I’m going to remind the members of standing order 42(b), which indicates that members may make a brief statement summarizing the contents of the petition but not reading the text of the petition. And I know the member didn’t read the text, but I would ask members to keep their presentations of their petitions brief, consistent with the standing order.

We’re going to continue with petitions. There’s still eight minutes on the clock.

I have a petition here entitled “Raise Social Assistance Rates.”

Currently, recipients of Ontario Works receive $733 and Ontario Disability Support Program receive $1,227. Both of these amounts are well below the poverty line. There have been some modest increases to the Ontario Disability Support Program. However, those receiving the Ontario Works program—their rates have been frozen for decades.

We know that during the pandemic, through the CERB program, it was determined that people needed a minimum of $2,000 per month in order to be able to survive, and so this petition is calling on the government to immediately double social assistance rates for both OW and ODSP.

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature to it and give it to page Anika to take it to the table.

Speaker, just in 2022 alone, 1,326 cases of sexual assault were either withdrawn or stayed before trial, and we already know that 80% of sexual assault cases go unreported. The criminal justice system is very hostile to survivors, and it is very, very difficult to get justice. So in 2019, the Auditor General put forward recommendations in order to reform the system, and Bill 189 aims to do just that. The bill adopts recommendations 1 and 3 from the Auditor General’s report, which would ensure that survivors get the supports that are needed and help them be able to go through the system and get justice at the end of the day.

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature to it and give it to page Diya to take to the table.

Point of order.

We’re going to silence women again, are we?

I have a very important petition, Speaker, and it’s titled “Justice for Sexual Assault Survivors.” This petition was part of a tool under a private member’s bill, Bill 189, Lydia’s Law.

The reason why this petition is very important is because it’s connected to survivors’ voices. Unfortunately, this government decided not to allow a debate on a very important private member’s bill which gave access to sexual assault victims to have their voices heard here in this Legislature through members who have been elected to represent their ridings.

Speaker, there were 1,326 cases actually thrown out in 2022 or withdrawn or stayed in our justice system, which is an injustice, quite frankly. And 80% of sexual assaults are not reported—

So, again, the reason this petition is very important is because it is asking this Legislature to honour the recommendations of the Auditor General’s 2019 report 1 and 3, which allowed better access, more access to survivors of sexual assault to access the independent legal advice because of the way they’re being treated in the courts. And, quite frankly, the way women are being treated here in this Legislature isn’t the right thing to do when we’re talking about the rights of people and sexual assault victims to be heard in the justice system, to get legal justice and put their offenders through the system to make sure they are convicted correctly.

I support this petition, and I would like to sign it and give it to page Harry for being so patient here, listening to me today with this petition. Thank you, page Harry.

Speaker?

It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House to talk about workers. Something I continue to say in this House: I’m proud to say that I was a union president and worked in the auto sector. But today, I’m going to start my speech—before I get into what’s not in the bill, quite frankly, again. I want to talk about an individual who yesterday I attended his funeral to celebrate his life with his family, his friends, his brothers and sisters, a lot of elected representatives; there were a lot of city councillors, MPPs and MPs. His name is Gary Parent. He gave his entire life to making life better in the labour movement and in his community, whether that be his elected position within the Local or on the labour council. He was a good friend of mine. I had a lot of good times with him in Port Elgin; a lot of times in Windsor with him and Kenny Lewenza, the presidents and other presidents of Local 444. He was a true champion for workers’ rights and public services in Windsor and beyond.

One thing that Gary really believed in was public service. I had the opportunity yesterday, which I never did—I’d met his wife many, many times and socialized with his wife many, many times, who’s sick, as well. Two of the speakers were his grandkids. I was absolutely amazed that, what Gary was teaching to the community, he taught to his family. They are all involved with public service. But that’s what Gary wanted to talk about, how proud he was of his kids and his grandkids and what they’re giving back to the community. And like I said, Gary just didn’t do his job as a brother in the labour movement; he dedicated his whole life for the betterment of not only his community, but Ontario—and, quite frankly, on a bigger scale, this country.

It was an interesting celebration of life. The priest was extremely funny talking about Gary’s life as they celebrated his life in the true sense of celebrating his life. His good friend, and probably his best friend, I would think, Kenny Lewenza, did an incredible speech for 40 minutes talking about Gary and his life and everything that he did. And there was a lot of laughter. I think, Speaker, you can relate. It’s going to be nice—although you won’t hear it when you’re dead and gone. It’s nice to celebrate with friends and family, but you can still celebrate your life with a little bit of laughter.

But the one thing I wanted to say that really took place in this House over the last few days, which is a little disappointing, and we saw it raise its ugly head again today asking to do these petitions, for which the rules have been changed—he was a tireless advocate for workers and public service. Gary was the first advocate for addressing harassment and sexual violence in the workplace and beyond, issues that overly affect women. He understood the importance of creating safe and inclusive work environments where everyone could thrive free from the fear of discrimination. His efforts to raise awareness and implement policies that support survivors of harassment and assault have left a lasting impression on the labour community, and quite frankly, right across the province of Ontario.

But I have to say this: I was deeply disappointed, however, that neither of the Conservative MPPs from my area—and one who is here now—bothered to show up to honour Gary’s memory and celebrate his life. This is what really bothered me the most. But they did make an effort to stand in this House and vote to shut down the voices of hundreds of sexual assault survivors seeking justice who had travelled from all over the province for debate on my colleague from Waterloo’s bill. That action really bothered me because that’s what Gary stood for in Windsor, and those colleagues should have known that.

So I just want to say on behalf of the NDP caucus, myself as a friend and a brother to Gary: Thank you for everything you did in Windsor. Thank you for being a good friend of mine. We had a lot of laughs together. Thank you for being a caregiver.

That was the other thing people don’t realize. I brought a motion forward last Thursday around a caregiver bill. Gary, as sick as he was—his wife was sick, too, and what Gary did was he took care of his wife. No matter how sick he was, he would find a way to get into his car and drive to the home that she was in every day, from 1 to 5, to go visit his wife. I believe it was 52 years they were married, and I know he loved her to death.

I think if there’s one thing that we can thank Gary for as we go forward—because I’m not going to give up on the caregiver motion—it’s that I give him a promise and thank him for doing what he did for his wife, even though he was as sick as he was. I want to thank the entire Local 444.

I forgot to mention that Gary—Madam Speaker might not know this, but he has been in the labour movement so long that it used to be United Auto Workers—I don’t know how many in this room would remember that; probably not too many—and then it became CAW, and then it became Unifor. So he has seen it all in the labour movement.

On behalf of our party, myself and my family, who knew Gary as well: Rest in peace, brother.

I’ll get on to talking about Working for Workers. I don’t know how many times I have to stand up here and talk about Working for Workers. I’m going to be honest: There have been things in Working for Workers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that we’ve supported. There are some things in here that you can support, but there are a lot of things in the bill that we can’t support, or they don’t talk about it. I’m going to list them, because I didn’t realize I only had 10 minutes. I thought I had 20. I didn’t look up; I was too passionate in those opening comments.

Why isn’t anti-scab in the legislation? We’ve been saying it. We’ve been asking. I got a call this week from a union member from Unifor. They’re using scabs in their workplace for a strike that’s going on right now.

Bill 124: Why won’t you repeal that bill? It has cost you millions of dollars to go to court fighting that, taking on workers. Why do you continue to fight workers?

The “notwithstanding” clause: How many remember the “notwithstanding” clause? You know, Madam Speaker, I had 500 EAs in front of my office during that time. Do you know what they did? They said to this government, “You can take our wages away from us, but we’re not going back to work until you get rid of the ‘notwithstanding’ clause.” That’s the power of the union, when we stick together.

One that bothered me—and I have talked to the minister about this, not a lot: Paid sick days is another one that’s not in the bill, which makes no sense to me.

Deeming is not in the bill, again. How many times have you heard—and I know some of the members who are here are on that committee. I’ve got a minute to do this. Why should a worker go to work, putting in a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, and he unfortunately gets injured on the job, has to go to WSIB, and then WSIB deems him to a phantom job that’s not there, says he can make $17 an hour and takes it off his benefit packages? And now what happens is, instead of the responsibility of the employer, it becomes the responsibility of the government, because he goes on ODSP. And then what happens is he ends up living in poverty. And what did he do wrong in society? He went to work, put in a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, so he could take care of his family, so he could buy a home, maybe send their kids to university or to college. But no, not in this bill. It wasn’t in workers 1, wasn’t in workers 2, wasn’t in workers 3, wasn’t in workers 4, not in workers 5.

Do you know why it’s not there, Madam Speaker? I know you’re looking at me wondering why it’s not there. Because they don’t care about workers: That’s the issue. I’ve been doing this game in the labour movement for 40 years. You’ve never cared about workers, and you never will.

But I do hope that, and I think the women of Ontario hope that they won’t be silenced because this bill—

It is our intent, and I would hope it would be the government’s intent, to support this petition so that we can keep women safe and so that they can seek justice in this province and in this House. It hasn’t happened, and I’m hoping maybe the government will come to the light that this is not the way we respond and we respect women who are survivors of sexual assault in this province.

I would like to thank my constituent Carl Kelly, who is a prostate cancer survivor and an active volunteer in the London Prostate Cancer Support group, who provided me with signed copies of petitions urging this government to ensure OHIP coverage for PSA testing.

The petition notes that prostate cancer is the most common cancer to affect Canadian men. It notes that early detection of prostate cancer saves lives and that PSA testing is a critical screening tool to enable that early detection. It calls on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that PSA testing is covered under OHIP for all eligible residents of this province.

I support this petition, affix my signature and send it to the table with page Norah.

The petition notes the significant cuts to community mental health services and the effective disbanding of the anti-racism directorate, which have led to an increase in demand for mental health services on campus and an increase in reported incidents of hate and racism on Ontario campuses. It also notes that this government has come nowhere close to providing the funding that colleges and universities need in this province in order to provide appropriate mental health and anti-racism supports for students.

It notes that Bill 166 opens the door to political interference, which is why—

First of all, I certainly believe in skilled trades. I think we have some of the best skilled trades in the entire country. Make no mistake about it.

But your comments—I’m going to hold up the bill. I know I’m not supposed to do that, because I’m not supposed to have props. Why don’t you show me where it is in the bill? On what you just said, show it to me in the bill. So, why don’t you hold that up? Hold it up and show me where it says that in the bill—

And because I didn’t have a lot of time to speak about it I’m glad you said that question. Do you know what happens that I didn’t say? Because of the fact that they end up living in poverty, it puts an incredible stress on the marriage and the family. So now, the kids can’t go to dance, or they can’t go to figure skating. They can’t play women’s hockey. They can’t go to university. Do you know what happens to most of those workers? They end up splitting up. They end up losing their family. They end up losing their wives—no fault of their own, because the only mistake they made: They went to work on that Tuesday and got injured on the job.

Now, I begged this government. I begged them at committee. We put amendments for it on every one of these bills. I can’t answer the question why they won’t do it. I can’t answer the question why they won’t take care of caregivers in the province of Ontario. But I’m not going away until they decide to get rid of deeming in the province of Ontario and protect workers.

So, it looks good. It’s a good headline: “Conservative Government Increases the Penalties,” but it’s never enforced, and then they don’t do any inspections. Before you come into government, we used to do—I think it was 2,300 inspections in the province of Ontario. Do you know how many we’re doing today under your leadership? It’s 780. So you cut the inspections down, and you cut the fines down for—

Monte said it the best. I can say “Monte” now; he’s not here. Monte, at that last labour council—he said we’ve got to get rid of those bad employers. And do you know who’s a bad employer when you bring in bills like Bill 124? Yourselves.

I want to thank the member for Niagara Falls for his speech. It was a wonderful tribute to Gary Parent, who was certainly a giant in our community back home in Windsor-Essex.

I know the member opposite has a tremendous track record of dealing with bad actors as employers. There are quite a lot of them, and they need to be addressed. Really, this bill includes some penalties for employers who are bad actors. They violate health and safety standards. So the increase in penalties that are proposed is intended to address those exploitive practices that exist in the workplace when it comes to workplace health and safety. So I wanted to ask the member opposite, what are his thoughts about whether the penalties are sufficient enough or not?

Question?

Interjection.

I recognize the member from Humber River–Black Creek.

Thank you to the member opposite for their remarks. I’m curious: You talked a lot about what’s missing from the bill. I didn’t hear too many comments about what is in the bill, so I was hoping that you could comment about the proposed legislation that aims to support women in the skilled trades and our government’s efforts to provide menstrual products on construction sites to create a more inclusive environment for women who choose to pursue a career in the skilled trades.

Thanks to the member. He is so passionate in fighting for labour reform and fighting for workers, as always.

We’re sitting here through the fifth incarnation of this Working for Workers. Again, I want to go back to what he ended the speech with: How many Working for Workers bills do you think we’re going to sit through before they actually fix deeming in this province? Why don’t you talk to us a little bit about that?

It’s an honour to rise in the House today to discuss the latest iteration of the government’s Working for Workers Act. I think it is particularly timely that we’re having this conversation. I would like to point out that this week we are celebrating Personal Support Worker Week, a profession that has been very much on the front lines in health care, home care and community care that far too often is forgotten, that for far too long has not been treated with the dignity nor given the support that it deserves. I think back to the challenges that our community and our province faced during the pandemic. Our personal support workers rose to that challenge—those personal support workers who deserve our genuine respect, our gratitude and our support in all of its forms.

As we think about how we can work for workers, I want to encourage all members in the House to think about how we can work for those personal support workers, because as I look at the measures that have been proposed in this legislation, at face value there certainly are good things. But to me, what is most conspicuous are the many things that have been left out and, even more conspicuous, the many actions that have been taken by this government that actually work against workers. In the midst of Personal Support Worker Week, I reflect on a few of those, the first being lack of real wage increases. We know there have been proposed increases, but they only apply for front-line care. If you’re a PSW who drives from home to home, then your wage plummets. We have a lack of wage parity amongst the home care, community care and acute care sector.

If we were working for workers, those things would be in this legislation. If we were working for workers, this government wouldn’t have voted down the opportunity to ensure that PSWs and DSWs get WSIB coverage if they work in a retirement home. Let’s get moving and “get it done” for all workers instead of just looking at it in a superficial manner.

We can take a step back from just PSWs. When I reflect on the record of this government—when I think about Bill 124 and the impact that it has had on education workers and on health care workers; when I think about Bill 28, this government’s attempt at overriding collective bargaining rights of education workers; when I think of the fact that this government does not have, or even speak about, a health care worker retention plan; when I think about the data that was released just last week that said we’re short more than 50,000 nurses and PSWs, and that PSWs have an attrition rate from their profession of 25% per year, and then the Minister of Health has the audacity to say she’s not concerned about it—that makes me think, despite what we have on this piece of paper, that we categorically do not have a government that is working for workers.

But let’s dive into what is on this piece of paper, because that’s what I’m here to do. That’s what we’re all here to do today. It’s superficial, it’s vague, too much is left to the regulations and too little of it can be enforced.

Looking to schedule 1, for example, building opportunities in the skilled trades: There is a requirement for satisfying prescribed academic standards in the skilled trades, and that requirement is removed. It allows alternative criteria to take its place. Madam Speaker, what are those alternative criteria? I don’t know. I don’t think there’s anyone in this House who knows. As is often the case with this government, the specifics are left to be prescribed in the regulations.

For as much as we’ve heard a variety of campaign slogans by government members on the other side—“For the People”; “Get it Done”—I am convinced, at this point in my short political career, that their next campaign slogan should very much be “Prescribed in the Regulations,” because everything is left to the regulations and almost always, nothing is in the legislation. This bill is no different.

I am the critic for housing. I know how badly we need to make the skilled trades accessible. We need to jump-start the sector. We need to create that pipeline of skilled workers, whether they’re ironworkers, electricians, masons, carpenters, bricklayers, journeymen, plumbers and more to build the homes that Ontario needs. But don’t you think that the next generation, the workers who will be working with them, deserve to know what this government means by “alternative criteria” in terms of qualifications before voting for this bill? I’d certainly like to know, and I think they would, too.

I recently called on the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to consider returning to a one-year teaching degree for seasoned skilled trades workers looking to become vocational instructors. It’s a good way to catalyze and accelerate a skilled pipeline of workers. I see nothing like that in this bill. Instead of making it easier for seasoned professionals to become instructors, instead of making it easier to teach the next generation of skilled trades workers, this government is just moving the goal posts for qualifying to be one.

Now, I want to move to something that I have personal experience with which is in schedule 2, the amendment that removes sick notes. I’ll be honest with you, of course, it’s a good move, but I can’t believe that we’re still talking about this. When the government first announced this a few weeks ago, I was asked by media what I thought about it. The truth is, I was confused. I was confused that we’re still having a conversation about this because the reality is that sick notes were banned before this government was elected. And as with so many other walk-backs and reversals, the Premier came in and removed the ban on sick notes. As though that wasn’t bad enough, when COVID-19 happened, he came in and he reversed that again. Then, he reversed it again; that’s a fourth time. Here is one last reversal, hopefully the last time we ever have to talk about removing sick notes.

The reality is that I was working in the emergency department last week. Let me paint a picture for you. There were 50 patients waiting to be seen. Our on-call doctor had been brought in. I picked up the chart, and it was a patient here for a doctor’s note.

Is it a good thing that we’re removing this requirement? Of course it is. But six years into this government’s mandate, why is it still here? Why is it only coming up now? It should have been gone long ago. In fact, it was gone before this government came into power.

Whether it is the greenbelt, whether it is urban boundary changes, whether it is development charges, whether it’s Bill 28, Bill 124, it seems as though every single thing that this government does is characterized by a lack of doing any homework, a lack of consultation—except for the Housing Affordability Task Force. There, all this government does is consultation. But everything else, no consultation, no action, no homework and walk-back after reversal after mistake.

Of course, looking at this legislation, there are some measures that can be applauded. I’m glad to see the definition of workplace harassment and sexual harassment get expanded to include virtual forms of harassment. I would have preferred it if the legislation that was supposed to be debated on Wednesday was actually debated, as opposed to getting fast-tracked into committee, where I have no doubt no further action will be taken.

But there is something here: legislating clean bathrooms. Who could possibly argue against that? The only thing that I can argue is that enforcement must be more of a priority when this government drafts legislation, especially when it actually has ideas that many of us can get on board with.

As I have reviewed this legislation, as I have reflected upon it and its potential to improve the work environment for workers, I have to say, of course, at face value, there are decent things in it, but it leaves a lot to be desired and was a wasted opportunity by this government.

I want to talk about women workers in this province. I want to know if you’ve heard the expression “pinkwashing.” Literally what that means is a government or a branding company puts the smallest thing out there, some kind of frivolous thing, but when you look behind it there’s nothing of substance. I would say that this bill is nothing but pinkwashing. Because you know what? Period products and clean washrooms are not going to cut it when women do not earn what men earn in this province.

We had a bill here—Lydia’s Law—that the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington chose to discharge to committee so we couldn’t debate.

So my question to you is, do you think the women of Ontario are going to be swayed by clean washrooms when they do nothing to support women with real change?

Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston—close. Thank you, Speaker.

Thanks to the member opposite for his comments and his work on committee. To the member opposite through you, Speaker: you started into your presentation with, “I can’t support things in the bill,” and then you went on to talk about—which is common—things that aren’t in the bill. So my question to you is, what specifically in the bill do you not support?

Further questions?

I recognize the member for Don Valley East for further debate.

Well, first of all, I want to say that women play an important—

Interjections.

ATU tried to get their women drivers who may have their periods to be able to use washrooms during their route. This Conservative government turned that amendment down. That’s a true story.

Anti-scab legislation is important. Deeming is important. Paying fair wages, treating women with respect and dignity, making sure there’s equality so if you’ve got a job as a teacher—or that might be a bad example. If you’ve got a job as a woman where you’re getting paid 70% of what a man is getting for the exact same work—I’m trying to educate you. I’m trying to help you, because I feel that it’s fair and reasonable that if you’re going to bring bills that say, “Working for Workers,” you should know what you’re talking about and you should know what workers want in this bill. Whether—