province, who have been calling repeatedly for the elimination of sick notes because of the time that it consumes for family doctors. We know that there is a dire shortage of family physicians in this province. There are 2.3 million Ontarians right now—that number is projected to increase to over four million Ontarians—who do not have access to a primary care provider: a family physician or a nurse practitioner. We need to do everything possible to make sure that the family doctors who are practising in this province are able to accommodate more patients. Just in the London area, Speaker, we have 84,000 people in the city of London or around the city the London who don’t have access to a family doctor.

Dr. Andrew Park, who is the president of the Ontario Medical Association and also a constituent of mine in London West and an emergency room physician at London Health Sciences Centre, has told me stories of people who have actually come into emergency because they don’t have a family doctor and their employer is requiring them to get a sick note. They’ve come into emergency just so that they can get that sick note that their employer requires because without it, they could lose their employment.

So it is a very sensible measure that this government has introduced in this legislation, something that we definitely support. But it is unfortunate that one of the first things that this government did in 2018 when they were elected was to bring back sick notes. It has taken this crisis in our health care system—the demands, the calls from family physicians to remove the administrative burden of sick notes—that finally got this government to take action.

But in 2018, when this government brought back sick notes—which they’re now removing—they also made some other changes to the leave provisions of the Employment Standards Act. As I said, prior to the election of this government, there were two paid days that sick workers were entitled to under the Employment Standards Act, and there were an additional eight unpaid days, personal emergency leave days, that were available for every employee in this province.

When this government got elected, they eliminated the two paid sick days. The eight days that were remaining, all unpaid, they categorized them to make it very specific that workers could take three unpaid days if they were sick, they could take three unpaid days if they had family responsibility obligations and they could take two unpaid days if they needed a bereavement leave.

So not only do we need paid sick days in this province, we certainly need more than three. Yet, what this government thought was reasonable for workers in Ontario was to restrict every worker to only three unpaid sick days.

Then, of course, COVID hit. Many of us recall those dark days at the beginning of the pandemic, when there was not a lot known about how contagious COVID was. We certainly heard loud and clear from public health professionals that it had the potential to just ravage workplaces with spreading contagion from workers who were forced to go to work sick because they didn’t have access to paid sick days, and they only had access to three unpaid sick days.

So, in March 2020, we saw this government introduce a new kind of leave, infectious disease emergency leave, to allow unpaid leave for workers who were diagnosed with COVID so that they could stay home and prevent spreading infection to their co-workers and their customers. But of course, we know from studies that public health units did in Peel and other places that workers were still going to work sick because unpaid infectious disease emergency leave was not enough to enable a worker to stay home if they were sick.

Finally, after many iterations of my legislation, the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act, the government finally, and very sensibly, brought in three paid infectious disease emergency leave days. That was very successful. That worked for over a period of almost two years, until March 2023, giving workers who were dealing with COVID or who had family members dealing with COVID access to paid days so they could stay home.

This bill was an opportunity for the government to not only remove the requirement for sick notes but also to take action to make sure that workers don’t have to make that choice—that impossible choice—between staying home sick and losing a day’s pay or going in sick and infecting their co-workers and their customers. And we know that for workers, especially low-wage workers in this province, with the skyrocketing costs of rent, the cost of living out of control, it’s hard. It’s hard to have to make that decision. Or if they have a sick child, do they keep their child at home and have to take that loss of a day’s pay or do they keep their fingers crossed and send their child to school? What we really need to see, Speaker, is paid sick days. I really hope that the next version of Working for Workers will include that.

I know that the government is very proud of this bill because of what it will do to support women at Ontario workplaces, especially in the skilled trades. I do want to give a shout-out to Carpenters Local 1946 in London. They hosted the Ontario apprenticeship showcase at the end of April. It was a wonderful opportunity to go, and there were a number of women carpenters who were participating in the competition, and I got to talk to some of them. I learned about the program that the Carpenters Union has called Sisters in the Brotherhood and the advocacy that they are doing, which is great.

What this bill does to support women workers is it requires menstrual products to be provided on larger construction sites. At least, the regulations to this bill will do that, because there’s nothing in the bill that addresses menstrual products, but we will take the government at their word and look forward to those regulations. The bill requires that washrooms be clean and sanitary. That is certainly something that every worker should be able to access, but it’s already in legislation, so it’s good that this legislation requires it again. It also adds virtual harassment to the definitions of “workplace harassment” and “workplace sexual harassment” in the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Now, those provisions on harassment are outlined in schedule 4 of this bill.

I want to now draw the government’s attention to another bill that I introduced, along with the member for Toronto Centre as my co-sponsor, called Bill 114, the Safe Night Out Act. I’m not sure if members are aware that, currently, in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, there are three definitions: There’s a definition of “workplace harassment,” a definition of “workplace sexual harassment” and a definition of “workplace violence,” but no definition of workplace sexual violence.

The Safe Night Out Act amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act to explicitly recognize workplace sexual violence, which, as we know too well, often occurs in the context of intimate partner violence. We have seen intimate partner violence follow workers to their places of employment far too often, putting those workers at risk, putting their coworkers at risk and resulting in huge productivity losses for those companies where workers are working. That was a big part of the reason that I introduced the domestic violence and sexual violence leave act, which ensured that workers who are experiencing domestic violence or sexual violence were able to access leave to deal with the violence.

I would encourage the government to look at Bill 114, that private member’s bill that is on the order paper right now, the Safe Night Out Act, that talks about workplace sexual violence and acknowledges that it often occurs in the context of domestic or intimate partner relationships, because we have an epidemic of intimate partner violence in this province. We were pleased to see the government pass through second reading of Bill 173, the bill to formally declare an epidemic of intimate partner violence in the province of Ontario, but that declaration has not yet been made. Although the bill has been passed, we are still waiting for that declaration. That would go a long way, Speaker, to supporting women in this province and to supporting women in Ontario workplaces.

The other piece of Bill 114, the Safe Night Out Act, that I would encourage the government to look at is the requirements for training on workplace sexual harassment. My bill had required employers to complete training on workplace sexual harassment and ensure that every person in the workplace also completes training, because we know that one of the sectors that has the largest number of women workers in this province is the hospitality industry. Hospitality workers are overwhelmingly female and they are very vulnerable to workplace sexual harassment, and they get far too little support from their employers—sometimes their employer is the perpetrator of workplace sexual harassment. So it’s very, very important. You can have the definition of workplace sexual harassment in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but the training to understand workplace sexual harassment and to take actions to prevent it is very important.

The other point that I wanted to make in the very short time I have left is around the need for the government to look more closely at the kinds of occupations that women are working in. If the government wanted to support women workers in Ontario, they would know that women predominantly work in caring jobs. They work in health care and education, as child care workers, as PSWs, as educators, and yet, we have seen a government that has failed to recognize the economic importance of the care economy. They have failed to recognize that care jobs represent one in five jobs in this province.

The care economy, in fact, is twice as big as either the construction sector or the finance sector. It is three times as big as the manufacturing sector. It is 38% bigger than the manufacturing sector. The care economy is a significant driver of the provincial economy in this province, and so we have to value the jobs that are performed by care workers. We have to value the economic significance of the care economy, and we have to put in place provisions that are going to support that care economy and support those workers, the majority of whom are female, in those care economy jobs.

Finally, I just want to talk about the other jobs that tend to be more occupied by women: They are cleaning, catering, cashiering and clerical, and those are often jobs that women perform in contract positions where they are denied the full benefits and protections of the Employment Standards Act, because they are often misclassified as not being employees under the act and simply being contract workers. Again, this is another important improvement that the government could have included in this Working for Workers Act to end the misclassification of workers in this province, mainly low-wage workers, racialized workers, women workers, and it’s definitely a missed opportunity that they chose not to do that.

Speaker, there are some good things in this bill. Removing sick notes, the requirement for sick notes—glad that the doctors finally got the government to do that—but we need to see a lot more from this government if they want to show us that they’re serious about supporting workers in Ontario.

Further questions?

Seeing none, further debate?