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.