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

May 9, 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-May-09 vol. A (PDF)

L156A - Thu 9 May 2024 / Jeu 9 mai 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 9 May 2024 Jeudi 9 mai 2024

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Five Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs, cinq

Correction of record

Members’ Statements

Lois Hunter

Agri-food industry

Birchmount Green

La francophonie à Thunder Bay

Maverick’s Donuts

Injured workers

Yom Hazikaron and Israeli Independence Day

Guildwood Day

Erie Shores Healthcare mobile health clinic

Freemasonry

Introduction of Visitors

Pharmacare

Question Period

Government accountability

Affordable housing

Affordable housing

Taxation

Municipal finances

Education issues

Consumer protection

City of Ottawa

Taxation

Public safety

Addiction services

Taxation

Consumer protection

Taxation

Business of the House

Visitor

Answers to oral questions

House sittings

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Petitions

Wearing of kaffiyehs

Health care

Tenant protection

Social assistance

Post-secondary education

Post-secondary education

Social assistance

Health care

Tenant protection

Post-secondary education

Education funding

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Five Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs, cinq

The House met at 0900.

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

Prières.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next, we’ll have a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Five Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs, cinq

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 8, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 190,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters / Projet de loi 190, Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives à l’emploi et au travail et à d’autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When we last debated Bill 190, the member for Sudbury had the floor. I recognize the member for Sudbury to continue his remarks.

MPP Jamie West: I spoke very briefly, maybe about five minutes or a little less, before question period yesterday on this bill. Mainly, I was able to mention to the Minister of Labour that, while at FONOM, I was able to speak with two wildland firefighters about the bill, and they were very excited about the presumptive coverage. It was actually during question period that I was able to go over and show the Minister of Labour the photo we took together. I’m glad that we were able to work on all sides to have that pass. I think that’s a wonderful thing to be able to have.

There are six schedules to this bill. I’m going to try to touch on all of them, but some of them are a little lighter, so I’ll skim over them.

For example, in

schedule 1, there’s a

section that just corrects French language. As long as my colleague is happy with the translation, I’m not going to overrule him; his French is obviously much better than mine.

There’s a subsection in

schedule 1 about high school apprenticeships, and I think there’s potential with this, and I know there is some legislation that has to be built in around this. I think it’s really important.

As a high school student, I was steered away from shop classes. My best friend really loved auto shop; I wanted to take auto shop just so I could have a small conversation with him. My guidance counsellor said, “Well, you’ve got good grades; you don’t need shop,” and steered me away from it. And then after I graduated from college and graduated from university, I started taking an apprenticeship as an electrician.

So I think there is a missed opportunity for a lot of our students. Also, I have some concerns about this—because, as you can tell, Speaker, I’m not an electrician today. It wasn’t a good fit for me to be an electrician. I realized during my apprenticeship that many of my colleagues loved doing their job, and I just was going to work and getting a paycheque. So my concern for these students is that, when you pick a career path early on in your life, maybe it isn’t what you want to do; it doesn’t mean it’s a bad career, but it’s not a good fit for you.

I want to ensure that our students are set up for success so that they are not pigeonholed into one career, so they don’t have to backtrack and upgrade if they want to switch careers. I’m also concerned that it could limit their possibility to move forward. Before starting here, I was hired at Vale, and one of the requirements to work at Vale was to have post-secondary education or to be a tradesperson. Many, many workplaces have functions in place where you’re unable to climb the ladder if you don’t have a post-secondary degree. There’s an expectation.

So it may limit you in terms of being a foreman or moving on in your career, past that.

I think these are things that we can resolve, but I think this is the time, during debate, where we could talk about, what are things that we want to do and will this pathway allow people, if they decide trades isn’t for them, to move into different career paths?

I’m also concerned when it comes to trades. I’ve been hearing more and more conversations about unscrupulous employers—not the largest employers, but there are smaller employers that are using a black market economy, where the journeyman is going out with helpers or people who are apprentices but who are not registered to be apprentices, and then they find out after working for two or three years that they have no hours, even though they’ve worked thousands of hours. This is something we have to focus on as well—these workplace helpers, these undocumented apprentices.

Yesterday I was meeting with the carpenters union and we talked about the black market that has arisen on the trades side. We have to focus on that, not just because it’s exploitive of those workers, but because there’s a lot of tax theft that happens through the black market, where people are paying with cash. I know people are trying to cut corners and save money, but the reality is that when you are paying with cash, if someone gets hurt, there isn’t WSIB for them; when you are paying with cash, you may or may not have a qualified tradesperson.

When I was an electrician, we went to a house where they did renovations and someone unqualified had wired it with speaker wire. Speaker wire is not designed for 120 volts to run through it, and pretty much you’ve created a fire hazard in your newly renovated rec room.

There are things that we can do when we ensure that these trade jobs—and as the minister often says and we all say, these are good-paying trades jobs, but they’re not good-paying if you’re paid under the table; they’re not good-paying if you’re not recognized as a real apprentice; and they’re not good-paying if you never have that pathway to becoming a Red Seal tradesperson or journeyperson. In order to do this, we have to increase inspections and enforcement. In 2018-19, there were 2,345 proactive workplace inspections; by 2022-23, the number had dropped down to 788.

We went from more than 2,000 inspections to less than 1,000. That is a really precarious drop, and I think this is why these workplace helpers are rising up and this underground economy is rising up. We really have to have people going out into workplaces and talking to people and checking for their apprentice card and making sure the documents are there. If we’re promising people this pathway to a better future with these good-paying jobs—as the carpenters union tells me all the time, they always get their apprentices to go back and show the guidance counsellors their first paycheque.

If we’re trying to get people into these good-paying jobs, but they’re being exploited by bad bosses, it’s our responsibility as legislators, as the people who make the laws of the land, to ensure these laws are enforced.

Schedule 2 has to do with advertising job postings. If you publicly advertise a job, you have to declare that it’s for an existing vacancy or not. I’m not aware of issues when people are putting out jobs that don’t exist, but I suppose it’s happening. Then it requires the employer to respond to applicants who have applied for the job and who have had the interview and just let them know they weren’t successful. I think that makes sense. I know it’s a standard that we have as New Democrats. Our workers are unionized.

We have OPSEU and we have COPE workers—OPSEU workers here at Queen’s Park and COPE workers in our constituency offices. When we have job postings, it’s all very regulated because we work very closely with our unions about the job postings and procedures, and one of those things that HR ensures they always do is respond to the people who have applied to let them know if they’ve been selected or not. It also requires the employer to retain copies of all the prescribed information for three years, I guess so they can prove—or if they’re audited they can show it.

I think this sounds good; I’m just not sure how many employees out there are putting this at the top of their job hunt wish list in terms of what they want. It’s great that if you applied for a job, someone is going to phone you and say, “Hey, you didn’t get it,” but the reality is that a lot of people would figure that out when weeks go by and they didn’t get a response. It’s a nice, polite thing; you can’t really argue against it, but I don’t know how much it helps people at the end of the day.

For example, something that would help people is enforcing wage theft—in 2018, it was about $10 million, and that wasn’t collected.

The Workers Action Centre sent a quote to me: “There’s an epidemic of wage theft in this province. Increasing fines will not, by itself, address the crisis....

“We need effective collection of stolen wages when the Ministry of Labour has ordered an employer to pay back workers’ wages.”

I thought this was fascinating, because I’ve always had this number of $10 million of wage theft in my head, because that was the number in 2018: The Toronto Star did an investigation on wage theft, and between 2020 and 2022, in those two years, there were more than 8,000—almost 8,500—successful claims for workplace violations for wage theft. If you calculate all those together, workers in our province are owed more than $36 million by employers who have stolen money from them, the wage theft employers. And by the end of 2022, the government was able to recover less than half, less than 40% of that.

So if you’re into the numbers, $36 million was owed to Ontario workers, and the Ontario government was only able to collect $13 million, so these bad actors who are ripping people off, these bad bosses we hear about when the Conservatives speak about being tough on bad bosses, got to keep $23 million of stolen wages from employees—$23 million in wage theft they got to keep in their pockets, that they stole out of the pockets of workers. That’s something we need to resolve.

What we need is a way to protect workers from reprisals, as well, because that wage theft number that I spoke about earlier—the $36 million that was stolen from workers—that’s only from workers who were able to report this and tell people what happened. That number is probably a lot higher, because a lot of employees are afraid to report anything because they will be fired, and it’s better to at least have some money in your pocket to pay your bills, especially with the cost of everything going up.

Many people, because of the high cost of living, because of the rent going through the roof, can’t afford to report it or say anything. And there are a lot of newcomers to our province who are waiting for their Canadian citizenship to come through, and they are not going to say a word to wreck any of that.

So what we need are those proactive inspections. We need to get those workplace inspectors back into the workplaces. We need real protection from wrongful dismissal, not two or three years from now, when we make it up to you but—that real strong protection for those workers.

And honestly, we need to start collecting the money. There’s an incentive. If you’re a bad boss out there and you know that less than half, less than 40% of that—$23 million is what they got to keep—of the $36 million was taken back, that incentivizes you to continue doing what you’re doing because they’re probably not going to catch you, and if they do, you don’t have to pay it back anyway.

We have to be united on this, and I think the Conservative government would be—but I’ve been saying this for a long time. I’ve been saying this for six years. I’ve been asking about estimates on this. Instead of that $10 million going down, it’s increasing. We cannot have the amount of wage theft climbing on a regular basis.

I’m skipping over

section 3, but I’ll go back to it.

Section 3 is about sick notes.

Section 4 has to do with fines.

Section 4 is about these higher maximum fines for individuals who are convicted of an offence. If you were convicted of an offence, your maximum fine used to be $50,000, and it’s now going up to $100,000. Again, this is an example of the Conservative government saying that we’re being tough on bad bosses, we’re sticking it to the bad bosses.

But I’ve asked in the past, during estimates and other meetings: How many times has the maximum penalty been filed? How many employers have gotten this maximum penalty? Surely, if you’re raising it from $50,000, it must have been handed out time and time again, and these bad bosses are continuing to do it, so you’ve got to raise it to $100,000. The reality, though, is that fines of the previous maximum of $50,000 are almost never levied. I tried looking for data, and the highest fine I could find, from 2022, was $31,250.

For individuals, we’ve increased their maximum fine, from $50,000 to $100,000, but we’ve only ever had them pay about $33,000, so we never hit that maximum of $50,000 in the first place. And corporations—their fines start at $100,000 and go up to $500,000, but the maximum fine that anyone in Ontario, in 2022, was ever given was $31,000. So why are we raising the maximum fines—my gut is so that during press conferences and headlines, they can say how tough they’re being on these bad bosses, but the reality is, it doesn’t look like they are at all. This is meaningless if you’re not enforcing.

It’s meaningless if you’re not doing the maximum. If the highest fine is almost $20,000 less than the previous maximum, what’s the point? How is that going to hold anyone accountable, and what’s the point of raising this?

So there’s this theme of being tough on bad bosses, but if you look into that—I mentioned wage theft earlier. The last bill had a

section on wage theft. I’m not going down the path of how it was already a law and they added another law to duplicate it. But it was already a law. Ontario workers had to come together and prove that $36 million was stolen from them, but the bad bosses got to keep $23 million of that, of wage theft. This bill is increasing the maximum bad-boss fine to $100,000, but the highest fine levied before was $20,000 less than the previous max of $50,000. That doesn’t make sense.

It’s not in this bill, but there’s a

section on penalties in the Employment Standards Act that says if you’re a bad boss, you get a penalty like a fine, like a ticket. In 2018, the Conservative government decreased those administrative penalties, if you violate the Employment Standards Act. It used to be $350, but that was dropped down to $250, and the $700 penalty was dropped to $500, and the $1,500 penalty was dropped down to $1,000. In reality, it’s an incentive to be worse, because the higher the penalty was in the past, the more that these bad bosses will save under the Conservative government.

You would save a hundred bucks if it was a small penalty of $350, but you’ll save 500 bucks for the $1,500 penalty. So I don’t buy into this. It’s a smokescreen.

I’ve said this before on these bills—that these are headline bills. They sound good at a press conference, but if you scratch beneath the surface, there’s not much there about what’s happening.

So,

section 3—I said I’d come back to

section 3, about sick notes. This is an example of that. It sounds great in a statement. You get to come forward and say, “We’re ending sick notes”—something we’ve been calling for for a very long time. But when you read the section, it says the new subsections 6 and 6.1 would allow employers to retain the right to require evidence reasonable in the circumstances of entitlement to sick leave, but they would prohibit employers from requiring a certificate from a qualified health practitioner as evidence.

So you can ask people why they’re sick and how they’re sick and to prove that they’re sick—but technically, they can’t ask you that, because you can’t ask for the health requirements of it. It feels very murky to me, and maybe, through committee, this will be straightened out and clarified. But when I read this, it sounds like you technically can but you technically can’t—so, ultimately, what you’ll have is people asking for sick notes because the law isn’t clear. If it was just, “You can’t do this anymore. You can’t ask for sick notes,” that would be very clear for people, and people would understand.

It would help employers, who need that clarity. The Minister of Red Tape Reduction was always talking about how there are too many rules and people are getting confused. Don’t write a complicated rule that you can ask what you can’t ask; just make it clear. Sick notes are a waste of time. Just get rid of it.

The thing, too, with sick notes is that in 2018, when the Conservative government was first elected, one of the things they did was table Bill 47. It removed a ton of worker rights and workers’ abilities. It turned back the clock on a lot of things that employers were able to do, and one of those things was about paid protection leave—it used to be paid sick days, and they had 10 of them; they peeled that back to three PEL days. And so now we’re at a point where Ontario is the third-worst when it comes to job-protected sick leave days.

We’re behind Nova Scotia and Nunavut, but we’re the third-lowest when it comes to protective job leave. That alone is a little bit embarrassing, but on top of that, we’ve just come through a pandemic, where we all recognized that if you isolate yourself when you’re sick, it’s going to be better off for your family and community; it’s actually going to be better off for your workplace. We have all been in that meeting where the person comes in the room and they’re like, “I’ve got a bit of a cold.” The first thing you think is, “Thanks.

Now I’ll have a bit of a cold.” I’d much rather the person stay home and get well and not share the cold with me, so I don’t share it with the family, so I don’t share it with my co-workers, so I don’t share it with a person when I’m going to pick up groceries. We know it’s better to stay home.

The other thing with sick notes is that there’s this mythology that the sick note is magically going to root out people who are lying about being sick. But that isn’t what happens with a sick note. When you need a sick note, you go to your doctor, and they write a note that says, “The patient claims they were sick. They’re not sick anymore.” They don’t diagnose you. They don’t prove it to anybody. It’s just a formality. So if you’re somebody who’s lying about being sick that day, the sick note is just an obstacle; it’s a formality.

I don’t know what it is now—it used to be 15 bucks—but you pay a couple of bucks, you come in and you give it to them. It doesn’t prove anything. And that’s for people who are breaking those rules and using it unscrupulously. There are some people who would do that. But the majority of people, when they’re sick, they’re sick—legitimately sick.

With sick notes, what we’re doing is, we’re telling people who are sick, “Don’t stay home and take care of yourself. Bring yourself somewhere where other people are sick and vulnerable. Share your cold or whatever you have with those people. Go in that waiting room where everyone is right beside each other and coughing on each other. Go there, where moms are with their babies, and spread whatever cold you have that you’d normally get over in a day or two.

Spread it around and share it with everybody else, and maybe get part of their colds too, so that you can get a piece of paper that says you were sick—“I saw the doctor. I showed him my runny nose, and he said ‘Yep, you’re sick. Go home. Have an Aspirin. Get some sleep. Have some soup.’” This is nonsense.

Or, you can’t go because you’re so sick you can’t make it—if it’s anything gastro and you’ve got to be minutes to the washroom because you’re going to be physically sick, you’ll wait till you’re well, and you’ll miss another day of work because you’ve got to sit around in a busy walk-in clinic or doctor’s office or emergency room, which are clogging up for people who are actually sick that day, who were in emergency, while you’re waiting there, flipping through your phone and killing time, saying, “I used to be sick, but I’m not anymore. But my boss said I’ve got to be here.

So, sorry, everybody else, I’m in the queue.” It makes no sense. It’s bad business, and it’s costly.

Section 5, I’ll just briefly skim over, just because—it will allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations. I’m not really sure what the intent of that is, but LGIC tends to be thrown in a lot of Conservative bills, and so I just thought, “Ah, another thing for the LGIC to do.”

Interjection.

MPP Jamie West: Cabinet; sorry. Yes. It’s fine. I’m making a note of it. I just don’t want to be skipping over stuff.

In

schedule 3, they’re making changes in the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act. I sort of like this. It’s not completely clear to me, but I think it’s a step in the right direction. My colleague from Scarborough Southwest has been doing a lot of work about recognizing qualifications from people who are coming from other countries and living in Canada and becoming new Canadian citizens. We all know these stories. You go in a taxi or an Uber or something and the person driving the cab has all these qualifications, but they’re not recognized here.

The wording is “to set out requirements for ‘reasonable alternatives’ to documented proof of qualifications.” I think this is a way for people to prove that they could be tradespeople or doctors or dentists. I shared a story a while ago about a dentist from India going to school at Cambrian College and taking the dental hygienist program because their qualifications aren’t being recognized locally.

We need to fix this stuff, and if this helps fix it, I think it’s a really good step in the right direction. It’s just not as clear in here—this is probably something we’ll be able to work on in committee and get some clarity in committee. But if that is the intent, I think that’s a very promising thing, and I think that’s going to help people in Ontario, and people will be more successful. Hopefully, that’s the intent, because if it is, I think that’s wonderful.

Schedule 4 goes into the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I’m a bit of a safety nerd, so I apologize if I bore everyone with this. I’ve always been passionate about health and safety. I got involved, when I was working at Vale, back when it was Inco, in health and safety when I first got hired and I kind of fell in love with it. One of the reasons I’m not an electrician is because I wasn’t super-passionate about being an electrician. My colleagues all loved being journeypeople, and I knew it wasn’t for me. I enjoyed the work, but I wasn’t as passionate as they were.

But when I got involved with health and safety, I understood what they saw in the work they were doing—it has always been something with me. I’ve had a lot of time to instruct others. I’ve done safety investigations. Unfortunately, I’ve been involved with fatalities, as well. Before I got elected, I taught health and safety to second- and third-year students at Laurentian University, which I always enjoyed.

Section 1 of this

schedule is going to update the definition for “industrial establishment” and clarify that it refers to an office. I think that helps people and office workers, because the way health and safety legislation works is, there’s the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which is the basic ground rules for everybody, and then there are regulations for all different workplaces, and this one clarifies for office workers that the regulation you should be following is industrial. I don’t know if office workers see themselves as an industrial place, but at least there’s a place they can point to. It helps clarify for them, and also for Ministry of Labour inspectors, what regulation to follow.

So you’d have the Occupational Health and Safety Act—and then, in my workplace, we were a mining site, and so we would be regulation 854, which is mines and mining plants. It gets even more confusing because, if there’s a construction project at my work site, then we follow the Occupational Health and Safety Act, we follow regulation 854 for mining and mining sites, and then we have to follow regulation 213/91, which is construction regulations. That gets a little weedy, but it scratches that safety nerd itch of mine, to be able to explain all that.

I think the idea of that is really, at the core, to help workers in an office when looking at regulations, so that they can open up the industrial regulations and see what applies specifically to them, because it can be confusing if you’re looking at the wrong regulations.

Another

section is going to update the

definitions for “workplace harassment” and “workplace sexual harassment” to include certain virtual activities. I think this is important, as well. There’s a lot in here where it talks about moving things online-only, and I’m not a fan of moving stuff online-only, but I think we need to recognize that the world of work has changed and a lot of stuff is happening virtually. We know this in this room, but all over the place things are changing, and I think you need to be clear about this.

Many of us—maybe all of us—have spoken with representatives from the Women of Ontario Say No. It has to do with workplace harassment for Legislatures and the accountability for them at all levels of government and how, for some reason, if you’re in a normal, regular workplace, there are very clear rules about harassment, and it doesn’t seem to be as clear if you’re an elected official—federal, municipal or provincial—and so this isn’t a thing that has been addressed just because workplace harassment and sexual harassment were introduced in the act maybe 10 years, probably 15 years ago. It needs to be resolved.

Just a few weeks ago, all of us were united in recognizing that intimate partner violence was an epidemic. It has gone on to committee, and I want to thank our colleague from Windsor West for the work, and all of our colleagues who moved that. I also want to recognize the Conservative government, the independent Liberals, the Greens and independents for the unanimous recognition of the importance of this—intimate partner violence and concern for it. I really want it to come back quickly but stronger than ever to ensure we start holding people accountable and making life better for these—primarily women who are being hurt.

It’s also going to provide a new definition for “washroom facility.” I don’t know what the definition is going to be. It’s weird; every Working for Workers bill seems to have something about a bathroom in it. I think it’s important. You can’t really argue about, you should have a clean bathroom, whatever else—but a lot of workplaces already do, and if they’re not, you could actually complain under the general duty clause, which I’ll get into later. There’s a requirement to keep your stuff in working order already.

Then there’s a bunch of sections about having things in accessible electronic formats. I am fine with having that, but I want it to be a “yes, and” conversation. I think that if we’re telling people that it only has to be online—we saw this, for example, when they changed updating your health card and your driver’s licence to online-only and not mailing out the records.

Now people are getting tickets, or people are going for health care and they can’t get health care because their health card is expired, but they didn’t get a letter reminding them; or being pulled over—and not just a ticket for maybe running a red light or speeding or whatever your traffic infraction is; you also get a ticket because your licence expired, but you didn’t know because the online version is there now.

We all know people who are not tech-savvy. We all know people who are not good on their phones. There are people in the Legislature who are not really great on their phones or computers—the Premier, for example. I can’t remember when it was, but I remember they were rushing to get him a laptop—and I guess he has a stash of BlackBerrys because he prefers the BlackBerry and moving over to a new type of phone is difficult.

In my workplace, we used Apple phones forever, and I wanted to get an Android phone when I got here, and I couldn’t make that connection; it was too steep of a learning curve. I could figure it out eventually, but life is busy, and so I went back to Apple on it.

So saying things are online and it will be okay—it becomes sort of that point of view where it works for you but it may not work for others. Workplaces are comprised of people from all different backgrounds. I’m not against having things in electronic format, but I am concerned if we’re not going to have the paper versions.

I really think a way to get around this and a way to resolve this is if we amend this

section to say that the committee can make this decision—the joint health and safety committee. I think that’s a smart way of addressing this, because the Occupational Health and Safety Act—the core of it is what’s known as the IRS, the internal responsibility system. Not to go too far back, but the idea after the Ham Commission was that they had recognized that it’s the workers, the employers and the supervisors in the workplace who know the work best.

So instead of the government Legislatures and the government agencies coming out and telling people, “This is what’s best,” they do a framework with the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the regulations, but they allow the committees to work together through the internal responsibility system to spell out what works best for them.

So if you have a workplace where it’s all digital, where everyone is working digitally all the time, it doesn’t make sense to have a paper copy in an office if everyone is working from home anyway.

But in other workplaces where your workforce wouldn’t be successful on a computer or you don’t have access to computers in the workplace, which could be just not set up for it or because there isn’t the connectivity, especially in northern and rural areas; or maybe, for security reasons, you’re not able to access computers or anything like that—those committees can make the recommendation that the paper copies continue to be in place. That’s how you resolve this issue, depending on what committee it is.

I’ll give you a simple example about this.

Section 3 repeals the requirement to have the names and work locations of the joint health and safety committee members posted in the workplace as a paper copy. Workplaces are supposed to have a bulletin board somewhere, and there’s a bunch of stuff that will be posted there that workers can easily access. They could pull the minutes down. They can look at who the committees are and who represents them. this act would remove that requirement to have that billboard in place and to know who represents you. The reality is, most people aren’t safety nerds like me.

Most people don’t know what JHSC stands for, and when you tell them that’s the joint health and safety committee, they don’t know what that means either, because they just don’t know. So if we are removing even saying, “Here’s who your safety people are. You could talk to them if you have questions,” in a visible spot, they won’t even know to look online for it because they don’t know what a joint heath and safety committee is. They don’t even know there are meetings.

I know this from a workplace that takes health and safety really seriously—that some people, they just don’t know, and they aren’t aware, so as we remove things from their line of sight, we make it more difficult for them.

Two weeks ago, we had the Day of Mourning, April 28, and one of the things I’ve noticed about the Day of Mourning is that we’ve sort of flatlined when it comes to workplace injuries across Canada—it has plateaued at about a thousand; it goes up and down a little bit, but it sort of floats at around a thousand. If we want to bring that number down, we have to have improved communication, more effective communication. If we want fewer workplace injuries and deaths, we need workers, supervisors and employees to have easy access to that information.

That’s why I was suggesting that a good way to get around this is to have the joint health and safety committee decide what the best format is, and then you tweak, through committee, the wording of this, so instead of “shall,” it will be “may”—“may” be provided electronically. Those committees can decide; the workers, the employers, the supervisors can decide what works best for them—paper only, online only, a mixture of both. I think that would make a lot better sense to me.

The other thing about when you remove these paper documents—for example, one subsection would remove the reference to “in a workplace” so people can have virtual meetings. I think that’s fine, but I think the committee should be able to choose if they’re going to do them virtually or in the workplace. More and more workplaces are becoming virtual, but my concern is that if you start having only virtual meetings, you don’t get to have that sidebar conversation and you don’t get to see the confusion on someone’s face on a Zoom screen.

We’ve all been there with people in a meeting and you don’t get the reference that’s happening in there. In in-person meetings, someone can say, “It looks like you’re not aligned with us. Do you have any concerns?” It’s easier to pick up in a room.

The other part of it is that there’s this term in health and safety that’s known as the “imbalance of power.” It recognizes that employees are not on the same power level; they don’t have the same ability as the supervisor does or as the employer does or as the instructor does. The employees, basically, can be fired. I know that management can be fired, as well, but it’s difficult to be on a one-to-one footing when you’re arguing about the solution to control a hazard in the workplace. It can be intimidating for people, if your job could be on the line.

Section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act is supposed to protect you from that, but there are a lot of people who still get fired, and a lot of people don’t know about

section 50. Even when it’s filed, it’s not always enforced.

As we talk about moving things more virtually and moving things online, my first-hand concern from people who are being hurt in the workplace and who are being killed in the workplace is that the less information that people have, the more likely we’re going to have repeat incidents. There’s an expression in health and safety that you become safer because something bad happens to you or because someone tells you about something bad that happened to them. I want to ensure that people have more safety awareness and more health and safety training as they go out there.

In fact, before I got elected, at Vale, Bryson Gray, who was the safety supervisor, and I would go in the plant and do these virtual walks with supervisors. I want to compliment Bryson for doing this. It was his idea. We would go out and Bryson would be a Ministry of Labour inspector, I would be the worker rep—it wasn’t hard for me because I was already the worker rep—and we would walk around as if he was visiting with a Ministry of Labour inspector. This was helpful for these supervisors to understand what that experience was like and what to do. Through that, Bryson was able to provide a lot of education.

Previously, we would do a safety inspection with a supervisor, and the inspection basically was us saying, “Oh, this is wrong and this is wrong and this is wrong.” Basically, we were just saying, “We’re smarter than you, we’re smarter than you, we’re smarter than you, we’re smarter than you.”

But when Bryson took on that role as Ministry of Labour inspector, it was more educational and informative. He would randomly ask questions about stuff, and he’d ask questions about things that weren’t unsafe—just randomly, “How much does that weigh?” The supervisor would get all stressed out, and then we’d explain to him it’s just that sometimes they have questions about the structure of the building. There’s nothing wrong with answering the questions. You’re not always in trouble.

That creates a dialogue where people become safer because the supervisor has a better understanding of the rules and why the rules exist and what they mean. They don’t feel like someone is talking down to them. They feel like someone is helping them get better in their career—because if you’re good at health and safety, you have a better chance of climbing that ladder; because as you climb the ladder, you become more involved with health and safety and you become more responsible for more people in your workplace not getting hurt.

Section 5 talks about washroom facilities. It’s weird, because the Occupational Health and Safety Act is going to have a

section about washrooms for construction projects, but the construction regulations already have a really thorough

section about washrooms. It’s amazing how detailed it is. The previous bill had a whole

section I called “this is already a law,” and this is one of those areas where this is already a law. The construction projects regulation 213/91 has a whole

section about bathrooms. It’s a little weird to put this into the Occupational Health and Safety Act. You can make the argument that, well, it’s better to be there twice because then people would be even more aware of it. It’s under the duties, but the duty of the constructor, the duty of the employer and duty of a supervisor, duty of an employee—there are all these sorts of requirements. You have a duty to follow the act. You have a duty to report hazards. You have a duty to ensure that the procedures are followed. You have a duty to post your harassment policy in the workplace.

It’s not really where this should be in the act. You can make the argument because we wrote “duty” beside it, but it’s not the same thing. So it’s a little confusing, a little bit of a bizarre thing for people who write regulations and legislation to do, to sort of muddy the water. Also, like I said before, it’s already a law. This already exists, and it’s spelled out a lot more clearly than this add-on would be. It goes back again to the sort of headline section—“Look what we’re doing. We’re ensuring that construction projects have washrooms.” But there’s already legislation that does that.

And then they have—I’m just going to go through a couple of these “this is already a law.”

Section 5 will have a requirement that a constructor shall ensure that, on a project, washroom facilities provided to workers by the constructor are maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. I know I keep saying this a lot, but I just want to prove it. In the construction regulations: “The facilities shall be serviced, cleaned and sanitized as frequently as necessary to maintain them in a clean and sanitary condition”—already a law.

This bill is going to ensure that we “keep, maintain and make available records of the cleaning of washroom facilities.”

Construction regulations:

“The constructor shall keep at the project for the duration of the project,

“(

a) a record of the servicing, cleaning and sanitizing of the facilities; and

“(

b) a copy of the document required under subsection”—23.1 of the act.

It’s weird to keep tabling legislation duplicating existing legislation—and the existing legislation is actually written better than this.

Subsection 23.1(3) of this act will add “may establish new or modified requirements with respect to washroom facilities.”

I couldn’t find the exact wording to spell it out and I didn’t want to read the whole section—there are a couple of pages about washrooms—but in the construction regulations, it spells out all the different types of washrooms requirements. It spells out, for the number of employees, the number of toilets you need, the number of urinals that are required, the number of sinks. It spells out how much hot water you need, wash facilities, soap and water, hand sanitizer—all of that is spelled out in way more detail than I could—I bet you I could fill the hour just reading that

section of the construction projects.

Why are we doing this? Why are we writing legislation that already exists and duplicating it? My two thoughts are, one, it’s about headlines, so when you have a press conference for people who are uninformed, you can say, “We’re ensuring that you have the right amount of washrooms in construction projects,” and most people who don’t work in construction projects wouldn’t know, and they’ll say, “That sounds good.” But they don’t say, “Oh, we’re holding a press conference to let you know we’re tabling legislation that already exists—just as a duplicate of what’s already there.

It’s actually a little weaker than what’s already there, but hopefully we’re going to get in the news on this. We don’t have any other ideas, so we’re just duplicating what already exists out there.”

I’m starting to wonder if this is a make-work project for the minister of red tape reduction. The Ministry of Labour duplicates legislation, and then that ensures the minister of red tape reduction is never out of a job because then he gets to look unhappy and say, “Oh, my God, there’s all this duplicate legislation. I’m so busy.” It’s a little sarcastic, but how can you have a minister talking about reducing red tape and saying, “There’s too much legislation. There’s too much duplication,” and then at the same time, you have another minister going—and every single one of these bills—tabling legislation that’s already law. It boggles the mind.

Speaking of “already law,” I had a whole section, last time I debated the bill, that was called “this is already a law.” I have a

section in this one—and I went through the parts that were already a law, but I have a

section in this part that—I just want to clarify to people who are watching this and maybe my colleagues, when they ask me questions afterwards, that this is not in the bill.

At the press event that led off the kickoff of this bill, there was a lot of conversation about the requirement that sanitary products will be available on all construction job sites. That was in the press conference, but it’s not in this bill. Two bills ago, it was about firefighter coverage, and people kept asking me—my colleagues were asking me during the Q&A portion of the debate, “Will you support firefighter presumptive cancer coverage?” It was two bills ago. They didn’t exist in that bill; it came in the following one.

So if there are questions about sanitary products available on construction sites—I think it’s an amazing idea; I think it’s a wonderful idea. We have tabled legislation about having free access to sanitary products on a regular basis. We will pass them in a heartbeat any time you want. But it’s not in this bill.

At a different press event, the Minister of Labour said that this bill would bring in job-protected leave that’s in line with federal levels. The minister, I think, actually spoke about this yesterday during his debate, but it’s not in this bill. It’s a good idea; it’s not in this bill.

At another Bill 190 press event, the minister announced that there will be a new secondary-school-to-trades program, but I don’t see that in this bill. There is some stuff about changing ways for people to graduate and get into trades school, but it’s not in this bill. And so,

schedule 1, I think, can move towards that. This could be the first step of that happening.

I also want to be clear that the firefighters—I talked about two bills ago, that the firefighter presumptive cancer coverage wasn’t in the bill; it was in the next bill.

I’m not saying these are bad ideas. In fact, I agree with most of these ideas. But when you’re having your press conferences, maybe talk about what’s in that actual bill—not on the to-do list at some point, because that’s confusing for people.

If you’re very excited about sanitary products being available on construction job sites, and we’re trying to attract more and more women to construction, and you’re thinking this is going to happen—we’re all busy. It’s only us in this room and maybe the people who work with us who know, day to day, what legislation is going on and talk about it. Everyone else is busy with their job, and they’re busy with getting their kids to practice and everything else, so they’re just hearing the headlines.

So if you heard this and you show up at work and they don’t have it and then you’re frustrated and upset—one, you’re upset at all of us, because they don’t know it’s a Conservative bill, and they think it’s all of us; we’re all “government.” Secondly, you’re upset with your employer or supervisor because they’re not following the law—the law that doesn’t exist. So we have to get this right. Hopefully, it will come in the next bill and we could be supportive of it then.

I’m going to skip over the electronic format because I’ve talked about that already and why I’m against it.

There’s going to be a change to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that requires the employer to ensure that the washroom facilities provided to the workers by the employer are maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. Like I said before on the constructors, it’s a weird thing to put in the Occupational Health and Safety Act and not in regulation, but because it’s all-encompassing, I think it’s fine to do this. You spell it out. It becomes a weird thing to do, as well, because there’s already a section—it’s called the general duty clause. Anyone who has taken any health and safety knows clause 25(2)(h).

Not everyone knows all the sections, and they might look through the book and flip around, or they probably scroll on their phone now, but everyone tends to know clause 25(2)(h). It’s known as the general duty clause, and it basically says that the employer must take every precaution reasonable in the protection of the worker, and it lists a bunch of things that they have to do.

Under “Duties of employers” under

section 25, it says—and this will get a little bit dry:

“An employer shall ensure that...

“the equipment, materials and protective devices as prescribed are provided;

“the equipment, materials and protective devices provided by the employer are maintained in good condition;

“the measures and procedures prescribed are carried out in the workplace....”

But again, if you compare this—spelling out that the bathroom has to be cleaned and maintained in good condition—to $36 million of wage theft, and you ask the employees of Ontario which one they’d put at the top of their priority list, I think they would want their money back. Speaker, 36 million bucks—that’s a lot of cabbage that has been taken from their pockets. And the focus for the Conservative government? Cleaning bathrooms.

The general duty clause, 25(2)(h), I talked about: If an inspector were to come into a workplace—and there are not enough inspectors going into workplaces. But if they came into a workplace and they saw a washroom that wasn’t maintained, or someone had made a complaint—which you can do anonymously; there’s a complaints line, a 1-888 number. If you look it up online, you can find the number and you can make an anonymous complaint about your workplace.

If the inspector came in and saw a washroom that wasn’t clean, that was filthy and wasn’t maintained in good condition and didn’t have the services in place and the paper products and the sanitary systems in place, they would write an order under 25(2)(h). Whenever there’s not a specific rule, they write it here. So it’s not like these bad bosses could get away with this if the legislation didn’t exist. If they were doing it before, they’re going to continue to do it.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Health units address it too.

MPP Jamie West: And your health unit would address it.

In terms of every other complaint—I’m not against this. It’s kind of like putting salt on something; I guess it will help a little bit. But I’d be interested to know how many people have called that 1-888 number for a Ministry of Labour inspector, complaining about their washroom facilities, as compared with other health and safety concerns.

My colleague from Kiiwetinoong was talking about a town that he represents where there was a carcinogen being emitted from a workplace, that was affecting workplaces next door. I’m sure they would like that addressed long before ensuring that we’ve clarified that the general duty clause also applies to bathrooms.

Keeping on this theme, it also requires them to make records of this. It’s fine—the records of the washrooms being cleaned. You see this in a lot of places. You see this in department stores and gas stations—the last time it was checked, and there’s a little record of it. This is clarifying it, I guess, to be in the legislation. There are some regulations that have this already, but it just says “as prescribed in regulation.” It has to be done as prescribed. Earlier, I talked about how, if you’re in an office workplace, now you’re part of the industrial regulations that provide that clarity.

The industrial regulations don’t really prescribe this checklist from happening. So it’s not really that great of a new legislation to put in place, because what you’re saying basically is—it sounds really good that you have to have this checklist and keep paper records of it, which is helpful, but only as prescribed. And in your case—office workers—it’s not prescribed, so it doesn’t really make sense.

I promised I wasn’t going to talk too much about electronic copies of things, but I want to emphasize: Workplace violence and workplace harassment policies—we need to have those more visible and more readily available to people. If you’re being harassed or something physically violent is happening to you in your workplace, you need to know who to report that to; you need to know how to get it resolved. Sometimes harassment is happening and the people doing it aren’t aware, because it’s how we’ve always done things or how we always spoke.

There is an opportunity to make your workplace better, and having less information about how to make a better workplace is not helpful to anybody and really is something we should reconsider ensuring.

Similarly, with inspection orders, you can learn when the inspector writes orders if they’re posted in the workplace. People will grab the orders and read them while they’re having their lunch. If it’s online, it’s out of sight and out of mind, and there’s no opportunity for you to learn from what the inspector has written down.

I’m running out of time. I did want to get to the wildland firefighters. One of the things that we said when we were applauding the good work that was done by members of our party and the Conservatives, about helping these firefighters who have presumptive cancers—the family was in the gallery, and I actually went up, because I had just started my debate, and then we ran out of time for question period, very similar to what happened here.

Just before question period, I went up and talked to the family and said, “I want you to know that we’re going to be passing this, because this is very important.” There are parts of this bill that are broken in the previous bill. The digital workers’ rights protection act is a perfect example, where it’s actually removing rights from workers who are Uber drivers—and Lyft and SkipTheDishes; it’s actually making them make less money. But I wanted that family to know before they left that we’d find a way to ensure that their family members would have that presumptive coverage.

While we spoke about the firefighter presumptive coverage, we also said we need to include these wildland firefighters, as well, and so I’m really happy that this bill, which is only—I think the previous one just passed a month ago, a month and a bit; the time slips together when you’re busy. In this bill that we’re going to be passing, the wildland presumptive coverage and PTSD coverage—I think that’s really important for those workers.

I had shared with the Minister of Labour—I had the opportunity to go over and talk to him just before question period, when debate had ended, and I showed him the photo of Gabrielle Ayres and Shayne McCool, who are wildland firefighters. They were at FONOM, and I was talking to them about the bill. They knew about the bill. They knew the work that New Democrats had done, and they knew the work that the Conservatives had done, and that we were going to work together to ensure this was happening.

That doesn’t happen a lot in the Legislature, and so I think it’s good to share with people, and to encourage the Conservative government to work with us on more things, because I think it’s a wonderful thing for them.

Also, on a bit of a tangent, I think that Shayne may have the coolest last name I’ve ever heard—Shayne McCool.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: It doesn’t get any cooler than that.

MPP Jamie West: I would hate to run against Shayne in an election, because I think everybody would want a sign that said “McCool” in their yard.

It was great to see the two of them there. It was great that they knew already—because a lot of times people don’t know what we’re doing here. We know, because we’re immersed in it, but to see people who are being directly impacted and to work with people who are directly impacted—that’s really meaningful to all of us.

I have less than a minute, and I want to get into my recommendations for what we should be focusing on in the next workers bill.

Speaker, 40% of occupational lung cancers are related to mining, and 11% of occupational bladder cancers are connected to mining. These occupational cancers are 100% preventable. We should be looking at occupational cancers; we’re doing it for firefighters and wildland firefighters, and we’ve got to tackle mining. When you see a number like 40% of occupational lung cancers happening in mining—these are workers who are part of that Critical Minerals Strategy, and we have to ensure that they’re going home safe to their families, as well.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Questions?

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Thank you to the member opposite for his comments and remarks this morning.

We all agree that our province is facing a shortage of skilled trades workers, so alongside our partners in education, this legislation, if passed, will help students get on a fast track for a career in the skilled trades. Under the Focused Apprenticeship Skills Training program, students can focus their senior-level co-op placements in areas that will accelerate entrance into apprenticeships in the skilled trades.

Does the member opposite think that we should help facilitate pathways for students to get into these types of careers?

MPP Jamie West: The question was about getting our students into skilled trades, and I spoke about this—that I wanted to take auto shop in high school, and my guidance counsellor steered me away from it. I ended up working on—I was an electrician’s apprentice. I never wrote my final, because it wasn’t a fit for me.

I think we need more pathways. We need more shops in our schools, with updated equipment. We need more shop teachers who are qualified to teach shop. We need all of these things in place, and I think this is a good first step for that.

At the same time, I want to ensure that students who decide that they want to become an apprentice and get involved with the trades—if they decide that’s not the career for them, we don’t limit their potential in the future if they choose another career path.

I think this is a good first step, for sure.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: You were an electrician. I was a millwright, and I went through an apprenticeship program. My son is a certified electrician, and he also did an apprenticeship.

When I was a millwright and I was a crew leader—there’s maturity that becomes involved when bringing students and co-op students in the workplace. I’ve lost friends; they were just cleaning in sawmills. They died because the maturity was not there.

You talked a lot about safety. That’s why I’m asking the question. We want to promote trades. That’s not even the issue. I think we need to promote trades, and trades are a good pathway, but how do we protect that so that—because with kids, the maturity may not be there and it could put them in serious, dangerous positions.

MPP Jamie West: This is really important and near to me—when it comes to workplace health and safety. As I get older, everyone seems younger when they’re starting at the workplace. We know that when high school students have injuries in the workplace, they tend to be pretty bad. These are the people who are working at fast-food places who get grease burns.

When you’re putting power tools in people’s hands and when you’re working with heavy equipment and stuff, there are a lot of hazards. We have to ensure that in that program for high school people—taking on apprentices and getting into the trades—health and safety comes first. That first year of an apprentice, for most people, is mostly—you carry tools, and you watch. We have to ensure this happens. We know there are some bad bosses out there, and we have to ensure that they’re not getting people to do stuff when they’re unqualified. We don’t want people who aren’t electricians working on live power, for example.

So health and safety has to be at the core of this, because we want the trades to grow, and we don’t want—any tragedy is going to have parents telling their kids, “No, no, don’t do this.” So we have to ensure they’re very safe.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I want to thank the member for his participation in debate this morning.

One of the pieces in this legislation that I believe is very beneficial is that this act will direct Ontario’s Chief Prevention Officer to conduct a comprehensive review of the causal factors in traumatic workplace injuries—a construction fatality, specifically—drawing on stakeholder evidence and jurisdictional research. We know that this is important for the development of prevention strategies and future regulatory proposals to strengthen our current safety standards and also do more to prevent fatalities and workplace injuries.

I’m wondering if the member opposite supports this particular piece of the legislation and if there’s anything he wanted to say about the way that work should unfold.

MPP Jamie West: Yes, this resonates with me a lot, because the first Chief Prevention Officer who was brought in place, Mr. Gritziotis—I’m going to mispronounce his name. I ended up working with him with the mining regulation changes. We had a double fatality at Vale that killed Jordan Fram and Jason Chenier. There are serious things in the mining regulations that had to be updated, because we found out other people had been killed or injured in similar ways. Really looking at these incidents through the Chief Prevention Officer is going to help the construction industry have a better safety record and ensure people are safer in the long run.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further questions?

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Thank you to my colleague from Sudbury.

With the increase in fines for ESA violations being a stand-out feature for this bill, and given our historical reluctance to collect even a fraction of what’s due, could the member from Sudbury highlight why it is so important that laws reflect a genuine effort to enforce—or merely a case of increasing numbers on paper for optics?

The reason I’m asking this question is because I recalled, during the pandemic, the surges of inspectors that would fine and did fine a 16-year-old worker in a grocery store over not wearing the proper PPE during a weekend blitz, if we recall—more show than substance, may I say.

How important is trust and funding for rules in order to ensure they are enforced in Ontario?

MPP Jamie West: Before I became an electrician, I took psychology, and there are a lot of behaviours—that carrot and stick.

Penalties are one way. I think if you can incentivize people, it’s a better way of changing behaviour, but sometimes you need the negative enforcement of a penalty.

If you’re having a press conference to talk about raising the minimum penalty from $50,000 to $100,000, but you have never charged any employer with the $50,000, what’s the point? If you’re hitting that ceiling and you’re not seeing the behaviour change, then for sure raise it. But if you’ve never hit that ceiling at $50,000, saying you’re going to double it to $100,000 is meaningless to those workers who are being affected by these bad bosses. You really have to use the tools that are available and not just pretend that raising them is going to make a difference if you’re not using the minimum as it is, or the maximum as—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Thank you.

Further questions?

Mr. Rick Byers: Thank you to the member for his comments this morning. It’s interesting—his background in labour as an electrician and direct experience in the sector.

If we look at the objectives of what this bill is trying to achieve with putting in new supports and stronger protections that would safeguard health and safety and dignity of workers, addressing online harassment at work, ensuring workers are protected; changes to regulations to address women’s needs on construction sites, conduct a comprehensive review of the facilities in the construction sector—a large number of major objectives here, which I would have thought were very practical and supportable.

Does the member not see these as objectives that are worth supporting?

MPP Jamie West: The items the member is speaking about already exist as legislation, except for the sanitary products on construction sites.

As I said in the debate, sanitary products on construction sites aren’t in this bill—it was in the question that was asked, it was in the press conferences, but it’s not in the bill, so it’s not going to become a law. Maybe it will come in the next bill. I said very clearly I’m in favour of that happening. I think it’s a good step forward. I think we should include that at all workplaces, to ensure they’re there.

The other ones in terms of health and safety are actually duplicates of existing legislation.

My frustration with these bills, although we do great stuff when it comes to WSIB for firefighters and wildland firefighters—there are, a lot of times in these bills, things that are headline bills, where it sounds like you’re doing something, but all you’re doing is duplicating existing legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): A quick question, quick response.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m glad to be able to ask a question of the member from Sudbury, who has been doing an excellent job across the province as our critic for labour.

There’s not too much of substance to criticize in this bill; it’s tinkering around the edges, as he talked about. Because this is the fifth Working for Workers act or whatever, I was hoping to see something protecting workers on strike, something about anti-scab legislation—I was pleased to co-sponsor that bill, and I wondered if there was any signal in here that we would put workers at the fore.

MPP Jamie West: Anti-scab is near and dear to me. I spent a year on the picket line, with scabs crossing that line. ACTRA has just passed two years of scabs doing their work—ACTRA commercial workers.

We need anti-scab legislation—it is extending the length of strikes. It’s important to have. It’s a value of New Democrats. We’re hoping the Liberals and Conservatives will finally join us and pass that legislation—like they did at the federal level, it’s time to do it provincially, as well.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Mr. John Jordan: I want to start by thanking the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, because this is the fifth bill that has been brought forward from that ministry with hard work by himself and staff to bring these forward. We always hear from the opposition about what’s not in the bill—and I think it’s a great strategy of moving forward one at a time and really doing a deep dive into things that we want to address. So I thank him for that.

It’s certainly an honour for me to rise today to discuss the Working for Workers Five Act. If passed, this bill would assist in making the workplace safer, introduce more young people to careers in the skilled trades, help new Canadians access jobs in their chosen fields, and support women working in the construction industry, among other sectors.

This bill will expand on the progress made from the previous four Working for Workers acts by introducing amendments to further protect front-line workers, remove barriers to employment for new Canadians, open new pathways into the skilled trades, and support women at work. It would contribute to additional regulatory, legislative and policy actions designed to improve workplaces for employees and help employers fill vacant positions.

We know that we need more people working in the skilled trades. To help attract more young people into careers in the skilled trades, this bill proposes to create a new educational stream called Focused Apprenticeship Skills Training, as part of our government’s plan to ensure all students learn about the opportunities in well-paying careers found in the trades. The new stream will give students the opportunity to receive instruction on technical skills and be given the opportunity for hands-on learning experiences in secondary school systems.

Further, this bill provides a new online job-matching portal in order to help students find apprenticeship opportunities and network with employers; it’s also a great opportunity for employers to connect and do recruitment. This new online job-matching portal streamlines the process of finding opportunities faster, which will be important as they transition from education to the workforce. This government wants to put hard-working youth on the fast track to a well-paying career. Not only is this an endeavour our government wants to encourage, but it’s what the youth of Ontario want, as well.

Schools in my riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston are already recognizing the value of this government’s vision. Smiths Falls District Collegiate Institute is incorporating a Specialist High Skills Major program that works in company with the requirements stipulated by the Ontario secondary school diploma. The program will let students focus on a career path that matches their skills by earning valuable industry certification in co-operative educational placements. The program has received positive commentary and demonstrates how our ministries are working together.

The Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, and the ministry of women’s and social economic opportunity are all working together to increase our sources for human resources in the trades.

Former Smiths Falls District Collegiate Institute principal Terry Gardiner said, “The Dual Credit Program represents an outstanding opportunity for students, whether entering trades, or trying a college course in their area of interest. It allows students the opportunity to ‘try on’ college and many students see that they can be successful.”

Speaker, students are inspired and excited about their education and future. Janet Sanderson, former principal of Granite Ridge Education Centre in Sharbot Lake, said, “It gives our students a chance to make informed decisions about their future. They get a taste of the college life. It gives them a chance to explore their post-secondary options and test the waters....” One Granite Ridge student said the Dual Credit Program gives him a reason to like school again.

Students will have the ability to make informed decisions about their future, through the introduction of a variety of careers—be that skills, trades, colleges or universities. Our government is ending the stigma of working in the trades. We hear the voices of Ontarians telling us there is a need for more skilled trades workers, as Minister Piccini mentioned yesterday. We hear them, we value them, and we are creating new paths for youth to become them. This stigma existed when I was in high school and trying to decide what to do.

My parents said, “You need that university degree”—and I’m guilty of the same stigma with my kids. But there are now so many pathways to success, and the students need to explore that when they’re in their high school years. Through the Working for Workers Five Act, alternative pathways for people interested in the skilled trades would be opened up.

In addition to getting young people into the skilled trades, this government wants to help mature workers leverage their existing skills, education and work experience to land a position in the skilled trades sector. We want to give Canadians who are looking for a second career in the skilled trades a chance at a better job with a bigger paycheque. Through this bill, our government will work on removing barriers to entry into the skilled trades as a second career and providing avenues for a career transition.

By doing this, our government will address labour shortages and drive economic growth through those seeking a second career in the skilled trades, regardless of their educational background—new opportunities, a brighter future.

Recent immigrants and international—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): My apologies to the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): It is now time for members’ statements.

Correction of record

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): I recognize the member from Sudbury on a point of order.

MPP Jamie West: Earlier, I had mispronounced George Gritziotis’s name. I was trying to be formal and use his last name. I was calling him “George” all the time. I was guessing at his last name, but it’s George Gritziotis. Hansard has the correct spelling.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): It is time for members’ statements.

Members’ Statements

Lois Hunter

Mr. Steve Clark: Today I rise to honour Lois Hunter, a giant in my riding, who passed away in her 100th year, on April 27.

To quote Judy Drummond, a friend of Lois’s and the president of the Lombardy Agricultural Society: “Lois was a lady of grace, respect and a great friend to many. Her interest in the Lombardy Agricultural Society continued over the years and was a part of her life even into her 100th year. We certainly appreciated her work and advice in the district and provincial level of the Ontario agricultural societies. We will miss her guidance and support, but her legacy will live on into the future.”

Her granddaughter Shannon Miller used the word supporter—“whether it was of her family in their business or personal endeavours; of the many local organizations she belonged to; of her husband as he served his many years in municipal politics; or of any and all friends, neighbours or members of the farming community in whatever situation they may have been facing at a given time.”

My predecessor, Bob Runciman, summed it up best about Lois when he told me, “Lois, with all her family and community commitments, her energy and enthusiasm ... well into her nineties was a never-ending inspiration to me and many others. And with her unbridled love for and devotion to her family, she was the epitome of the wife, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother we should all have in our lives. Her passing is an enormous loss; she did so much, so well and for so many. Rest in peace, my friend.”

Agri-food industry

Mr. John Vanthof: The agri-food industry is one of the premier industries in this province—some $45 billion, $50 billion to the provincial economy, and 800,000, 900,000 people work in it. This is one of the most important times of the year because regardless of what you grow, regardless of where it’s processed, this is the time of the year when the seeds go into the ground. Of the 200 crops that we grow in Ontario, the vast majority go in now; there are different times across the province.

On behalf of the entire Legislature, I just want to give a shout-out to the farmers who are making those decisions right now. This is an incredibly stressful time of the year because sometimes planting conditions aren’t right; in many parts of the province, they’re not right right now, and that farmer, whether he has 10 acres or 1,000, has to make that decision when he puts that soil in his hand to see if it’s dry enough. He or she has got thousands of dollars on the line. On behalf of all of us, farmers take the risks so that we can eat. That’s something that we can never, ever forget.

And farmers who make those decisions need to have control of their own land—the land that they have built and conditioned so that they can grow the food for us. They should control their land.

Birchmount Green

Mr. David Smith: I am pleased to announce Birchmount Green, a significant partner in Scarborough Centre’s innovative affordable and supportive housing at 1236 Birchmount Road in my riding of Scarborough Centre. After my visit to Birchmount Green, I realized that our government is getting it done with its action call for affordable housing.

Birchmount Green Inc. and Chamberlain Architects designed the 15-storey residential building with 220 mixed affordable and supportive rental units. This thoughtful and inclusive state-of-the-art design philosophy meets aesthetic and functional needs with 45 fully accessible homes, outdoor greenery, a rooftop garden, library, accessible shareable workspaces, indoor and outdoor children’s play areas, bicycle storage, dedicated offices for support service organizations, a social enterprise, and many other amenities.

They deserve praise for their collaboration with many partners seated in the gallery here today: Tim Neeb, president, Birchmount Green, and project developer; Maureen Houlihan, city of Toronto; Michelle Nanton-Whyte, Community Living Toronto; Heather McDonald, LOFT Community Services; Jessica Whelan, Fred Victor; Abi Ajibolade, the Redwood; Abi and Rima Goldshmidt, Birchmount Green property managers.

Please continue the wonderful work you’re doing in Scarborough Centre and across Ontario.

La francophonie à Thunder Bay

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Aujourd’hui, j’aimerais rendre hommage aux francophones qui vivent, travaillent et font du bénévolat dans ma région de Thunder Bay–Supérieur-Nord.

Maverick’s Donuts

Ms. Patrice Barnes: Today I rise to recognize a very new business in the town of Ajax called Maverick’s Donuts, located at Randall Drive just across from Pickering Village, which creates custom doughnuts baked fresh every day. I’ve discovered that my favourite flavour is the Oreo nirvana.

Interjection: Who could not like that?

Ms. Patrice Barnes: Who could not like that?

This story is an amazing story. I highlight them because these are two young people who moved to Canada in 2018 and 2020—Krishna and Mansi, who had a dream to start a business and establish a life in Canada and have done just that. They have stuck together through the challenges of being new to the country, navigating on their own and banding together to create a new business and be one of the newest residents of Ajax. This is what Ontario is about. This is what Canada is about. We provide opportunities for our immigrants to come and create a life that they are proud of, where you can have a dream and achieve it.

Our government will continue to stand behind new entrepreneurs.

Congratulations to Krishna and Mansi, and to Maverick’s Donuts.

Injured workers

MPP Jamie West: There were a lot of milestones in health and safety this year.

April 28 was the 40th anniversary of the Workers Day of Mourning, and I’ve always been proud that it started in Sudbury.

It was also the 50th anniversary of the Elliot Lake uranium miners’ wildcat strike. That strike led to the Ham commission, which led to the backbone of our Occupational Health and Safety Act. Because of those workers, every worker in Ontario has the right to refuse unsafe work, to participate in workplace safety as part of their committee, and to know about hazards in the workplace. That’s something that—they struck for safety, and it didn’t just apply to the miners or people in Elliot Lake, but everyone in Ontario, which makes me very proud.

Last year was the 40th anniversary of Injured Workers’ Day. A fascinating story for you, Speaker: In 1983, the Legislature was doing some work on workers’ compensation—the predecessor to WSIB—and over 3,000 injured workers showed up at Queen’s Park to talk about this. The committee had to leave the committee room and do the deputations on the front stairs of Queen’s Park. The following year, in 1984, they had Injured Workers’ Day, the very first one—and they’ve been doing this for 40 years. The thing that’s surprising about this is that it has never been formally recognized in the Legislature as an official day.

So I am hoping, before the 41st anniversary on June 1, that we will recognize this.

I have a bill that’s coming for debate on the 30th. It’s my bill, but it’s all of our bills. We all go to Injured Workers’ Day ceremonies. We all recognize the importance of helping injured workers and ensuring they’re taken care of effectively. So I’m hoping that all my colleagues will join me so that we can support the bill to officially recognize something that started here on the front steps of Queen’s Park over 40 year ago.

Yom Hazikaron and Israeli Independence Day

Mrs. Robin Martin: Yesterday, I spoke about Yom ha-Shoah, the Holocaust Remembrance Day, which fell on May 6 this year. Starting this Sunday, and within only one week, members of the Jewish community in my riding, in Ontario and throughout the world will soon observe two more significant holidays connected to Israel, the Jewish homeland. The first of these is Yom Hazikaron, Israel’s official day of remembrance, which honours both the sacrifice and courage of Israeli soldiers, over 20,000 of whom have been lost in defence of Israel, as well as the memories and lives of innocent civilian victims of terrorism.

With the conclusion of Yom Hazikaron on Monday evening, Jews will celebrate Yom Ha’atzmaut, which celebrates the Israeli declaration of independence in 1948.

This unique week takes observers from profound sorrow to profound joy. Our Jewish friends and neighbours go from reckoning with the Holocaust and reflecting on the extreme cost to their families and community caused because they did not have a homeland, to remembering the profound costs to the Jewish people of maintaining their homeland, and finally, they conclude with the celebration of the creation of their homeland.

It’s a highly emotional and profound journey in the space of one week—a journey that will be particularly poignant this year, in the aftermath of the October 7 terrorist ambush on innocent civilians, the ongoing war and ongoing plight of some 133 hostages still being held by Hamas terrorists in Gaza.

Ontario is proud to be home to one of the largest Jewish communities of any Canadian province, and the observance of these days is particularly significant to them.

To the Jewish community in my riding and across Ontario: I want to share my profound sorrow for your loss, my profound support and respect for your struggle, and my sincere congratulations for the great future that you are building.

Guildwood Day

MPP Andrea Hazell: Mr. Speaker, June 1 isn’t just any old day; it’s Guildwood Day. The weather is warming up, and it’s time to take to the streets to celebrate one of the best neighbourhoods in Ontario. For five decades, the Guildwood Village Community Association has been throwing the greatest party this side of the Rouge River, and for this 50th anniversary, they’re going bigger than ever.

We’ll start off bright and early with a pancake breakfast at the Guildwood Presbyterian church. We will all need a big breakfast, because it’s going to be a huge day.

Next, it’s the Parade on the Parkway. The whole street will be full of that famous Guildwood spirit. If you’re marching along or just taking in the view, it’s a good time for all to be there.

Following that, we’ll have the community marketplace, with face painting, games, food, prize draws, and more.

We will top it all off with the Guild Park evening barbecue, with musical performances by local artists Sonic Square and Tug-of-War.

Guildwood Day is fun for the whole family, so I hope to see all of you there. Bring your friends, bring your family, bring your constituency staff, because everyone is welcome on Guildwood Day. I’m happy to be your host.

Erie Shores Healthcare mobile health clinic

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Today I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate one of our local heroes in Essex county: our friend Kristin Kennedy. She’s the CEO of Erie Shores Healthcare. She helps run the mobile health clinic. It’s a special mobile health clinic that helps provide care for people who are typically not visiting their primary care service provider.

The mobile health clinic provides regular health check-ups, but it also can provide some basic dental health care, some mental health resources, and it now even offers vaccinations. It’s open during evening hours and on weekends.

Of course, this is all made possible by a special program offered by this government through the Ministry of Health. The mobile health clinic is helping to keep people out of the emergency room and helping to provide care where and when they need it.

I want to thank the Minister of Health for this important program and also congratulate Kristin Kennedy, her staff, and the local health heroes at the mobile health clinic.

Freemasonry

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a privilege to rise in the Legislature today and officially recognize a very special anniversary. This year, 2024, marks the 150th anniversary of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of Canada.

Central to the tenets of Scottish Rite Freemasonry is a belief in brotherly love, relief, truth and charity to all mankind, no matter an individual’s race, nationality, sect, age or condition.

Their charitable endeavours fund nine Scottish Rite learning centres for dyslexia across Canada, with four of those located in Ontario itself. They also fund, under what they call Solving the Puzzles of the Mind, Alzheimer’s and autism grants.

As we enter the 150th anniversary of the Supreme Council of Canada, may we continue to celebrate their vision and leadership across Canada in its 45 values and at the Canadian headquarters, just down the road, of the Scottish Rite of Canada in Hamilton, Ontario.

With more than 10,000 members across Canada, the good works of the Scottish Rite can be seen in every corner of our province and this nation.

Mr. Speaker, please join with me in congratulating the membership of the Scottish Rite on this, their 150th anniversary, as they continue to take good men and make them better. And may this great and time-honoured fraternity continue from strength to strength until time and circumstance shall be no more. So mote it be.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Robert Bailey: In conjunction with my statement, I have three guests in the members’ gallery today, in the persons of David Bennett, the sovereign grand commander of the Scottish Rite of Canada; Thomas Wills, the lieutenant grand commander; and their illustrious secretary, Terry McLean, who is the grand secretary-general.

Welcome to Queen’s Park. Welcome to your House.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I was peeking around the room, and I see a familiar face from Oshawa, a strong voice: Kristen McKinnon is here. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M. Stephen Blais: Je me lève dans la Chambre aujourd’hui pour souhaiter la bienvenue à Lise MacDonald et sa famille à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario. Lise est une étudiante à l’École secondaire publique Gisèle-Lalonde à Orléans, et elle est la capitaine des pages aujourd’hui. Je voudrais aussi souhaiter la bienvenue à son père, Anthony MacDonald; son oncle Greg MacDonald; et un ami de la famille, Rod Lowe. D r MacDonald était un page législatif en 1991, donc c’est un plaisir de vous accueillir à nouveau dans cette Chambre.

Je souhaite à Lise et à toute sa famille le meilleur, et j’espère que tu auras une excellente expérience ici à Queen’s Park. Merci, Lise.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I’d like to welcome the excellent page Anika Karthik, who attends Macklin Public School in my wonderful riding of Scarborough North, and her parents, Karthik and Raghavi, to Queen’s Park. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence; the Ontario Caregiver Coalition; Young Caregivers Association; Alzheimer Society; MS Canada; Community Living Ontario; Canadian Cancer Society; Ontario Community Support Association; AdvantAge; the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, Niagara chapter. I want to thank them personally for coming to our press conference this morning to talk about our caregivers motion.

Thank you very much, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Also, it’s always an honour when my staff comes to Queen’s Park. I want to welcome Quinn and Josh. One is a constituency assistant, the other is an executive assistant.

I just want to say thank you for all your hard work today.

Mr. Vincent Ke: I would like to introduce my friends Candy Wang and Michael Yu, who are here today, sitting up in the public gallery. They are coming in from North York. Candy and Michael are the proud creators of the neighbourhood watch in their communities.

Thank you for working hard in fighting the auto thefts in the region and helping keep the neighbours safe. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: In honour of Mental Health Week, I’m pleased to welcome some of the champions of mental health care here in Ontario: Dr. Sean Kidd, chief of psychology at CAMH; Dr. Nadiya Sunderji, president and CEO of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care; Kristin Kerr from Addictions and Mental Health Ontario; Michael Anhorn, CEO of CMHA Toronto; Karim Mamdani, president and CEO of Ontario Shores; and Tatum Wilson, CEO of Children’s Mental Health Ontario.

Thank you, all of you, for your inspiring work here in the province of Ontario and for continuing to keep the province healthy and safe.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to welcome Daunte Hillen back to the Legislature. Daunte is a former page and the brother of our current page from Hamilton Mountain, Charlise Hillen. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: Today, I would like to acknowledge a young lady from the riding of Durham, from Harold Longworth Public School, who is today’s page captain: Diya Gokul Nathan. Her parents are with us in the gallery: Lavanya Gokul Nathan and Gokul Nathan Chandran.

Welcome to your House.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I want to give a shout-out and say thanks to my long-time constituency staffer, Dechen Tenzin. Today is her last day, and my team and I want to give our best wishes. She starts a new

chapter in the federal public service.

We will miss you dearly, Dechen. Thank you for everything.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’d like to welcome my childhood friend Jenny Mitchell. She’s a great climate advocate, a wonderful friend and supporter, and a super-smart, awesome lady.

Thanks for coming.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I would like to introduce David Bennett from the riding of Nipissing. He’s a great friend and a great volunteer.

Welcome to Queen’s Park, David.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I would also like to extend my very warm welcome to all the members of the Ontario Caregiver Coalition, including the chair, Bhavini Patel; general members who are here, Victoria Freeman, Mark Fawcett; as well as the CEO of Community Living Ontario, Chris Beesley; and a very good friend of mine, Liv Mendelsohn, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Caregiving Excellence.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: It’s my pleasure to welcome university student Asia Vrazalis and my high school friend Jerry Gain from Riverdale Collegiate, the best high school in the GTA.

Mr. Joel Harden: I think they’re trickling into the gallery, but I want to thank ACORN, who are in the building today—an advocate for tenants, low-income Ontarians. I’m proud to be a member myself.

Welcome, ACORN, to your House.

Let’s all get out to the reception at lunch.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’m pleased to welcome Daniel Arbour from the region of Durham to Queen’s Park. Welcome, Daniel.

M me France Gélinas: I don’t see them yet, but I want to welcome members of CareNow.

Sunday is international awareness day for myalgic encephalomyelitis, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, environmental sensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivities.

CareNow will be holding a Zoom meeting on Wednesday at 1 o’clock. Everyone is welcome.

Mr. David Smith: I’d like to welcome to the House today Tim Neeb, Maureen Houlihan, Michelle Nanton-Whyte, Heather McDonald, Jessica Whelan of Fred Victor, and Abi and Rima Goldshmidt. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Chris Glover: I would like to welcome to the House my good friend Tyler Mackinnon, who was actually one of the first people to encourage me to run for MPP. He brought his class today. He’s a teacher at Willowdale High School, and his class from Willowdale is in the House today.

I look forward to having lunch with you guys today.

Ms. Laura Smith: It is my very great honour to welcome our newest intern to team Thornhill and also a long-time member of the Thornhill community, Ms. Emma Bellamy.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It is my pleasure to welcome MLA Lisa Lachance from Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Legislature. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That concludes our introduction of visitors for this morning.

Pharmacare

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Deputy Premier and Minister of Health on a point of order.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Yesterday, the member from Toronto Centre raised a question regarding a constituent, and I committed to follow up. In fact, I have confirmed that the constituent was reimbursed, and the member from Toronto Centre was notified of that information prior to question period.

Thank you for the resolution.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): That is not a valid point of order.

It is now time for question period.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier.

Brighton council approved a six-month agreement for $60,000 with Atlas Strategic Advisors. I want to remind everyone, Atlas Strategic—or Atlas Strategies—is a company led by the Premier’s infamous Las Vegas-massage-table-loving principal secretary Amin Massoudi—boy, that’s a mouthful. Atlas Strategies has now dropped the contract after they were exposed by recent reports for boasting about their relationship with the Premier’s office.

The question is, where did this town in the Minister of Labour’s riding—the same minister with connections to Mr. X—get the idea that in order to get action from this government they needed to hire a friend of the Premier to lobby for preferential treatment?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Frankly, I don’t know where a town or any community in this province of Ontario would think that it would ever be a good idea to hire an outside lobbyist to try to connect with the government or members of this Legislature.

I would suggest to our municipal partners, should they want to meet with members of the Legislature, that they pick up a phone, go to a computer, or come to this place and talk to us. I know that members of this caucus are always available to our partners, and I think the dollars that are spent on outside consultants would be better spent on focusing on infrastructure and other things that move their communities forward, and not on outside lobbyists.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Interesting. The contract is for lobbying, for grant-writing support, for consultation and for advisory services to improve Brighton’s chances for funding approval and provincial support. But a councillor said this: “Put plain and simple, it’s a lobbyist to work the backroom. That’s what we are getting. We are not acquiring them for their technical expertise.”

I guess what happens in Brighton doesn’t stay in Brighton.

Is the Premier really okay with his government’s reputation of catering to insiders in the backrooms?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, let me be very clear to our municipal partners: They should focus on spending their resources, the resources of their taxpayers, on things that move their communities forward. I have heard, as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as have all my colleagues, the importance of building water and waste water and other infrastructure. So I say very clearly to them: Focus those resources on that.

Should you wish to reach out to members of this Legislature, do so. We encourage you to do so. We have ROMA. We have AMO. We have NOMA. Many of our ministers just came back from Sudbury, where they were meeting with municipal leaders. You have a Premier who hands out his cellphone number to every single Ontarian; I know that is the same process that many of our colleagues on this side do.

So, very clearly, again, to any municipal council that is watching, focus your resources on what matters to your people.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I have to say, Speaker, municipalities seem to have gotten a very different message from this government. This is a concerning pattern we are seeing from this government, and let me tell you, people across the province are indeed taking notice.

This government made such a reputation of catering to insiders and the Premier’s friends that local governments are using it as a strategy.

One councillor said this: “This government sometimes talks to its friends more than other folks, it might as well work for us from time to time.”

Backroom deals, Vegas massage tables, RCMP criminal investigations—I’m going to ask again, is this Premier going to tell us today whether he is okay with that being the legacy of his government?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I think what we will be proud of is the legacy of this government—the continued legacy of economic growth, job creation. We’re proud of a legacy that is building more schools in communities across the province of Ontario. We’re proud of a legacy that is building transit and transportation for the first time in over a generation across the province of Ontario.

We’re proud of a legacy that has brought over $40 billion worth of investment to the province of Ontario; a legacy that includes over 700,000 jobs in the province of Ontario; a legacy that is building hospitals in small and large and medium-sized communities across the province of Ontario; a legacy that is reducing the cost to taxpayers across the province of Ontario; a legacy that is opening up the Ring of Fire in the north so that the people in northern Ontario can help drive the prosperity that comes with the over $40 billion of investment in the new auto across this province.

But what the people of Ontario know is that the job is not done. We inherited a fiscal and economic mess from the previous government. The work needs to continue. We’re not done yet. We’ll continue on that path.

Affordable housing

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is again for the Premier. A few weeks ago, ACORN organizers from across the province led funeral marches to mourn the death of affordable housing in Ontario. Over the last decade, the average rent in Ontario has shot up at least three times the guideline rate. And I tell you, Speaker, that is just too darn high.

One of the first things that this government did was to take away rent control for tenants living in new buildings, allowing these big corporate landlords to raise the rent to whatever they wanted.

Last year, a tenant here in Toronto faced a rent increase of $7,000 per month. Why does the Premier think that corporate landlords should be allowed to raise rent by $7,000?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: We’ve talked about this a lot, haven’t we, colleagues? We’ve talked about a program that was brought in by the NDP government between 1990 and 1995, and that was to remove rent controls from new purpose-built buildings, because they were unable to get starts in the province of Ontario at that time, following a half decade of disastrous Liberal government.

What we are doing has seen the highest amount of purpose-built rentals in the history of the province, putting more supply online.

When you talk about affordable housing, colleagues, what we inherited in 2018 was an absolute disaster. We have had to focus the last six years on renovating, rehabilitating, restoring old, outdated affordable housing, to the tune of 123,000 units across the province of Ontario. Do you know why? Because for 15 years, they, supported by them, did nothing. They didn’t care about the tenants who lived in those affordable housing units. We’re investing billions to make sure that those units are up to code, and not only that; that they are beautiful places for people to move, live and create memories going forward.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’d say the minister needs to get with this century and the reality of people today.

Do you know what happens when you get rid of rent control? Two things. First, corporations make more money off people who have no money, and then rent goes up and people lose their homes. That’s what happens. Do you know why? Because unethical corporate landlords know that if they can get rid of their existing tenant, they can raise the rent to whatever they want. The NDP have called over and over for this government to take away this harmful incentive.

We need to protect the supply that we already have of affordable housing by bringing in stronger rent control.

Why won’t this Premier ensure any new tenant will pay what the previous tenant would have paid?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: What the Leader of the Opposition would do, and what they constantly do—they talked about this yesterday. They create enemies out of everybody. So if you are somebody who builds a home, you’re an enemy; if you’re somebody who builds affordable rental housing, you must be an enemy—because that is what the NDP want to do. They want to drive down the province of Ontario.

But what are we doing? We’re building up the province of Ontario. The policies that we have brought in have seen the highest level of purpose-built rental housing in the history of the province.

More importantly, we inherited a province where affordable housing was on the brink of collapse, where so many of our units were outdated. They needed to be renovated. We had to move people out of those units across the province of Ontario because they were unfit to be lived in. Why? Because for 15 years, the Liberals, supported by the NDP, refused to make those investments. We have made investments so that 123,000 units can be lived in by people, in dignity, in communities that they’re helping to build.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ll tell you what we will never do, Speaker. We will never support anyone who exploits hard-working people in the province of Ontario. We will never be friends with them.

I want to talk about another loophole that is exploited, and that’s the above-guideline increase, or what we call AGI.

Last month, CBC found that over half of all AGI applications came from just 20 large corporate landlords, friends of this government. AGIs are supposed to be used just for things like extraordinary and unexpected expenditures that aren’t covered by basic rent. I’m explaining this to the members opposite so they can follow along. But the government is allowing AGIs for things like routine maintenance or for luxury renovations that aren’t necessary.

I want to ask the Premier again: When will this government crack down on the unethical use of AGIs?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Let me go a step further, Mr. Speaker, because we’ve also talked about just how irrelevant the NDP have become.

Let’s remember that Ontario has the strongest rent control guidelines in the country—2.5% is what we allow, right? We still have rent controls.

There is not one purpose-built rental housing provider in the province of Ontario that has done what she is suggesting has happened—not one. They are keeping rents down. They are within the guidelines. That is what is happening across the province of Ontario. Our purpose-built rental housing community is doing what they’re supposed to do: provide affordable housing in communities where people want to live so that they can build better lives for themselves and, more importantly, Mr. Speaker, they can live in communities that they are helping to build. Do you know why? Because this government has removed obstacles.

We have put in place the rules and the guidelines and the supports brought on by this Minister of Finance that are getting people back into the business of building purpose-built rental housing. Imagine, under our policies, the highest level of purpose-built rental housing, not in a decade, not in two decades, but ever. That’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The next question.

Affordable housing

Ms. Jessica Bell: I want to talk about how the housing crisis is affecting people, Minister.

Maria is a senior in my riding. She looks after her disabled son. She pays $3,640 a month for two rooms in a home, because it’s all she can find in Toronto. She’s due to be evicted in three days because she cannot afford the rent. She’s looking to move into a shelter, but that means she will be separated from her disabled adult son. Maria is one of 65,000 people who are on a wait-list for an affordable home. She has been waiting 12 years.

Minister, do you think it’s acceptable that a senior is being forced to move into a shelter because there is no available affordable housing?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: The question in itself proves my point, doesn’t it, Mr. Speaker?

For 15 years, they kept them in power. And for 15 years, this coalition here—the same as the federal coalition—refused to invest in affordable housing. In fact, what they did is condemn people who lived in that type of housing to units that were old, units that were outdated. They forced people to move out of those units because they were below code.

What have we done? We have renovated, across the province of Ontario, 123,000 units while unleashing the power of Ontario’s building and construction crews so that they could build the highest level of purpose-built rentals in the history of the province.

But she is right: The job is not done. And that’s why Ontarians will trust us to move it forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Jessica Bell: Minister, Maria is not going to be able to afford to move into a new purpose-built rental that costs over $3,000 a month to live in. It’s not going to happen.

Minister, I want to talk about Helen. Helen is a new parent. A developer bought her home and the eight homes next to her, and now the developer is systematically kicking out the tenants one by one. The developer is no longer doing basic repairs like stopping sewage from leaking through the ceiling, making the homes unlivable, and the developer is also filing eviction notices saying family members are about to move in. These are clearly illegal actions.

Minister, do you think it’s acceptable that big landlords are allowed to engage in illegal activity to drive out tenants from their homes?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Boy, that’s a tough question to answer, isn’t it, Mr. Speaker? Of course it’s not. That’s why we have rules in place in the province of Ontario that are simply the most difficult and most challenging rules in the country. If a landlord treats a tenant unfairly, the laws will deal with that landlord.

But what is more important—and again here, question after question after question—if you produce something in Ontario, the NDP don’t like you. If you build something in Ontario, the NDP don’t like you. If you drive on a road in Ontario, they don’t like you. If you go to a school or university, they don’t like you. The only thing the NDP want to do is drive down the province of Ontario. And how does the province of Ontario respond? They drive down the results of the NDP in every single election.

When you’re fighting elections and “other” gets more votes than you do, you might be on the wrong path.

We’ll keep on the path of prosperity.

Taxation

Mr. Will Bouma: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy.

The federal carbon tax has been a failure on every level. It has not reduced emissions, and it has increased the cost of everything in the province of Ontario. To continue to drive economic growth and electrification in our province, we need better access to affordable and clean energy, not this punitive tax. The Trudeau Liberals, supported by the NDP and the queen of the carbon tax herself, Bonnie Crombie, felt no shame or remorse about hiking this tax by 23% last month. They will bring more tax hikes to the people of Ontario at every opportunity that they get. The Liberals and their carbon tax must be stopped.

Can the minister please enlighten the opposition members and tell them how we can build Ontario’s clean energy advantage without imposing this regressive carbon tax?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank the member for Brantford–Brant for the question.

Yes, we can. We have a plan called Powering Ontario’s Growth, and it does not include a carbon tax. In fact, we are vehemently against the carbon tax, especially the one that went up 23% on April 1, supported by Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh and, of course, the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie, who leads the Liberal Party here.

We are bringing in clean, reliable, affordable energy by refurbishing our nuclear fleet. All the major component replacements are on time or ahead of time and on budget.

We know what Ontario needs to build the jobs and the future of the economy. Why do you think we’re getting $43 billion investment in our automotive sector? Because those people know we have a nuclear advantage and it will power Ontario for generations to come.

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

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you to the parliamentary assistant for his response.

It is unacceptable that the federal Liberals continue to drive up the cost of everything and make our basic necessities unaffordable. That’s why we need the NDP and Liberal members in this House to recognize these detrimental impacts and join us in fighting the carbon tax. Unfortunately, they just won’t do it.

While the Liberals and NDP want to dive deeper into the pockets of Ontarians, our government will continue to get it done for the people of Ontario—meet our growing energy needs and deliver solutions with real affordability.

Can the parliamentary assistant please explain what steps our government is taking to build a clean energy future in this province without the carbon tax?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you to the member for the question again.

As I said, our government’s Powering Ontario’s Growth plan—Powering Ontario’s Growth. Everything in Ontario’s future hinges on its ability to grow, to provide the jobs and the future for the next generations. How do you do that? You’ve got to make sure you have the policies in place.

We have the policies in place that are going to help us build 1.5 million homes. You’re going to need energy for those homes. You’re going to need energy for the people who are going to live in those homes and energy for the people who build those homes.

Our nuclear advantage, our clean energy advantage in Ontario is attracting attention all around the world. We are bringing back 700,000 jobs that the Liberals lost 300,000 of when they were in power, largely because of their failed energy policy.

Our energy policy will power Ontario today and power it into the future, and Ontarians will be better off as a result of that. And we won’t have a carbon tax.

Municipal finances

Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, through you to the Premier: Last year, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing began an audit of municipal governments after the Premier claimed municipalities were wasting money. With seemingly no explanation, Brampton, Caledon, Mississauga, Newmarket, Toronto and the region of Peel were selected for audits. Then, just as quickly, without sharing any results, the audits were cancelled.

My question: Did the minister cancel and hide his predecessor’s audits because they failed to find significant waste at city hall?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: When your leader starts the first question about a municipality wasting money on a lobbyist, maybe your fourth question of the day shouldn’t be, “Our municipal partners aren’t necessarily wasting money.” Maybe that’s why the NDP are so irrelevant in political discourse today, Speaker.

What we’re doing across the province of Ontario is, we’re working with our municipal partners to make important investments for them. They have told us that they need money for infrastructure; they need money so that they can build sewer and water capacity to build the 1.5 million homes across the province of Ontario. So we’re getting that done for them. They have told us that they need assistance with infrastructure so that we can get those investments that have led to $40 billion worth of game-changing investments across the province of Ontario, which has led to 700,000 jobs being created in the province of Ontario.

Do you know why we need to do this? Because we inherited an infrastructure deficit from the previous Liberal government. We’re changing it, but the work is not done. More—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Supplementary question.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, no one has seen the results of these audits—not even the local governments that provided all the necessary documents that were to be audited. Freedom-of-information requests to see these reports have been denied by the ministry. We suspect the government is keeping the reports under wraps because they failed to find significant waste.

Through you, Speaker: What did the ministry find during those audits, and when will they release these hidden reports?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: First of all, no one can convince me that there isn’t waste at all governments. The only difference is, our government—we’re finding the waste. Think of this: We’re the only region, the only province in all of Canada, in the history of Canada, that has never raised a tax.

We believe in growth. We believe in making sure that we have the buildings.

Here’s a stat that just came out: Toronto tops the list of the most cranes anywhere—okay, so here we go: Toronto is tops, at 221, not including the GTA. That’s just as many. We have more cranes in the sky than Los Angeles, at about 50; Seattle, 38; Denver, 14; Boston, 14; Washington, DC, 12; Honolulu, 12; Las Vegas, 10; Portland, nine; San Francisco, eight; Phoenix, seven; New York, five; Chicago, three; and Dallas, zero.

Something is going right, because we created the environment for companies—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

The next question.

Education issues

Ms. Jess Dixon: My question is for the Minister of Education. A few weeks back, I brought a motion to this House calling on the government to restrict the use of smart phones in classrooms and to also ban the use of vapes and other harmful products. That motion was passed unanimously after a number of my colleagues—government, opposition and independent—spoke very eloquently in support of it. I brought that motion because of what I heard from constituents and parents. More than one in four Ontario students have picked up vaping. As a former PPSC federal drug prosecutor, I don’t really have a problem getting behind that—but it was also what I heard about smart phones.

I especially want to call out the work of a great Kitchener doctor, Dr. Alison Yeung, known online as @thesmartphoneeffectmd, who has really brought an evidence-based, one-woman advocacy attack on the impacts of smart phone use.

Following that, the ministry brought an announcement about new efforts to combat smart phones and vapes in classrooms. I would appreciate it if the minister could please elaborate on what the government is doing.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I do want to thank the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler, another fellow millennial—not ironically—taking action to restrict cellphones and technology in schools.

I want to note that two weeks ago, we announced a plan to get cellphones out of sight and out of mind when it comes to our schools. It’s overwhelmingly supported by Ontario families; 87% of Ontarians agree we have a problem, and they support our solution to restrict cellphone technology during instructional time.

We have to empower our educators and give them the enforcement tools and the confidence that when they ask a student to remove their device, their superintendents and directors will have their back. This government will stand with our teachers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Supplementary question.

Ms. Jess Dixon: I have to say, it was incredibly gratifying to see the ministry take such prompt action on something that really showed that they heard the concerns of the entire House, based on the unanimously passed motion. I have to say, I had never received more positive responses online until I brought that motion, and those responses really crossed cultural, religion and income lines.

This is something that Ontarians clearly care about. It’s something that got cross-party support, and it’s something that I really, really think shows the commitment this government has and this minister has to making sure that students have a safe and supportive learning environment.

I’m asking, Speaker, if the minister can talk about how the government is planning to continue this positive momentum that we have for something that it’s so evident that all Ontarians support, care for and are marshalling behind.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: It is so important that we get this right, which is why we are announcing an expansion of mandatory learning in the curriculum dealing with the responsible use of technology, online citizenship, privacy, consent, and to further strengthen the knowledge on the perils of vaping, cannabis, nicotine—an illegal substance for a child under 18 in this province. We’re announcing funding in partnership with the minister of mental health and addictions to leverage community-based mental health and addiction services. We are expanding mandatory training of our staff.

We’re empowering parents through parent involvement councils to drive localized campaigns at the school level. We’re also investing $30 million in vape detectors.

Consumer protection

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: My question is to the Premier.

If the Premier has been to a grocery store lately, he would know that groceries are too darn expensive. People can’t afford to eat properly. Parents can’t feed their kids nutritious food.

Ontarians are so fed up with the lack of action by this Conservative government that they’ve taken matters into their own hands and started a boycott against Loblaws, the largest grocer in Canada.

The NDP has long called for a consumer protection watchdog.

Premier, will you accept our call and restore integrity in the grocery sector?

Hon. Doug Ford: Let’s start with restoring integrity with the NDP and Liberals, who are all for this carbon tax and have increased the cost of gas by 23%. You know, folks in the crowd, you go up and fill up your tank now—it’s 23% higher. You know, when you deliver groceries, meat or produce, it goes on a truck. When they print something on those products, that gets taxed too, through the carbon tax.

The carbon tax is the worst single tax we have ever seen in this country. Even the Bank of Canada is saying it’s driving up inflation. What we need to do is get rid of this carbon tax. It’s the worst tax. It hits the people in their pockets. Let’s axe the tax.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The supplementary question.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: Back to the Premier: The Premier doesn’t want to talk about price gouging, but that’s what’s happening. On the day the boycott began, Loblaws posted a first-quarter revenue of over $13 billion, with profits going up almost 10%.

Your inaction will drive more people to the food banks, and you know that even food banks are running out of food.

What do you have to say to parents who struggled to pack a lunch for their children this morning?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will take their seats. Order. Opposition, come to order. Order. Order.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: And I hear it—if you’re a farmer who produces food, the NDP thinks you’re an enemy. If you’re a grocer who sells the food, the NDP thinks you’re an enemy.

I was at the