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.

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?