role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

March 18, 2024

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2024-Mar-18 vol. A (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 18 March 2024 Lundi 18 mars 2024

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Four Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs, quatre

Members’ Statements

Joyce Marshall

Sudbury community services

Member for Kitchener South–Hespeler

GO Transit

Nowruz

City of Oshawa

Punjabi Arts Association of Toronto / Emergency services

Cost of living

Ontario Trillium Foundation grants

Black youth action plan

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of shoes

Question Period

Health care

Health care

Health care

Taxation

MedsCheck Program

Veterinary services

Health care

Seniors’ housing

Taxation

Health care

Taxation

Health care

Taxation

Health care

Taxation

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Taxation

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Introduction of Government Bills

Supply Act, 2024 / Loi de crédits de 2024

Petitions

Assistive devices

Social assistance

Ferry service

Adoption disclosure

Environmental protection

Affordable housing

Social assistance

Northern Health Travel Grant

Health care

Opposition Day

Health care

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Four Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs, quatre

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Four Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs, quatre

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 28, 2024, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 149,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters / Projet de loi 149, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi, le travail et d’autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When we last debated Bill 149, the member for Sudbury had the floor. He still has time on the clock. I recognize the member for Sudbury to continue his presentation.

MPP Jamie West: Good morning, everybody. I’m not usually on House duty Monday morning, but it’s always a pleasure to come in and talk about any bill that has to do with workers. We’re debating this morning Bill 149, which is a

schedule of a variety of bills, and frankly, Speaker, there’s a couple of pretty substantial flaws in this bill. During debate last time, I talked very clearly about the support for the presumptive WSIB coverage for urban firefighters. I think that’s the highlight of this bill. The rest of the bill is a little bit downhill from there.

I think, as well, it’s good to underscore that the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act is a bit of a misnomer. It should really be called the “digital app company rights act.” Basically what it does is it allows these billion-dollar companies—the Ubers, the Lyfts, the food delivery services that people work by their phones—to misclassify workers as independent contractors.

And by doing this, they end up basically working for 12 to 14 hours a day and making less than minimum wage—and a lot less; about $7 or $6-something an hour, and $2-something if you take away what it costs them for their expenses on their vehicles. It’s a really terrible idea here. When you think, at the end of the day, that one of the data we’ve got here is $6.37 an hour for somebody working for a company that’s making billions of dollars a year, it’s a slap in the face to the workers of Ontario, Speaker—just a slap in the face to these workers.

The Conservative government shouldn’t be enshrining this right and this ability. What they say in DPWRA is that you can make a complaint. That’s what they’re flagging, that you could file a complaint, but also, in the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, the company has the right to misclassify you. So you could make a complaint, but nothing will happen. No one’s listening; no one will pick up the phone, or they’ll pick up the phone and then say, “Yes, that’s right. That’s what you’re entitled to.” So that’s one of the biggest flaws in this bill: What it’s going to do to these workers who work for these app companies.

And we know, Speaker, that more and more workers are working these gig jobs, this precarious work. When I graduated a million years ago, it was the first time we had this recession and there were all these short-term contracts. I remember that my parents were very confused and my friends’ parents were very confused because they said once you graduate from college or university, you get a job and you have a career. And there were these little piecemeal things.

This has become the norm for so many people in our province—that you’re on these short-term contracts, that you’re a gig worker, that you’re going to be living with several roommates for what feels like the rest of your life. That’s the frustration that we’re seeing. Instead of helping these people, helping them get ahead, helping them ensure that they make at least minimum wage, what this

schedule of this act does is it enshrines the ability for billion-dollar companies to underpay their workers, underpay them less than minimum wage. That’s a slap in the face to those workers.

I want to move on to other things in this bill. I want to talk about pay transparency. So in the bill, they talk about pay transparency. We, in fact, didn’t even have to have this as part of the bill, as a schedule. This was already an existing bill. The idea for this pay transparency was to close the gender wage gap so we have clarity about what people were making. So you can find out if indeed the men in your workplace were making more than the women in the workplace, people could understand what the pay was.

So in 2018, there was the Pay Transparency Act that had been passed by the previous Liberal government, just before the election. It was supposed to come into effect in November 2018. This is a little frustrating, I think, for a lot of people, when a sitting government, prior to an election, passes something that workers would like to have, but schedules it to be passed only if they’re re-elected, only in the future. So this went into limbo.

Instead of clawing it back the way the Conservatives did with paid sick days and the other benefits that were passed for workers, instead of passing a bill to remove this, basically what they did, the Conservative government, is they amended it so that it would come into effect on an undefined date, proclaimed by government. So, basically, they took it and put it on a shelf. It was going to sit there probably indefinitely.

They may argue, Speaker, that, well, this is them bringing it back, but this is a very watered down version of this bill. So where the original one would actually have real pay transparency, this one is one of the weakest pay transparency laws in Canada. In fact, you can meet the definition of this

schedule simply by saying that pay ranges anywhere from $1 to $1 million. Now, I don’t think unscrupulous companies are going to do that, but it isn’t true pay transparency. So all the stakeholders who previously came forward and talked about why pay transparency is so important, all of the people of Ontario who spoke about the need for this—civil rights groups and women’s groups who spoke about how important this was—all of that has been washed aside as a checkbox.

And as I said before, there’s a disturbing trend with the Conservative government that a lot of this becomes headlines; it’s about fluff and photo ops—pay transparency. The number of people who came to deputations where I had to explain to them that this was not the bill that they had championed in the past, that this was a watered down, lesser version, of what already existed. It was difficult for me, as I was breaking people’s hearts. They thought the thing they were fighting for since before 2018 was finally coming true.

The Conservative government was finally listening to them, and I had to tell them, “No, it’s not at all what you’re getting. What you’re getting here is the title. You’re going to get the exact same title, but none of the teeth”—all sizzle, no steak. That’s a disturbing trend.

So in the Checklist for True Pay Transparency from the Ontario Equal Pay Coalition—I want to give them proper credit—what to look for in pay transparency legislation, these are all yes or no questions: “Is there a clear purpose statement linking pay transparency to the elimination of discrimination in pay?” That doesn’t apply here.

“Does the law apply to both private sector and public sector employers?

“Does the law apply to all employers with 10+ workers to ensure it is consistent with the Ontario Pay Equity Act?

“Does the law apply to require pay transparency for all jobs at all income levels in the workplace?

“Does the law require an annual report to the Ministry of Labour detailing wage structure, gender pay gaps, gender distribution across income levels, and gender distribution by job security?” This

schedule doesn’t do that at all.

“Does the law require the employers’ annual pay transparency reports be publicly posted and accessible on a government website?” It doesn’t require that at all.

Like I said earlier, Speaker, if you really want to be in compliance, all you have to do is say that the pay range for this position is between $1 an hour and $1 million an hour. I absolutely don’t think that companies are going to do that—that would actually make the paper, I think, if they did. But you could very clearly put a range that has a gap of $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 within that range. All you’re doing, really, is following the legislation, but not the spirit of the legislation, and by doing that, you’re not helping people get ahead in life. You’re not helping close the gender wage gap at all.

You’re actually allowing people to say, “Yes, there’s a wage gap. We’re not going to tell you who gets what, but there’s a $20,000 or $30,000 gap between different employees.”

I’m going to read a quote from the Equal Pay Coalition on this:

“Pay transparency laws can be drafted and provide weaker or stronger protections.

“Ontario’s statements to date indicate its proposed law would be one of the weakest pay transparency laws in Canada.

“And its proposal significantly undercuts the rights enacted in Ontario’s Pay Transparency Act, 2018. That pay transparency law was never repealed, but the government blocked it from coming into force after the 2018 provincial election.” They’re talking about the Conservative government.

And so—this will just repeat what I was saying earlier—instead of having this act, this act that was already debated, that was already passed, that already went to a vote, come into effect and have the real teeth to enforce what’s going into it, it was put on a shelf to be proclaimed on a later date, which is basically going to be never, Speaker. And then this

schedule was brought in so if someone were to criticize them and say, “Well, when are you going to bring back pay transparency?”, they can say, “We did. We did. We brought back the title of it”—but not the spirit of it at all, which is really, really unfortunate.

I’m going to switch topics here. One of things that we heard a lot during deputations was about WSIB, and two things that we heard a lot were—number one, I’d say, was the deeming of workers. My colleague from Niagara Falls, MPP Wayne Gates, has had this bill that he’s tabled a couple of times because it is dissolved every time there’s an election. But what happens with this bill, Speaker, is that you have workers who are injured at work—and if you’ve never been injured at work, you probably believe the WSIB works really, really well. But if you have a significant injury, a long-lasting injury, it’s a fight.

It’s a real fight. I can’t remember the stats off the top of my head; I’m sure my colleague knows them, our critic for WSIB, but there’s a high percentage of cases that are automatically dismissed, so you have to fight to stay in there. And if you’re sick, if you’re not feeling well, if you’re badly injured—the mental stress and the financial struggle—it’s hard to keep up that fight.

And then what happens as part of this process is you could be deemed fit to jobs that don’t exist—literally jobs that don’t exist. A doctor who may have never seen you, just reads your case files, can deem you fit to do certain jobs, and then that affects the pay that you get because technically you should be working at these phantom jobs.

The reality, though, is if you’re told that you could work as a parking lot attendant, even though there’s not a lot of parking lot attendant jobs anymore—even if you’re told you could be working in an office, but you can’t find a job working in an office and they deem you able to do that, it affects your pay. The only way that this deeming of phantom work works is if you are paid in phantom dollars to pay your phantom bills. It is an insult to injured people and working people that you’re deemed able to do work for work that may not exist in your area.

It’s one thing if you had a job and you refused to go; if they found work for you and you said, “I’m not doing this.” And I’m not talking about not doing it because I’m injured and my doctor’s list of what I’m able to do precludes me from performing this work. But basically, they just say, “You could get a job doing this.” And so, let’s say you live in a city, and they tell you that you could get a job working at a farm and there’s no farm near you, right—but the most obvious one is, you could be a parking lot attendant.

We’ve heard this from people in the past, where I can’t remember the last time I actually saw a parking lot attendant. I’ve seen people who give out tickets, but most of that work is automated now. You push a button and a sticker comes out or a little piece of paper comes out, and then on the way out, you put the strip back in and you pay. That’s a whole different thing from what’s going on with this with the deeming bill.

A really loud and strong request from people was just to restore WSIB benefits to 90%. And I was surprised how many people deputed and how many people came into committee saying what changes they wanted and brought this up on a regular basis. Because they’re currently at 85%, and I really thought that people would want a much larger increase. The WSIB—typically for people with severe injuries, long-lasting injuries and workplace cancers—tends to be a ticket to poverty. And so, when I heard people talking about how important this 5% increase was, it really stood out to me as surprising.

But what they told me again and again, these injured workers, is that they’re in such deep poverty from being on WSIB, because WSIB is so broken for them, it creates such deep poverty that this 5% would mean the world to them. The 5% was clawed back, I think, by the Mike Harris government; I can’t quite remember—I’m going by the dates. But there was a promise prior to the last election to restore this. Well, it’s been almost two years. Let’s fulfill that promise.

Imagine the difference you could make, especially with the cost-of-living financial crisis we’re in where everyone is feeling that pinch. Imagine the difference you could make for really, really poor people living in poverty who are injured, who are in pain, who have mental health issues because of the stress of trying to deal with their finances and not being able to make the money they did when they were working. Imagine the difference you could make, the relief you could provide by giving that 5%. That 5% would mean the world to them.

Something else I hadn’t really considered—and it makes sense when you hear it; this is one of the reasons we have committees, as people will bring these voices forward and talk to us—is how difficult things are for WSIB when you’re racialized. Ontario is becoming a chosen place more and more for people from different countries. I’m loving in Sudbury, for example, just two weeks ago, we had an event that is called Akwaba that was put together to welcome Africans to Sudbury into the francophone community.

There were little certificates that were created for them and a shared meal together and just an amazing change to how Sudbury is changing. We have always been a francophone community, but primarily not an African francophone community, and seeing our culture change and our workplaces and schools change is a wonderful thing.

I want to go through some of the amendments that we had, and this brings us back to the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act. All of our amendments, Speaker, were voted down. Now, some of them were marked out of order because they don’t speak primarily to this bill, but even then, we’d asked for unanimous consent to at least discuss it—then you can have debate; you can talk about why you think it should be part of the bill, and it could still be voted down afterwards.

None of us are naive enough to think that the Conservative government wouldn’t be able to vote them down; they have a majority government and they have more seats than we do as New Democrats, even if we have the independents join us. It’s basically 6 to 3 when it comes to a vote, so very easily they could vote this down, and they could hear about why these amendments would be good. This one about the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act was voted down—it was ruled in order, but it was voted down. I think that’s interesting.

I want to read this quote from the steelworkers:

“Given the fact that it will likely be over two years since Bill 88 received royal assent and the DPWRA”—Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act—“commencement was delayed with it now being tied to Bill 149 receiving royal assent before it came into force, then perhaps the

short title of Bill 149 should be ‘Delaying Working for Workers Act.’ Amending regulations for

an act, when the act is yet to be in effect and the regulations simply do not exist because they have yet to be written, renders those proposed amendments meaningless.” This is the

part I like about this: “We submit to you that if workers provide this level of quality in their worker or took over two years to have a task remain incomplete, then they would be unemployed.” Basically, our amendment for this was that, as a default, app workers would be employees, so the employer would have to prove that they are contractors.

Now, I spent about a decade in contracting. I spent about two decades in mining where we use contractors on a regular basis. There’s a world of difference between a true contractor and a worker on an app. Basically what’s happening more and more by companies is that they are telling their employees that they are contractors. You don’t have much control the way contractors do. You’re not actually bidding on the jobs, or specific jobs, but they’re telling you that you are now a contractor.

The reason they do this is to get around the Employment Standards Act legislation, to get around LRA, Labour Relations Act, legislation—basically to bypass anything that a normal employee would have. So the reason we’re saying this is that with the Conservatives enshrining the Digital Platform Workers’ Rights Act, this ability to pay workers less than minimum wage, this ability to sidestep the protections they have—what we’re saying in this amendment is let’s have these companies prove that they’re independent contractors, instead of the workers having to fight the other way.

Because, typically, what happens is when the workers do prove that they’re not, those companies disappear. That’s why Foodora doesn’t exist anymore in Ontario, because those companies proved that they weren’t independent contractors.

Our amendment was very clear: Let’s just make these app workers employees. Then, this was an amendment that was requested by the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition and the Workers’ Action Centre. We tried moving that forward. That was voted down. In fact, it was voted down with only debate coming from New Democrats and the independent members. The Conservative government didn’t even want to talk about why they wanted to—I said I’m going to share this. I did share it already online. I’m going to share this vote.

I’m going to ask very clearly: Why are you standing with these billion-dollar companies while we’re hearing from several members of our community locally in Toronto? Because, people don’t have the resources, when you’re making less than minimum wage, to travel down from across Ontario to speak to the committee. But we had digital workers, these app workers, food delivery service workers come in and talk about how they were working in snowstorms, how they were waiting for work, but they’re only paid for the work while they’re engaged.

Because of that, they work many, many hours and they don’t make ends meet, and they make less than minimum wage—less than seven bucks an hour.

If any of us, if any of our kids had a job where they made less than $7 an hour, we would go down and we would talk to that employer. We would call a Ministry of Labour inspector with a complaint, because they would be breaking the law. Instead of realizing and recognizing—which I’m sure the Conservative government does—that they are ripping off these workers, they wrote a law so that these billion-dollar companies can continue to do it. That’s disgraceful. That’s something I would be ashamed of as an MPP, and I’m glad that we don’t support that.

We had an amendment to replicate—the member from London West had the Stay Home If You Are Sick Act. This is basically about paid sick days when people are sick. We just came through a pandemic, but we know when people are sick, they go to work sick and they get other people sick.

New York has had this in effect for a much longer time; I think more than a decade. All the studies have shown that not much changes, except that fewer people are sick in the workplace and fewer people in the workplace get sick afterwards. If you think about if I had a really bad cold and I’m speaking for about 25 minutes for this part of the debate, perhaps the people around me could get the cold too, because I’m breathing out my germs on them. That’s not good for people. So if you’re able to stay home when you’re sick, like all of us are as MPPs able to stay home, you’re less likely to spread that illness around and get others sick.

It also means that parents are able to stay home with their kids when their kids are sick. That’s a reality for a lot of parents. And I talked many times about growing up a little over the poverty line, and I went to school no matter what. The only time I got to stay home was if the school sent me back or if I was physically visual-evidence sick. I don’t want to gross everyone out early this morning, but that was the reality. And that’s the reality for a lot of people, especially these low wage workers, these minimum wage workers and these workers who are gig workers making less than minimum wage.

And so, having the ability to have paid sick days—this was also not accepted by the Conservative government.

We tried bringing forward the anti-scab bill. We talked about how important this was, how it would help people. This would really help, for example, the ACTRA workers who are coming up on two years of being locked out. The ACTRA commercial workers have asked, I think three times here, for the Conservative government to stop buying advertising from these ad industries that are using replacement scab workers for these ACTRA commercial workers. They continue to do this.

They continue it on a regular basis—not only not passing anti-scab, not only choosing to support companies that aren’t using the scab replacement workers, but very happily buying commercial advertising from companies that are providing advertising made by replacement scab workers.

I don’t know how you say you’re working for workers if people are literally doing without for two years, standing up for their rights, standing up for fair contracts, standing up for retirement benefits and pensions, and the Conservative government is saying, “No, in fact, what we’re going to do is put a little bit of the money in the pockets of the people who are using replacement workers to do your job.” They didn’t support that, as well.

I talked earlier about my colleague Jeff Burch from Niagara Centre who had a bill about including wildland firefighters. I’ve talked in the past about the Captain Craig Bowman Act and was 100% complimentary the previous time that I was speaking. This was a non-partisan thing. My colleague from Niagara Centre brought it forward and it got adopted into this bill. This is the cornerstone of this bill. This is the reason that, more than likely, we’ll be supporting this bill. As much as there’s a bunch of garbage in here, we can fix that in other legislation. But we want to support this family.

But why don’t we include the wildland firefighters as well? They deal with fires as well. They’re workers as well. In fact, they have less protections than urban firefighters. One of the first things you think about for an urban firefighter, a firefighter in the city, is the full-face respirator they wear over their mask with oxygen on their back. That’s one of the first things you think about for their uniform, is the distinctive hard hat they have, the firefighter’s helmet, and then it’s that respirator with the pack on the back.

Do you know what wildland firefighters have, Speaker—a wet handkerchief—when they’re out fighting fires, and no presumptive coverage. They can provide the data that their members are also getting sick, but the Conservative government, when it comes to this amendment protecting these wildland firefighters—“No, we’re not going to do that.” I’m hopeful they’re going to bring it forward at another time, but I think that we shouldn’t be holding our breath, and I also think these wildland firefighters shouldn’t have to hold their breath either when it comes to protecting themselves in these conditions.

I think, to wrap up, I’m just going to say that the Captain Craig Bowman Act that was brought into this, with the support of the minister and the previous Minister of Labour, is the highlight of this bill. Everything else needs a lot of work.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Questions?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: The member who just spoke made reference to job creation, and it made me recall the job creation record of the previous government, which eliminated 300,000 jobs in the province of Ontario, including wiping out General Motors in the region of Essex county and losing the wonderful jobs that that provided. In comparison, this present government has created 700,000 jobs, including more manufacturing jobs than every US state put together.

So my question to the member is this: In reference to job creation strategies, does he prefer the strategy of the previous Liberal government, which his party supported, or does he prefer the strategies implemented by this government, which have created 700,000 jobs, including more manufacturing jobs than all the US states combined?

MPP Jamie West: I don’t appreciate being told how much I supported the previous government, because I don’t want to be told that we supported this government, for all their flaws, as well.

What I do know about job creation is that in Ontario, we have lost 230,000 jobs in the last six months. That’s not something to brag about. I also think that as politicians, when you’re talking about jobs, we have to get away from that, talking about jobs. We have to talk about careers.

I talked in depth on this bill about gig workers and how little they make. That’s a job. Do you know what a career is? It’s one where you have money at the end of the day to put money in the bank and to bring your kids to the movies; when you make more than enough to pay your rent and bills and just barely survive. It has a pension and benefits. Let’s talk about careers as politicians and stop talking about jobs.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Next question?

Mr. John Fraser: I enjoyed listening to my colleague the member from Sudbury.

I do want to remind the member from Essex that from 2013 to 2018, this province led the G7 in jobs and growth, and we were in the top three for foreign direct investment for those five years as well, so we can throw that stuff back and forth.

The reality is that the Working for Workers Four Act isn’t working that hard for workers. There are good things in it, but they are watered down. One of the things I think we have to grapple with in here, as the member mentioned, is the fact that the nature of work is changing. We’re now having a second class of employees who are employee contractors. It’s not just going to happen with delivery people. They’re traditional jobs. They’re the same jobs. They’re not new jobs. It’s going to happen all across our economy, so we actually have to watch how corporations are treating people who will be doing this work for them. It’s just starting now.

But the question that’s really on my mind this morning is: How often did the member from Sudbury get sent home from school?

MPP Jamie West: The member is talking about how I made a comment during debate about going to school when I was sick, and only being able to stay home if I was sent home. I think the statute of limitations has passed, so if I went home—I was a latchkey kid. I would go home and nobody was home. I had a key in my pocket, and I was told not to answer the door if someone knocked on the door. I did not say my parents weren’t home. That’s the reality for kids of my generation and that’s the reality for a lot of kids today.

I was only sent home twice—and once, I had gone in a blizzard and the school was closed, and they sent me home for that as well, so it would be three times.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Next question?

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: As much as I enjoyed the deputation from my colleague in opposition, he is talking about the stuff which is not included in the bill as much as discussing what is included in the bill. Of course, there are unlimited possibilities to include things, but we are discussing the things which are already included in this bill.

Part of that bill is talking about some of the steps we are taking to protect individuals who have suffered at the hands of bad actors and abusers, and eliminating the use of NDAs in workplace misconduct. Do you think that the members opposite are doing the right thing by opposing those meaningful changes?

MPP Jamie West: I know that there was a gap between the start and the end of debate. There was almost a month between the start of this debate and the end of this debate, and I think that that’s telling when you say the Conservative government is talking about how important workers are. You have a Working for Workers bill that started in November. It came back from committee. It wasn’t one of the first things we talked about, but about a month ago is when we started this debate. I started the first half of my debate and we waited almost a month for it to come by. However, in that part of the debate, the first half or the second half, I didn’t say I was opposed to this

section at all.

The purpose of debate is to improve what’s in the bill, to make the bill more effective and to talk about what’s in the bill. Also, in committee, when people come and say, “This is what should be in the bill,” it’s our role as legislators—not just the opposition—to say, “That’s a good point. This should be in the bill.” That’s what we did in committee and that’s what we’re doing in debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Next question?

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I want to thank the member from Sudbury for really pointing out the many, many ways that this government is actually working against workers, and certainly working against those who have permanent injuries, where we have seen people living in poverty on the one hand and not able to access benefits, and on the other hand we hear a government that brags about how much money they’re giving back to employers.

The question I wanted to ask about is really about misclassification and wage theft. I’m thinking about the trucking industry. We’re seeing this misclassification with Uber drivers and so on, but in the trucking industry, I’m aware of a great deal of wage theft that’s not being addressed. Also, this classification of drivers as “Driver Inc.”, which was supposed to be banned, is still very much taking place. Those workers have no benefits whatsoever if they get into an accident. They’re kind of high and dry.

MPP Jamie West: There are two things that the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North brought forward and one of them has to do with truckers. She’s doing an amazing job listening to the truckers who are doing the work, and listening to the transportation industry on this. One is the wage theft. There is $10 million of wage theft the Conservative government is aware of and has been aware of for about six years now. They haven’t lifted a finger towards collecting it for these workers. That’s the insulting part.

The other

part is when you’re deemed as a contractor when you’re not. There is a difference between when someone decides it’s going to be Jamie West and Sons Trucking, which is typical—probably Jamie West and Sons and Daughters would be more typical of the times now—when we decide to be independent truckers. That’s one thing, when you make that decision. But when a company for transportation says, “You’re no longer my employee; now you’re an independent contractor.

We’re going to pay you the same amount, but we’re going to remove your benefits,” that really is not about taking care of employees or having that independence for employees. It’s about exploiting them for the benefit of unscrupulous employers.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Next question?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Good morning, and thank you to my colleague for his remarks this morning. He mentioned newcomers to our province. Even in my rural communities in rural southern Ontario, we’re seeing a lot of newcomers—which is wonderful—in our communities, contributing to our economy, coming to work in our province. Newcomers are essential, obviously, to ensuring Ontario continues to grow.

Does the member opposite believe opposing this bill means that the members who are supporting existing practices that keep newcomers from being able to work in the fields that they are trained in—does he believe this is the right decision on their part?

MPP Jamie West: Just to clarify, we’re not opposed to newcomers coming and training. In fact, even though this bill has major flaws, we’re more than likely going to support it. But it is our party that has been pushing for more effective ways for newcomers and immigrants to have their credentials recognized so they get in the jobs they want. We have all been in taxicabs and Ubers from people with high qualifications who are unable to get those jobs because their credentials aren’t recognized. We actually need to get to a system where we can be recognizing these quicker.

I was at Cambrian College, and I met somebody who was a dentist who ran 10 dental labs and was taking his dental cleaning program here locally. That doesn’t make sense to us. Teeth don’t change that much from India to here. There’s some upgrading, of course; you’ve got to make sure that standards are the same, but as New Democrats, we’ve been pushing for the recognition of these credentials to fill those jobs for a long time, and that’s something I invite the member to join us on.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Further debate?

Ms. Jess Dixon: I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills.

It gives me a lot of pleasure to stand up in the House and speak to this bill this morning. I want to begin by thanking our great minister and the team at his ministry for putting together this bill and for continuing this work.

I also want to, frankly, give a shout-out to our wonderful previous minister, Monte McNaughton, for the work that he did over the course of our Working for Workers bills. I remember reading an

article about him where the author wrote that he had taken the unusual step of travelling Ontario and actually listening to people, and I think that these Working for Workers bills that our government has been issuing really show that, and I know that our current minister has really latched onto that constant consultation and open-mindedness, and we’re really seeing that now.

My cousin’s partner is a tattoo artist. She worked at a tattoo parlour in London, and she was really hoping to open her own tattoo parlour. We didn’t know each other super well at the time, but we ended up having a conversation where she explained this to me. It turned out, for over a year, she had put off that step to open her own parlour because the agreement that she had signed as part of her work with the existing tattoo parlour had a non-compete clause in it that said that she couldn’t open a tattoo parlour within something absurd like 500 kilometres of the existing parlour.

I don’t have any background in employment law, but even hearing that, I was like, “I’m pretty sure that’s not okay,” and then I did two seconds of research and was like, “Yes, that’s definitely not okay.” But that’s something that had prevented her for over a year from actually manifesting her dream, which was to open her own tattoo parlour, which she now has, and it’s doing wonderfully.

But again, my cousin’s partner, Mel, is not the type of person that is going to, generally speaking, be able to come to Queen’s Park; she just happened to have a boyfriend whose cousin was a lawyer. And yet it’s people like her, people who rent stylist chairs, people who work in salons, who frequently had these types of clauses in their contracts who are now going to be benefited by this.

I also really, really appreciate the care that this bill shows to workers in the restaurant and service industry. People who work in that industry are really the ones that make our lives worth living. We go to work, but a lot of our fun, our relaxation is going for meals, going shopping, experiencing things in the service industry, and without those individuals performing those jobs, we really wouldn’t have access to that.

I personally believe that every single person should have to work as a server at some point in their life to know what it’s like. I have a long history of working in the service industry, as a younger individual, I started off cleaning floors in a vet clinic, ended up as a baker at Tim Hortons for several years and then a bartender at Holiday Inn and eventually working my way up to fine dining.

Sometimes I say I’m not sure if this means I was either a really terrible server or a really terrible crown and politician, because I have never had a day as a crown attorney or a member of provincial Parliament that had as much stress and terror in it as an average day as a Tim Hortons baker or working in fine dining. I have never had a work nightmare about being a crown attorney or an MPP,

whereas I have had multiple work nightmares about abandoning my tables mid-shift. It’s really, in many ways, the closest thing I can think of to door-knocking: Every table you approach, you have absolutely no idea how the interaction is going to go, but you have to keep smiling the entire time.

I remember when I first started these positions, many of the places that I worked had me do unpaid trial shifts and also told me that I was responsible for dine-and-dash, so if I failed to make sure that a customer had paid, that was going to be docked from my tips or my wages. I was probably smart enough and cantankerous enough even as a young person to know—I was like, “That’s essentially just loss that you incur as a business. It’s similar to shoplifting. There’s no way I should be responsible for that.” And I think the only time it ever happened to me, I revolted somewhat and ended up not having to pay.

But, again, many people that are in this industry are young, are naive, are vulnerable, are not in a position to go up against their employer and say, “I’m not going to do this.” So by addressing this dine-and-dash issue as well as the issue of gas drive-offs by specifically including gas stations, that’s incredibly important.

I believe it’s the member for Mississauga–Malton who is particularly passionate about the issue of gas drive-offs, because there have been people who have been injured and died trying to stop people from leaving a gas station without paying because they in no way can possibly afford the cost of that person’s fuel, essentially, and their employers have told them they were responsible. Again, these are workers who do not have the ability to come to Queen’s Park en masse with a union representative to strike, to picket, and yet they have been heard and their issues have been addressed.

Moving forward a little bit as far as my own feelings about this bill, from being a server and then onwards, I also really noticed and appreciated the requirement that salary information be posted, and the reason for this, I think, goes beyond simply the idea of having clear expectations. As we discussed quite a bit two weeks ago, we are still not at wage parity. Women are still earning approximately 87 cents to the dollar as men do. And when you are looking at salary negotiations, negotiation research shows that women are still, I think it’s less than half as likely as men to actually negotiate their salaries, to negotiate what they’ll be compensated for.

When you look into the research of salary negotiation, one of the things that is identified as specifically empowering women is having some objective information available about what colleagues or peers in the industry are making, because it gives you a set point to build off of. Generally speaking, women still end up 30% lower than men simply because they go in asking for less.

By posting an actual salary, we are eliminating in many ways that—anyone that has ever interviewed somebody, even for our executive assistants, who has asked that sort of cruel question: “So what do you expect to be paid?” What kind of question is that to ask somebody? Particularly, somebody young or entering a job for the first time, somebody that is desperate to have this job. It’s really just juggling on a tightrope to be able to identify in a split second what you think you are worth.

Again, when you look at negotiation research, men tend to refer to negotiations about salary as sort of like a fight or a wrestling match;

whereas, the most common thing that women compared it to was going to the dentist. When you look at that attitude that they have towards it, you can really see how we can continue to lose the battle as far as wage parity between the genders.

So in doing this, I believe that we are going to significantly impact, in a slow but still important fashion, women’s ability to negotiate their salaries because we’re giving everybody—but I’m particularly talking about women—that little bit of objective information about this, and that is the range or the starting point. And I can actually have an objective point in order to base my own negotiation off of.

As I said, I really do believe that what this bill is and what all of the Working for Workers bills have been is a cumulative effort of travelling Ontario, of listening to people, of listening to people that may not have union representation as well as people that do and of trying slowly, gradually and carefully, with the balancing of interest that any government must always do, to address those needs and to make sure that our workers in all industries—but particularly service industries, which is about 6%—are being represented.

So I will certainly be supporting this bill with a great deal of excitement. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to it. I will hand off the remainder of my time to the member opposite.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): The member from Mississauga–Erin Mills.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, we are requiring employers to disclose the use of artificial intelligence in the recruitment process. In the old days, job applications would be manually reviewed by an employer to find the best fit. Now, artificial intelligence can automatically sort hundreds of job applications in a minute. When used fairly and respectfully, this technology can be used effectively to help both employers and employees, helping employers to cut the time for sorting through those applications and helping the employees by finding the right skill set for the job.

I’m very supportive of all the different technologies, especially new technologies, given my background in technology for 38 years, but we need to make sure that we are cautious of the ethical, legal and privacy implications of this new technology. This bill would set the ground rules for the ethical use of AI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a win-win situation when highly qualified immigrants get a chance to work in their field and contribute to the province’s economy. It is a win-win situation. They need a job. They came to this country to start their new life based on the qualifications they have and they were accepted based on.

We put that upfront as a requirement because we needed those professionals but, when they arrive and they can’t work, none of the two sides achieved anything: not the professional who arrived here to start the new job or the province who accepted them to do the job but didn’t give them the licence or the credentials to do the job. Neither of the sides achieved anything. By those changes we are proposing in this legislation, it’s actually a win-win situation for the newly immigrated professionals and for the province who needed these professionals; they needed them in the job.

Immigrants can provide for their families. Businesses have access to the talented, skilled workers they need and we accepted.

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

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Questions?

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank the member for Mississauga–Erin Mills for your comments, and also the member for Kitchener—

Interjection.

Mr. Chris Glover: Anyway, I want to thank you for your comments.

This is the Working for Workers bill. I was at a protest recently at city hall with gig workers, and they were talking about how they’re making $6.37 an hour because this government passed another Working for Workers bill that stripped them of their protections under the Employment Standards Act. In fact, it actually makes them—gig workers—a separate category of workers that are not entitled to the protections, such as minimum wage protections. Some of these gig workers are making $6.37 an hour.

My question to the member is, should this government repeal that legislation and allow gig workers protections under the Employment Standards Act? I’ll ask it to the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I really thank my colleague for the good question.

Again, I’m not saying that this bill will solve all the issues we have. We have some issues come, as your colleague was talking about earlier about the change in the working environment. There’s a lot of contract work, not full-time jobs. There are a lot of new job descriptions, even job nature, which weren’t there, that maybe are not covered under some of the bills. Definitely it’s fair to look into every situation and try to make sure everybody is protected.

This part of the bill protects what we can protect, but if there’s any need for more, I think there will be a Working for Workers 5 coming.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Next question?

Mr. Brian Saunderson: I want to thank both my colleagues for their comments this morning.

My question is to my colleague from Kitchener South–Hespeler. I appreciated her comments about her front-line experience as a server in the hospitality industry, but I know she’s also a lawyer. My question is: There’s an obligation in Ontario for employers to provide a workplace that is safe and free from harassment, and I’m wondering if my colleague could please comment on the regulation of the use of NDAs in the case of workplace sexual harassment, misconduct or violence and how that’s going to further protect our workers across Ontario.

Ms. Jess Dixon: Thank you for the question. Yes, I think this is an excellent movement. The use of NDAs in this type of situation can really lead to the exact opposite of, really, ethically what we are trying to accomplish, which is making sure that people are kept safe and protected and aware of any misconduct, whether it be harassment, discrimination or anything else.

I think what has happened here has been almost a case of what I call common-law creep, where it is not actually a defined policy or part of the legislation. However, it has become typical practice to do this, to the point that it has become very challenging, as counsel, to not do it.

It’s great to see that the Canadian Bar Association is so strongly in favour of this as well. Clearly, we have a case where the experts themselves are recognizing that this is an issue and are very committed to it being resolved. So I think this is an excellent course correction on the common-law creep that can happen.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Question?

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for either member. I’m still trying to wrap my head around super-indexing in this bill and why that’s more important than a couple of things, like some workers, pre-1988 or -1985, who are really disadvantaged, who are on WSIB—the 13% of cases that are complex and get dragged out and create hardship for people.

I also mentioned I have a private member’s bill that talks about protecting workers in group homes and retirement centres. The challenge is, they’re not covered by WSIB simply because of their employer. They’re doing the same work as other people are in long-term-care homes, but they don’t have the same employer, so they don’t have coverage, and many of them have multiple jobs. It’s a big risk for them. I’ve talked to this minister and the previous minister about it and they’re supportive of it. I’m encouraged by that.

I guess my question for either member is: Do you think that there’s some things that we could do at the WSIB to actually alleviate some of the risks and suffering, in some cases, that are happening to people out there who don’t have coverage or who have coverage but aren’t getting satisfaction?

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I would like to thank my colleague for the question. Again, I wouldn’t say yes or no, because that’s another part—WSIB is another part and not in this bill, so I didn’t study it. We need to study it; I understand. Again, it’s always a work in progress. We need to look into those cases and understand what the impact is.

But, again, when we talk about legislation, we are talking about an umbrella. We are talking about a very high-level framework. When it comes to regulations, which can explain what’s within the legislation—how we can apply it and how it will be applied—then we can look into smaller details of that.

So, yes, I would say that we could look at something like that and see where it fits into this, but in the overall scheme or picture, I think it’s included in some way or other.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Next question?

MPP Jamie West: Thank you to my colleagues for their comments on this Working for Workers bill.

The member for Kitchener South–Hespeler said women earn up to 30% less than men when she was talking about pay transparency. There was a bill, the Pay Transparency Act, 2018, that would have helped to address this and put some real teeth to the bill. This

schedule of the bill duplicates the title but doesn’t have the enforcement in it.

I was just wondering if the member could explain to me how, with this schedule, all you have to do is say that the range—I said in my debate between $1 and $1 million. But if the range is 30% of a range, how does that help close that gender pay gap if women are just being told that the range in pay is varied between 30%?

Ms. Jess Dixon: It’s not that it varies between 30% or that it’s a hard 30% that they earn that’s less. That can accumulate over a lifetime of working from a single decision made at the very outset to perhaps not negotiate or not negotiate as strongly as possible.

As a woman, my feeling on this is that this gives me a significant amount of information that I would not have had before, but my own personal advocacy style remains to instead focus on initiatives that may support girls to understand their own worth, versus a later addressing of an earlier systemic issue.

What I am seeing in a lot of our work and education as far as STEM programs, STEAM programs, getting girls into coding and robotics, that type of thing—that’s really where I think that we are creating a generation of girls who will become a generation of women who don’t go into a discussion like this already doubting their own potential.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Next question?

Mr. Lorne Coe: The proposed legislation is taking aim at non-transparent business practices such as not disclosing salaries until after the interview process.

Could the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler speak about how eliminating these steps will help employees and job seekers take the next steps in their careers?

Ms. Jess Dixon: Thank you for that question.

You’ve heard my comments on women, but I think that my comments apply to essentially anybody who is vulnerable or trepidatious when entering any type of salary negotiation.

Like I said, many of us have had the experience of hiring for our constituency offices or for executive assistants and looking into the face of some eager young person—I’m a bit of a chicken, and I would often have the chief of staff do the interview with me. Having the chief of staff then ask this poor kid what salary they are expecting—which is a question that I stopped using, because I just don’t think it’s effective.

Again, by giving people that range of expectation, it allows them to focus on their own work about what they’re going to do as far as trying to get this job, but also going in with an objective piece of data that will help them to negotiate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Quick question?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: To the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler: This Working for Workers bill makes some changes to the digital workers protection act. I wanted to ask the member, doesn’t she think digital workers would be better protected if they were covered by the Employment Standards Act and were not forced to work at jobs where they earned $6.37 per hour instead of a proper minimum wage?

Ms. Jess Dixon: I think the issue with digital workers that we’re working on is that this is such an incredibly rapidly evolving industry and labour market. It takes quite a bit of consultation to prepare these bills. I think that we’ve taken some great steps forward, and there’s some great ongoing consultation. I myself have had multiple meetings in my riding with digital workers. I think that we are making great steps forward in a rapidly evolving industry.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): Further debate?

Ms. Jessica Bell: I’m pleased to be here to speak about Bill 149, which amends various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters. This is an omnibus bill. It changes four schedules.

We have heard the MPP for Sudbury speak very eloquently and practically about what this bill means, but I also just want to put it in context.

The kinds of jobs that you can get in Ontario today are not the kinds of jobs that you could get 20 or 30 years ago. People want good-paying jobs, where they have a career, where they have benefits and the possibility of a pension, where they can afford to pay their rent or their mortgage, where they can save some money and put it aside, where they can live a good life here in Ontario. Unfortunately and deliberately, for many people that’s not the kind of work that they have in Ontario today.

Increasingly, the kind of work that is available to people in Ontario is contract work, precarious work, just-in-time work, low wage work, where you cannot afford to pay the bills, and where the kinds of benefits and pension that people typically got in the past are not available for many people anymore. It has created a situation where we are seeing the working poor and the middle class having to work harder and harder and harder for less, and we’re seeing a real concentration of wealth at the top. It is exacerbating the inequality that exists in Ontario today.

I think it’s a shame, and I think that should be reversed. Does this bill do that? No, it doesn’t.

This bill has some modest improvements, and I do want to go through some of them. The first one was the decision to provide presumptive coverage for esophageal cancer for firefighters. This is a good move, and I want to thank the MPP for Niagara Centre for his advocacy to convince the government to do the right thing for firefighters, to ensure they have presumptive coverage for esophageal cancer, because we know that if you are an urban firefighter, you put yourself in very dangerous situations. You go into the fire, you go into a building or a house, when everyone’s just trying to get out.

Given the way homes are made today, the way furniture is made today, there are a number of pollutants and toxins—glues, fire retardants—which can cause, in the long term, cancerous conditions. We know this. So it’s a good move to ensure that people who keep people alive, who stop fires, are protected when they get older.

What is a shame is that what we didn’t see in this bill is for presumptive coverage to include wildfire fire workers. As the MPP for Sudbury pointed out, urban firefighters go in with a ventilator, but forest wildfire firefighters are wearing a wet cloth, and that’s not the kind of coverage that you’d expect given how dangerous being a forest wildfire firefighter is today. We just went through the worst fire season in Canada’s history last year. We expect fires to get worse. Firefighters, wildfire firefighters, are an essential service, and they should be protected, so we would have liked to have seen that in the bill.

The other piece that we see incredibly modest steps being taken on is around providing additional protection to people who work through a gig app such as Uber. This is really prevalent in my riding of University–Rosedale. Many students will also be gig workers in order to have enough money to pay for rent, and this bill, quite frankly, just doesn’t do enough to protect them. What we’re seeing with this bill is that it sets a minimum wage standard, but only for when workers are actually engaged, which means they have a job and they’re biking or driving there.

So all that time where you’re waiting for a job, you’re not paid for. That’s absurd. That’s like having a customer service person at McDonald’s only being paid when they’re dealing with a customer. That’s absolutely absurd.

What’s also absurd is that this requirement to set a minimum wage floor doesn’t take into account that workers have to pay for all their expenses: driving a car, gas, insurance. What happens if they get into an accident? All those costs have to be borne by the employee, by the worker, and I think that’s a real shame. It means that in some cases, these workers are being paid very little: $4 an hour, $6 an hour. You cannot live on that in Ontario. You cannot live on that in Toronto. So we see that as a shame.

The MPP for London West has, very sensibly, put forward a bill that is called the Preventing Worker Misclassification Act, which provides a simple ABC test to determine whether a worker is a contractor or whether they are an employee. In many of these cases, these Uber workers, these gig workers are employees. They should be paid a minimum wage. They should be protected by the Employment Standards Act. They should have access to rights, and they should have access to benefits, and they don’t, and that is a shame.

We would have liked to have seen the Preventing Worker Misclassification Act to be included in this omnibus bill, in order to provide and lift the working floor of thousands and thousands of workers who are earning less than minimum wage, and we don’t see that in this bill. They—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bhutila Karpoche): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it is now time for members’ statements.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Joyce Marshall

As a retired teacher and a Rotarian, she stands out as a shining example of selfless dedication and tireless commitment to the well-being of the community, particularly its senior members. Her remarkable service as a volunteer at the Whitby 55-plus recreation centres reflects a deep-rooted passion for making a positive impact in the lives of others. She has initiated and nurtured various projects and initiatives such as the annual World AIDS Day for the town of Whitby and Hospice Awareness Day in Durham region,

Joyce also serves as a dedicated board member of VON Durham, including a commendable 10-year term as board chair. Her unwavering dedication and outstanding leadership have left an indelible mark on the Whitby community.

Speaker, Ontario’s seniors, like Joyce, have played a critical role in building our communities and province into the strong and prosperous place it is today. Congratulations, Joyce, on your award.

Sudbury community services

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

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

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

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

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

Member for Kitchener South–Hespeler

Ms. Jess Dixon: This statement is a statement that I suppose is dedicated to a group of people, though, as you will hear, dedicated to one specific representative of that, which is the people that for all of us keep the home fires burning.

As we all know, being an MPP, being a politician, is a job that takes you away from family, from your home; but even from the basic exercises of keeping your household running. It makes you distracted. It can make you distant. It can make you angry, upset and frustrated, and sometimes not really the nicest person to be around for the people that love you the most.

For me, I’m an only child, and those people that really keep the home fires burning are my parents, represented today by my mother who is in the gallery. My mom was talking to some friends of hers that essentially had said something along the lines of, “Oh, you must be very proud. Your daughter has accomplished so much.” And my response, when she told me that, is: “Oh, that’s because they have no idea how much work I am.”

I think that I am arguably more work now than I was when I was actually under 18. From last-minute decorating my parade floats to going out to finding the perfect pair of black pants—which we still haven’t succeeded at hemming them the night of—to talking me down from ledges day after day, it’s really people like my mother that keep the home fires burning. So thank you and thank you, Mom.

GO Transit

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

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

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

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

Nowruz

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: March is Persian Heritage Month in Ontario, and this week there will be celebrations here and around the world for Nowruz. Nowruz, which means “new day,” falls on the spring equinox each year, also known as the first day of spring. It is based on the Iranian solar Hijri calendar and it marks the Persian new year. Its origins are in the Iranian religion of Zoroastrianism and it has been celebrated for 3,000 years, making it one of the oldest festivals in human history that is still celebrated today.

On Nowruz, millions of Iranians from around the world and from all walks of life, irrespective of religion, age, language, gender, race, ethnicity or social status, gather together with family, friends and loved ones to celebrate the new year. The celebration marks the rebirth of nature, symbolizing the triumph of good over evil. Nowruz represents much of what Iranian character, history and culture is all about. We eat traditional food, including a fish and rice dish called sabzi polo ba mahi. We give gifts, also known as eydis, to children.

More than 300 million people around the world celebrate Nowruz, and it is no small celebration. Imagine Christmas, New Year’s Eve and Canada Day rolled into one month-long holiday, and then add delicious food, street dances, fire shows and a lot of loud banging on pots.

To everyone celebrating Nowruz in Carleton, Ontario, in Iran and around the world, I wish you all a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.

Nowruz Pirooz. Javid Shah.

City of Oshawa

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Speaker, 2024 marks 100 years of the city of Oshawa. However, our roots go much deeper than that. The earliest known settlement was in the 1400s, when the Wendat settled near Harmony Creek. The story goes that “Oshawa” meant “where we must leave our canoes,” and Oshawa was known as the carrying place where goods and canoes were carried north to Lake Scugog. It was a busy place of intersections. By 1850, Oshawa had become a growing village.

By 1914, the McLaughlin Carriage Co. was the largest carriage maker in the British empire, and the McLaughlin Buick was the first car built in Oshawa in 1908 under the GM umbrella. General Motors of Canada was born in 1918, with Sam McLaughlin its first president.

A hundred years ago, Oshawa achieved city status on March 8, 1924. From canoes to carriages to cars, Oshawa was on the move.

Oshawa is the home of labour. In 1928, 3,000 striking autoworkers voted to form an Oshawa auto union. In 1937, the UAW 222 Local was born out of another massive strike. CAW, and now Unifor Local 222, has been the heart of Oshawa labour ever since.

Oshawa was the hometown of Ed Broadbent’s local and national legacy. Oshawa is an academic centre, with three post-secondary institutions. It is a centre for health care, sports, arts, music and culture, and is a hub of business, creativity and diversity.

As it has always been, Oshawa is a place of intersections, innovation and possibility. Happy 100th birthday to the city of Oshawa.

Punjabi Arts Association of Toronto / Emergency services

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Today, I’d like to congratulate the Punjabi Arts Association on 30 years of success in arts and theatre. The Punjabi Arts Association is known for bringing attention to serious community issues in a manner which is relatable and entertaining. Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to see their latest theatre production, CID, bringing bizarre 911 calls to centre stage. The play was a 90-minute comedy-drama focused on the critical issue of non-emergency calls flooding our 911 call centres. Through creative storytelling and humour, it shed a light on the real-life consequences of these calls, emphasizing the importance of responsible use of emergency resources.

I want to extend my sincere appreciation to the Punjabi Arts Association for their dedication to using arts and theatre as a tool to address social issues for social awareness and change.

Speaker, as residents do their

part in ensuring these critical services are being used properly, our government, under Premier Ford’s leadership, has invested $208 million to modernize our emergency response system. This investment is helping municipalities and emergency response centres transition to new emergency communication systems known as Next Generation 9-1-1. Once fully implemented, the new system will make it easier to provide additional details about emergency situations, such as making a video call at the scene of an accident and giving people the ability to text 911 when requiring immediate help from police, fire or ambulance services.

Under Premier Ford’s leadership, we’re committed to making record investments to modernize and improve government services across the province.

Cost of living

Mr. Stephen Blais: Life in Ontario continues to get more and more expensive. Families across the province are facing higher grocery prices, higher hydro rates, higher property taxes, and this government continues to fail to act. The government has failed to control hydro prices, and families are paying more. The government has failed to support municipalities, even pushing more and more costs onto them in order to benefit their friends and insiders, and families are paying more.

The government has failed to take concrete actions like removing the HST from essentials like home heating, and families are paying more. Medical practices are charging fees for service, and so families are paying more.

There is virtually no area of family budgeting where the increased costs are not directly tied to the actions or inactions of this government, all while this government continues to reward their friends and supporters with contracts, public appointments, regulatory changes to help them earn record profits, often on the backs of taxpayers.

As the government continues to focus on helping their friends and supporters, many families have begun to cut out the little extras they’ve worked so hard for. Too many families have begun to cut back on what many of us would consider to be essentials.

It’s time for the government to put families first and focus on regular everyday Ontarians, not only their friends and supporters.

Ontario Trillium Foundation grants

Mr. John Jordan: Speaker, this government recently announced capital funding to non-profit organizations across the province to ensure communities have safe and ready access to vital programming, activities and spaces.

Once again, I would like to thank the minister and the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport for the work they do along with the Ontario Trillium Foundation—everything from purchasing equipment and building new spaces, to retrofits or repairs.

Last month, I spoke to a few of a total of 12 organizations in my riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston that received funding, and I’d like to mention a few more this morning—organizations like Southern Frontenac Community Services in Sydenham, who are using their funding to add to their new building and increase capacity to serve their clients and deliver programs. The McDonald’s Corners Agricultural Society are putting their grant toward renovations to their buildings and creating an emergency shelter for the community.

Lanark Highlands will renovate the infield at the historical Clyde Memorial baseball diamond—ball and hot dogs, a part of the highland culture. And the Mississippi Valley Textile Museum will create an accessible kitchen to allow the museum to expand its capacity to host community partners and events.

Speaker, this government will continue to help build healthy and vibrant communities throughout Ontario by strengthening the impact of our social programs and services, keeping people healthy.

Once again, congratulations to all the organizations in my riding that received funding, and thank you for all your contributions to the people in your community.

Black youth action plan

Ms. Christine Hogarth: Spring is in the air, and I’d like to highlight that it’s been an absolute pleasure over the last week, knocking on doors and getting to hear some of my constituents, what their thoughts are, and seeing the kids and their smiley faces.

It reminded me of an event I attended just this past February. It was a graduation ceremony for recipients from a local college, and it was recipients from the Black youth action plan. Now, graduating from the Canadian College of Healthcare and Pharmaceutics, these talented and smart young professionals are helping to improve Black youth representation in health sector technologies. They didn’t just graduate from school, they were going to work the next day. So congratulations to all those graduates.

I’d like to thank Umbreen Akhtar, Junaid Bhatti—who is the senior administrative officer—and president Syed Hussain, all from the Canadian College of Healthcare and Pharmaceutics, for inviting me to join them in the afternoon.

Ontario’s health care field has some of the most innovative and hardest-working professionals in the world, and with funding like the Black youth action plan, it pays dividends in both recipients’ lives as well as for the end-user in the health care system. Now, because of the great success of this program and on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, Michael Ford, I had the pleasure of announcing further funding for this program for the college of $600,000. This is great news for those communities, and I just want to congratulate the workers once again.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Dave Smith: I have a number of people to introduce today. I’ll start with my staff: my executive assistant Emma Henry; my executive assistant in the riding Sally Carson; and a Trent University intern student with us Jini Ganesalingam.

Also, today from Trent University—and that is why I’m wearing my Trent University shoes—we have president Leo Groarke, vice-president Julie Davis, vice-president Marilyn Burns, vice-president Glennice Burns, director of portfolio operations Christopher Armitage, director of communications Kathryn Verhulst-Rogers, executive director Ngina Kibathi and Trent student Sam Begin.

M. Guy Bourgouin: Il me fait grand plaisir de présenter deux invités aujourd’hui. J’ai Eric Lemieux, un ami de la famille, mais surtout, je veux vous présenter une petite fille, une jeune demoiselle qui a vécu de grandes épreuves mais qui a une joie de vivre qui peut comparer avec n’importe qui : bienvenue, Mila, à Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jess Dixon: It’s my pleasure to introduce a family friend of ours who is visiting from Trinidad, Kareema Whittle, and with her, previously mentioned in my member’s statement, is of course my mother, Ruth Dixon, the wind beneath my wings.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It is my great honour to welcome one of our legislative pages from my great riding of Windsor West, Jack Xu. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I look forward to working with you.

Mr. Ric Bresee: In the members’ gallery is Mr. Chris Houston, a director with the Canadian Peace Museum, and he’s joined by Dr. Julielynn Wong. Thank you for being in your House today.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: I’d like to introduce to the House this morning board members from the Toronto Caribbean Carnival: Jennifer Hirlehey, Mischka Crichton, Adrian Charles and Bernadine Marina Rambarran. The Toronto Caribbean org—Caribana, as people remember the carnival—will be hosting a reception today, in rooms 228 and 230. I hope everyone can get a flavour and a taste of the islands this afternoon when we come down to join them in the reception hall.

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I would like to welcome my friends from Mortgage Professionals Canada: Dr. Kuljit Singh Janjua, Mohinder Pal Singh, Barbara Cook, Lauren van den Berg and all the other members of Mortgage Professionals Canada. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: This morning I’d like to welcome to the House as a guest Mr. Jeffrey Spiegelman, trusted legal adviser, excellent legal counsel and advocate. Welcome to the House.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I want to wish a warm, warm welcome to Sarah Penner, who is beginning as a legislative page today, from the riding of Windsor–Tecumseh. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Sarah.

M. Stéphane Sarrazin: J’aimerai souhaiter la bienvenue à Noémie Prevost qui est ici avec nous cette semaine à Queen’s Park. C’est notre nouvelle agente de communication. Donc, c’est grâce à elle si les gens de Prescott-Russell savent ce que le député fait dans la circonscription.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: It’s great to see so many friendly faces in the visitors’ gallery today. I’d like to introduce my constituency assistant, Harman Gill. It’s his first time in the House. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There’s a point of order from Ottawa–Vanier first.

M me Lucille Collard: I seek unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing order 45(b)(iv), the time for debate on opposition day motion number 2 regarding support for primary care providers be apportioned as follows: 56 minutes to each of the recognized parties and eight minutes to the independent members as a group.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I need the House to come to order.

The member for Ottawa–Vanier is seeking the unanimous consent of the House that, notwithstanding standing order 45(b)(iv), the time for debate on opposition day motion number 2 regarding support for primary care providers be apportioned as follows: 56 minutes to each of the recognized parties and eight minutes to the independent members as a group. Agreed? I heard a no.

Wearing of shoes

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Peterborough–Kawartha has a point of order.

Mr. Dave Smith: I seek unanimous consent to wear my Trent University Converse running shoes today in the House in honour of Trent University being here in the gallery.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Peterborough–Kawartha is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to permit him to wear the Trent University Converse running shoes in honour of Trent University in the House today. Agreed? Agreed.

Question Period

Health care

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Ontario’s health care system is on the brink of collapse because of Bill 124. While jurisdictions around the world try to attract our health care workers, this government chose to freeze their pay and dock their wages and fight them in court. And then they lost again.

Now it’s time to pay up, at least $6 billion so far. The Financial Accountability Office is saying the government could owe workers more than $13 billion. To the Premier: How much money is this government currently withholding from working people?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Through all this, we value very much the hard-working health care workers, teachers, construction workers and skilled trades, through COVID and beyond, as they help us rebuild Ontario.

Obviously when in 2022 the judge ruled Bill 124 to be unconstitutional, we then negotiated and through arbitration and other means have been paying out fair and reasonable wages to all those workers that we value. That money has been going out for the last almost two years. In fact, we have expended virtually all of that money—over 90% of the agreement.

What is really important to know, as we rebuild this province, as we build the infrastructure, as we build the hospitals, when we rebuild the schools, as we build the highways and the public transit, everyone in Ontario will participate to help rebuild Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, here’s the thing: The impact of Bill 124 was felt in communities right across this province. And now, even without Bill 124 hanging over us, hiring and retention has become nearly impossible. Without dedicated funding to incentivize workers to stay in hospitals and long-term-care homes, in home care and primary care, our public health care system will continue to suffer.

So back to the Premier: Will this government finally pay workers what they’re owed in the upcoming budget?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Mr. Speaker, as I am a student of history, one thing I remember is from 2003 to 2018, the Liberal Party, supported for three years by the NDP in 2011 to 2014, didn’t build anything. We inherited an infrastructure deficit. They closed 600 schools. They didn’t build roads. They didn’t build subways. They didn’t build hospitals. They didn’t build long-term care. In my own riding, from 2011 to 2018, do you know how many net new beds were built in long-term care? Squadoosh, Mr. Speaker—zero.

This government has a plan to rebuild this economy. It has a plan to build the infrastructure. It has a plan to support the workers who are going to build that and service those buildings. This government has a plan, and we’re not going to stop until the job gets done.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The final supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: This Premier and his government have never had any respect for working people, and the working people of this province know it. They spent years fighting nurses and public sector workers in court to hold down their wages and now this Premier has gone as far as calling the president of the union that represents those public sector workers a liar. The same person who represents health care workers and bus drivers; the people who care for our kids and who represent health care workers, who drive our transit system; the people who staff our long-term-care facilities, and this Premier called them a liar. That, Speaker, is disgraceful.

So back to the Premier: Why does this Premier have such contempt for the hard-working people of Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Just the opposite, Mr. Speaker: This government is working with all the workers across Ontario. You know, we had eight trade unions support us in the last election. That number is growing.

Last week, I was out with the Premier and this Minister of Transportation touring in Windsor—the great work and job that they’re doing at the Stellantis battery manufacturing plant. This is creating good-paying jobs and do you know who’s doing those jobs? The hard-working people of Windsor.

When we criss-cross this province, and often when I’m with the Premier and with my colleagues, do you know what? They line up from here to there to meet the Premier and thank him for his leadership to not only supporting all workers, but to support the building of this economy, Mr. Speaker.

We inherited a weak economy; we’re rebuilding that economy—great jobs, bigger paycheques and including all workers in Ontario.

Health care

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, this Premier and his government drive right past the striking workers in Windsor and they don’t stop for a second. That’s the truth.

Maybe the Premier will answer this question. Back when his government announced that they were opening the doors to health care privatization, the NDP warned that people would be forced to use their credit card to get health care. The government said this would never happen—never. But here we are. We’re hearing from more and more people who have been charged $70, $90 for a single visit, and in some cases, several hundred dollars just to get an annual membership at a private clinic.

So to the Premier: Do you agree that these patients were not able to use their health card and did, in fact, have to pull out their credit card?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I have to assume that the member opposite is referencing some nurse practitioner-led clinics that are charging patients for a membership. As we have said repeatedly, there is a loophole in the federal Canada Health Act that we are actively engaged with the federal government on to close that loophole.

It is important for all of us to understand that publicly funded OHIP-covered services, as protected within the Canada Health Act, continue to be offered using your OHIP card, not your credit card. That’s what we will fight for on this side of the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, a loophole? A loophole? They opened the floodgates. They always knew this would happen. It was always about making some people wealthy while patients went without care.

Speaker, this government is creating a two-tier health care system where you would only get care if you can afford it, and that’s the truth. It’s absolutely unacceptable. These private clinics are preying on the most vulnerable: 2.2 million Ontarians without a family doctor. Dozens more clinics are expected to open in the coming months.

So back to the Premier, I hope he answers this question: Why are you starving the public community-based primary care system in our province in favour of private clinics that are charging patients?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: So 78 new or expanded primary care has been introduced in the province of Ontario in February. We have made announcements that literally cover all parts of Ontario to ensure that primary care multidisciplinary teams are able to expand and offer those services to ensure that everyone who wants a primary care practitioner has that offering.

Respectfully, Speaker, I must say as we talk about expanding multidisciplinary teams, what do the NDP want to talk about? They want to talk about administration.

I want to see primary care expansions where you see physicians, where you see nurse practitioners working together with dietitians, with mental health workers, with registered nurses, with PSWs to make sure that, whatever care you need in your treatment journey, you have access to it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, 2.2 million Ontarians who don’t have family doctors aren’t buying that. I guarantee it; 16,000 people in Sault Ste. Marie are about to lose their doctor this year. In Kingston, people were lined up through the night in the rain just for the chance to get a spot with a doctor. An estimated 30,000 people are waiting for access to primary care in that city alone.

Our system is under enormous strain because of this government’s failures and their bad decisions. So back to the Premier of this province: When will he stop putting the private needs of for-profit providers ahead of the needs of patients?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Perhaps the member opposite wasn’t listening when I made the announcement in February and actually had the Periwinkle example beside me, where an additional 10,000 people in Kingston are going to be served by multidisciplinary teams. To quote Dr. Philpott, “When you need a family doc, you will see a family doc. When you need to see a nurse practitioner, you will see a nurse practitioner. When you need to see a mental health worker, you will see a mental health worker.”

Primary care, multidisciplinary teams are where we need to be to ensure the people of Ontario get access to the care they need, and 78 new and expanded opportunities came forward when we made those announcements in February. You go to the Davenport organization that is receiving an expansion and tell them that you do not support multidisciplinary teams.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Once again, I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair.

The next question.

Health care

Ms. Marit Stiles: We, on this side, are not going to take lessons from a government that is failing Ontarians to such a degree—2.2 million Ontarians without a family doctor. Speaker, under this government, by the time we get to 2026 that number is going to have doubled. A quarter of Ontarians won’t have access to primary care at this rate. We have to go faster. We need to act quickly.

Doctors, nurses, administrators, allied health professionals have all been very clear about the solution: funding a team-based approach to primary care. That’s why I tabled our motion today to get this government’s commitment to fully funded, integrated primary teams across the province, not just in some towns, in every town. Every Ontarian deserves that access.

So to the Premier: Will you support this motion?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: You know, the NDP’s motion is a stark reminder of what they want to focus on. They want to focus on administration expansion; we want to focus on multidisciplinary teams.

And to suggest that the health system had been adequately looked after under an NDP government, which cut by 10% the number of medical positions that were available in the province of Ontario—the Liberal government of the day that cut medical seats available for students in Ontario—we are expanding primary care. We are expanding medical schools in Brampton and in Scarborough. We have in the Northern Ontario School of Medicine over 100 additional medical seats available to students who want to practise in northern Ontario. We are getting the job done, after many, many years of neglect from the previous governments.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Back to the Premier: Primary care providers and patients know that this is just a drop in the bucket; it’s not going far enough. And the government knows this too. They’re making a choice. They’re choosing to expand private, for-profit care in this province to line the pockets of private, for-profit corporate shareholders. That’s what this is all about.

Doctors in this province, on the other hand, are spending nearly half their time filling out forms and doing administrative follow-ups. Our motion would unlock thousands of hours of direct patient care by investing in new supports for health care providers. It’s about putting patients first instead of paperwork.

So back to the Premier: Is he content to govern a province where millions are going without basic care, or will he listen to the primary care providers and take this simple step to get people the care that they so desperately need?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I will remind the member opposite that, since 2021, we have been actively engaged with the Ontario Medical Association to look at the paperwork that they are doing that could be—

Ms. Marit Stiles: And you have failed.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Absolutely wrong.

You have to have the facts, Speaker. What is happening is we have active engagements with the Ontario Medical Association to say, “Show us where we can do better. Show us where we can make changes” and an administrative—

Ms. Marit Stiles: We’re showing you.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Leader of the Opposition, come to order.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I’m going to rely on the Ontario Medical Association, with the greatest of respect. Those discussions have led to some very positive outcomes in terms of removing some of the paperwork that we’ve been doing. Is there more work to do? Absolutely. We will do that work. But I will do it with the Ontario Medical Association, not with the NDP leader.

Taxation

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have a question today for the Minister of Energy. It’s a question that I’ve been hearing a lot from workers and families in Niagara West. It’s about this, Speaker: On April 1 we know that the federal Liberals, supported by the NDP, are going to be raising the carbon tax by 23%. We know that this hike is going to hit virtually every aspect of our economy. It’s going to hit home heating costs. It’s going to hit the cost of gasoline. And it’s going to hit food prices, impacting some of the most vulnerable in our communities.

Speaker, what I’ve heard from my constituents is that the high cost of living is already hurting families across Ontario. We see that households are worried about whether or not they’re going to be paying their heating bills or putting food on the table. And yet we see a federal carbon tax, under the Trudeau Liberals, that is going up and up and up and up. It doesn’t seem to end.

So, my question, on behalf of my constituents, to the Minister of Energy, is why is it important that our government continue to take action to fight this job-killing, expensive tax?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the great member from Niagara for that question this morning. The carbon tax is having a huge impact on families, at the gas tank, at the grocery counter and on inflation that’s affecting everything.

As the member rightly points out, two weeks from today, on Easter Monday, on April Fool’s Day, the federal government is going to be increasing the carbon tax again by a whopping 23%. What does that actually mean? It means, for the average family, members of that member’s riding in Niagara, are going to be facing an extra $366 in carbon taxes just on their home heating bill.

But as I mentioned, it’s going to drive up more than the cost of just the natural gas bill, Mr. Speaker. It’s going to drive up the cost of everything.

We’re opposing it. The NDP are actually opposing it. What are the Liberals doing?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: My thanks to the minister. I’m going to be sharing his response with my constituents, because I’ve been hearing from those workers and those families who have expressed great concern with that massive spike that we’re going to be seeing in the carbon tax on April 1. I know that they’re reassured to see that this is a government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, that is taking the federal government to task when it comes to increasing costs on hard-working families.

I know most members in this Legislature oppose that job-killing tax, but unfortunately, it appears that not all members of the Legislature do. We see that Bonnie Crombie and the Liberals continue to crusade in favour of a job-killing carbon tax. They want to saddle families with more money-grubbing policies every opportunity they get.

I think it’s important that all of us continue to stand against this, and I’m wondering if the minister could speak more about what our government is doing to ensure that we have affordability and more money in the pockets of the hard-working families in my riding. If he could explain what actions we’re taking to fight the Justin Trudeau Liberals on this job-killing carbon tax and stand up for the families in my riding and across Ontario.

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, we’re cutting the gas tax. We’ve cut the tolls. We’ve kept electricity costs flat. We’ve introduced One Fare at transit across the GTHA.

But as Toronto Star intrepid reporter Robert Benzie broke at 10:01 a.m. this morning on X, the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie, has said that she won’t impose a new provincial carbon tax. But what she didn’t do is say that she’s opposed to the federal carbon tax, the one that’s actually going to rise in two weeks from today by a whopping 23%.

I see the Liberal caucus is huddled here right now trying to figure out what they’re going to do. Are they going to join us? Are they going to join the NDP? Or are they going to sit with the Green Party and their federal cousins and continue with the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members will please take their seats.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government side, come to order.

Restart the clock. Next question.

MedsCheck Program

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier. We learned recently that pharmacists and workers at Shoppers Drug Mart are under intense corporate pressure to perform medication reviews to increase their corporation’s profits. In one week in Ontario, Shoppers, which is owned by Galen Weston’s Loblaw corporation, made $1.4 million on reviews. One pharmacy has seen a 300% increase in reviews. Several pharmacists have serious ethical concerns about these corporate targets.

Speaker, when will the Premier do more than just talk tough, step in and ensure patient care and transparency is a priority over his corporate buddies’ profits?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: As you know, as soon as the issue was raised by a number of pharmacists, I asked the ministry to do a review, and of course now the Ontario Pharmacists Association is doing open houses and receiving feedback from pharmacists across Ontario.

I also want to remind the member opposite that we have over 5,000 pharmacies across Ontario—more independents, actually, than brand franchises—and they have been an incredible partner to ensure not only vaccine rollout and access in all communities across Ontario, but also ensuring, with the expansion of scope of practice for pharmacists, minor ailments. In January 2023, we brought in changes to scope of practice for pharmacies, and that has led to over 700,000 people who have gone to a pharmacist and been treated for their minor ailments.

We are making a difference because we are empowering all of our primary care practitioners, all of our physicians, all of the multidisciplinary teams that work in the health care sector to make sure that they are training and practising at their highest scope of practice.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Back to the Premier: Speaker, this is not the first time we have seen this government put corporate profits before public good. We’ve seen it with Ontario Place, Staples, ServiceOntario and, obviously, with the greenbelt scandal. Now we’re seeing the effects of the Conservative government and their corporate friends’ profiteering scheme in our health care system. We know more corporate profits in health care means worse patient care, longer wait times, less efficiency.

Speaker, when will the Premier say enough is enough, stop the transfer of taxpayer dollars to private corporations like his friends at Shoppers, and stand up for the publicly funded, publicly delivered, not-for-profit health care system that we all need and deserve in the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, I can’t believe the member opposite is suggesting that we should be taking over every single pharmacy in the province of Ontario. These are business owners who are working in the health care field that are providing exceptional service for the people of Ontario—800,000 people have accessed service in their community pharmacy since January 2023, and the member opposite is, what, suggesting that the government should be taking over pharmacies? Come on. Can we start actually thinking about how convenience in care and access to care is an important piece of our health care system?

Veterinary services

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Animals and animal-related agriculture are crucial to the economic stability of Ontario’s rural and remote communities. However, service gaps in rural, remote and northern communities are putting farmers and their operations at a disadvantage. They create risks to farmers and their livestock as well as jeopardizing the security of the food supply chain.

Our government must continue to support Ontario’s livestock farmers by increasing access to veterinary care and ensuring that support is available where it is needed. Speaker, could the minister please tell this House how our government is expanding access to veterinarian services?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you to the member opposite. She represents Carleton so well, and I’ve seen first-hand how well she connects with her farming communities. I thank her for that.

We’re connecting with our pet owners and farming communities as well at the ministry. By introducing the Enhancing Professional Care for Animals Act, we’re moving forward with five key deliverables. First and foremost, we’re formalizing the scope of practice for veterinary technicians so that they can assist their veterinarians with the services that are being asked for in their clinics. We’re also allowing the regulatory college to set requirements for continuing education that will be similar to other regulated professionals.

In addition to that, we’re streamlining the complaints resolution process so that people who have issues with vets will have their voices heard, but more importantly, if necessary, the vets will be cleared quickly. We’re going to increase penalties for bad actors. We’re going to ensure there’s greater public transparency and representation on the council. But most importantly, this legislation is reflecting what we’ve heard from over 300 stakeholders contributing.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, through you, thank you to the minister for the response. It’s great to hear how our government is introducing measures that will improve access to veterinary services.

Many regions across the province are experiencing a shortage of veterinarians who care for livestock, and this shortage puts a strain on the entire agricultural system. That is why it is essential our government implements measures to recruit and retain people in the veterinary profession. We must continue to support our farmers and maintain a healthy, safe and sustainable agri-food system.

Through you, Speaker, can the minister please explain how this bill will assist rural, remote and northern communities and address veterinary shortages across the province?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m really proud of the work that we’ve done, and I appreciate the support from key stakeholders like the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association, the College of Veterinarians and the Ontario vet tech association. When we were at their convention just a couple of weeks ago in Hamilton, 1,200 vet techs were there, and the magnitude of what we’re working to achieve through this legislation was humbling when I saw tears when we talked about the importance of broadening the scope of practice for vet techs. We’re finally recognizing their expertise and the training they’ve received.

They’ve been asking for this for years, and it’s our government, through the leadership of Premier Ford, that’s actually getting it done.

In addition to that, we’re working with the Minister of Colleges and Universities to expand veterinary seats. This is something that has been badly needed.

And in addition to that, I’m very pleased to say, in response to the need for large animal veterinarians, we’ve introduced an incentive program that will encourage recently graduated veterinarians to work in remote and northern communities, where it’s needed.

Health care

MPP Jamie West: The Conservative government likes to pretend hallway medicine is a thing of the past, but it continues to happen right now on their watch, and in Sudbury it’s even getting worse. Health Sciences North was designed for 412 patients; last month, they set a record high with 621. This means even more patients that are staying in hallways. One of the reasons that admittances are so high is that without access to primary care, many people are left to seek care in crowded emergency rooms, and it is vital that we clear the backlog by increasing access to family doctors because this will reduce the need for emergency visits.

My question, Speaker: Will the Conservative government support the NDP motion to fix the primary care shortage and put patients first?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Well, my question is, why have the NDP members been consistently voting against capital expansions of hospitals in the province of Ontario, expansions of primary care in the province of Ontario?

Every single time we bring forward initiatives and investments that are going to improve access in your community, you vote against them. It is beyond belief, frankly, that the NDP motion that is calling for more administration isn’t saying, “We support and agree with a tripling of the primary care expansion,” from our original announcement when we made it in Your Health.

To suggest that 78 primary care expansions of multidisciplinary teams is not going to make a difference in the province of Ontario is, frankly, individuals living in an alternative reality.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Again, I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair.

The supplementary question?

MPP Jamie West: I am talking about Sudbury, Ontario. At Health Sciences North, we have some of the worst overcrowding and hospital occupancy rates in Ontario.

Joyce is a senior from Sudbury, and while trying to recover from a near fatal scare, she was put in a shower room for her stay. And this is not uncommon in my city: no windows, no TV—a shower room.

Her daughter reported that on numerous occasions, complete strangers would walk in unannounced trying to find a bathroom or a place to wash up. Joyce’s daughter said, “The nurses and the PSWs work so hard under the circumstances they’re given and were so kind to us. The service is good—it’s the bed capacity that is the issue. They really need to expand.”

Speaker, this should not be acceptable to the Conservative government. My question: When is meaningful investment going to come so people like Joyce can recover with dignity?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Respectfully, after decades of neglect under the NDP and the Liberal governments, we’re getting it done: 50 expanded hospital capital builds, whether they’re new hospitals, expansions or renovations of existing facilities, to make sure that we have the added capacity that we need in a growing population.

And, Speaker, why can we do that? Why can we continue to invest in health and continue to expand the health care budget? Because we have an economy where people want to live and grow their business in the province of Ontario. When you have those opportunities, you see expansions that can happen under Premier Ford’s government. We are making those investments—50 capital expansions in the province of Ontario. There is more work to be done, and it cannot be solved overnight after decades of neglect, but we’re getting the job done.

Seniors’ housing

Mr. Stephen Blais: My question is for the Premier. The Premier often speaks about how important seniors are, calling them the backbone of our province, and I agree. But once again, his words are writing cheques the actions of his government simply can’t cash. Facing fee increases of up to $1,000 a month, dozens, if not hundreds, of seniors living at the Promenade retirement home in Orléans are facing eviction or are being pressured to move. Shady business practices and poor consumer protection, lack of government regulation on fee increases and removal of rent control on new buildings have all led to a toxic environment, undue anxiety, stress and fear for these seniors losing their homes.

Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier call seniors the backbone of our province when his government fails to offer even the most basic protections to help them age gracefully?

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Thank you for the question. Seniors have worked their whole lives to have a comfortable retirement home and age well in their community. Our government has stepped in to provide relief, but the opposition stands against it. We created the Ontario Seniors Care at Home Tax Credit to help seniors pay for home care. They voted against it. We invested $1 billion to home and community care and serves to fund 500 local organizations providing care for seniors. They voted against it.

The opposition should answer their constituents on why they are voting against all the support for seniors.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question?

Mr. Stephen Blais: I agree: Seniors have worked their entire lives to stay in their homes and stay in the community where they raised their families. These seniors in Orléans are being kicked out of their home, away from their families, away from the community where they raised their families and are trying to grow old.

The owner of the Promenade retirement home is the same developer in Orléans who failed to build homes for three years, holding onto deposits, and then finally cancelled those contracts and immediately put the lots back on the market at an increased fee. Now seniors living in his retirement home are subject to scare tactics and enormous pressure to agree to massive fee increases, some of which are $1,000 a month or more.

Seniors at the Promenade are reporting unclear documentation from the provider, incomplete information on what the fees are and are not and pressure to sign documents without full explanations.

The government continues to reward their friends and supporters while seniors in Ontario are paying more.

As his friends record record profits from his friendship, what will the Premier say to these seniors in Orléans who are being forced to leave their homes because of his government’s failure to act?

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: As a senior myself, I want to let you know I take this personally and this Premier takes it personally. He understands how important it is to keep seniors safe.

In 2020, Ontario invested $2.8 billion in the Keeping Ontarians Safe plan. This investment during the pandemic ensured we would be prepared for future waves of COVID-19. We are ready and prepared for increased outbreaks, and we are keeping seniors safe.

Taxation

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. Last fall, the federal Liberals finally recognized what our government has been saying for years: The carbon tax is raising the price of everything. After years of high energy costs, the Prime Minister announced a pause on the carbon tax, but only on home heating oil. For the more than 97% of Ontarians who rely on propane and natural gas to heat their homes, this measure provides no relief. And to make matters worse, on April 1, the Liberals are raising the carbon tax by 23%. This is ludicrous.

Our government must continue to call on the federal government to eliminate the carbon tax once and for all. Can the minister explain the impact this increase will have on Ontario families?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks to the member for Newmarket–Aurora for a great question this morning.

Once again, I’m going to stand up in the Legislature, as I have for the last several months—or, actually, a couple of years now—and talk about the fact that the federal carbon tax imposed by Justin Trudeau and the Liberals is driving up the cost of everything, from gasoline to food. People are choosing between heating and eating in this country.

And the huddle has broken over here. The Liberals are back on the line. We still don’t know exactly how they feel about the queen of the carbon tax Bonnie Crombie’s position today. She revealed it about 45 minutes ago—that she won’t be imposing a provincial carbon tax.

Our question for the Ontario Liberal caucus—because we know we’ve had members of that caucus stan