Merci à la députée de—excusez-moi, j’essaie de trouver votre—quel?

Écoute, je ne suis pas ici pour dire qu’il n’y a pas de bonnes choses dans le projet de loi, mais il manque beaucoup de choses dans vos projets de loi. C’est le troisième ou le quatrième projet de loi où on dit qu’il y a des choses qui manquent. Mais pour une raison quelconque, quand ça vient de notre bord, c’est comme avaler un melon d’eau. C’est comme si vous êtes—on est rendu à un point dans cette place, ici dans la Chambre, qu’on est trop partisan, qu’on ne veut même plus voir, des fois, ce qu’on propose, ce qui peut être amélioré, et qu’on ne peut travailler ensemble. Je ne suis pas prêt à dire que oui, je suis d’accord avec ce point de vue-là. Écoute, c’est sûr qu’il y a beaucoup de choses à améliorer encore.

Écoute, on a tellement, tellement à faire sur la compensation pour les employés. On a parlé tellement souvent ici en Chambre du « deeming », de comment on dit qu’il faut éliminer le « deeming ». Ça, ça veut dire qu’une personne, disons, n’est pas capable de faire leur travail, mais qu’ils disent : « Oh, on t’a donné du training, mais il y a une job »—je vais vous donner un exemple de chez nous à Kapuskasing.

Je demeure à Kapuskasing. Ils disent :

—Guy, on t’a « retrainé », on t’a éduqué pour un autre travail.

Mais moi, je dis :

—Bien, il n’y en a pas à Kapuskasing.

—Ah, bien, il y en a un à Timmins.

—Bien, là, je ne peux pas aller à Timmins, ma famille est ici.

—Ce n’est pas notre problème. Tu vas voyager deux heures, puis tu vas aller travailler là, tu vas dépenser—puis on va te payer 80 % de la différence entre le travail.

Parce que ce n’est pas la faute de la compensation; c’est rendu de ta faute.

Mais pourtant, tu as son employeur qui a beaucoup les reins plus solides. Tu sais ce que je veux dire? Pourquoi donne-t-il sa responsabilité aux employés? L’employé, il doit juste le rapporter. C’est son travail. Mais ce n’est pas son travail, par exemple, de mettre sa vie en danger, au salaire minimum, quand c’est la responsabilité de l’employeur. Ce n’est pas juste, puis on doit protéger ces employés-là.

The member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay—that was a good critique of the bill before us, but I noticed this bill doesn’t have the things that would make a huge difference in workers’ lives. As we all know, unionizing is one of the most critical things you can do to improve the lot of working people in this province, but there is no card-based certification. There is no mention of first-contract support. There is no anti-scab legislation.

Could you speak to the lack of these critical elements that would allow workers to unionize and actually exercise power to defend themselves in the workplace?

Merci beaucoup au député. Les nouveaux arrivants dans notre province sont essentiels pour garantir que l’Ontario puisse continuer à croître. S’opposer à ce projet de loi signifie-t-il que les membres soutiennent les pratiques existantes qui empêchent les nouveaux arrivants de pouvoir travailler dans les domaines pour lesquels ils sont formés?

Thank you to my colleague for the question.

The three points you brought up would make a huge difference, because my experience, when I was—a lot of people can’t defend themselves. They were coming to me and saying, “Guy, we’re happy you’re here”—or, “We’re happy our union is here,” because it wasn’t about me; it was about the committee and all the work they did. They said, “I can’t defend myself, and I don’t have to go and beg for an increase in my wages.” If they don’t have a union, everybody is paid differently, and nobody knows. We’ve seen this with truckers. That’s why when we represented truckers, they were happy, because they knew that everybody was getting the same rate—they knew they were getting the same thing for a volume table. So there is a standard that is set that will improve workers’ rights.

So union certification—and when you think about that, we used to have it: automatic cert, when you had 51%. This Conservative government took it away. Why? It doesn’t make sense. Your signature is—

I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak, on behalf of the great residents of Newmarket–Aurora, on the Working for Workers Four Act. This bill encompasses four main themes: (1) supporting workers in the service sector by clarifying existing provisions and adding new provisions to better protect workers; (2) striving for fairer treatment in the hiring process by ensuring increasing transparency and access to employment opportunities for all workers, including newcomers; (3) creating enhanced worker protections by strengthening employment standards and health and safety protections and supporting injured workers; and (4) encouraging labour market mobility by removing barriers to accessing good jobs/pathways in regulated professions and compulsory trades.

Our government is giving workers the help they need to find better jobs and bigger paycheques, while having their privacy protected.

That is why Ontario is proposing legislative changes that would require businesses to include salaries in job postings, giving workers more information to make decisions that benefit them. In 2022, only 30% of online job postings had salary information in Ontario. Pay transparency has become more common as workers desire open discussions about their wages while they are facing rising costs of living and ongoing pay discrepancies. If the legislation is passed and proclaimed, Ontario employers will be required to include expected salary ranges on all publicly advertised job postings. This is one step towards closing the gender pay gap, as research shows women in Ontario earned an average of 87 cents for every dollar earned by men.

Cathy Taylor, executive director of the Ontario Nonprofit Network, said, “Our research indicates that pay transparency is a key decent work practice that supports the recruitment and retention of top talent. Ontario’s non-profit sector employs 844,000 workers, 77% of whom are women, and we know that equitable compensation practices such as pay transparency can help reduce the gender wage gap and address systemic barriers that women, especially equity-deserving women, face in compensation. When salary ranges are disclosed on postings, job seekers have an easier time identifying whether the position and its compensation are the right fit while also supporting effective and streamlined recruitment processes for employers. We applaud the Ministry of Labour for taking this important step forward to embed decent work practices in legislation.”

In addition, our government is proposing to require employers to disclose if artificial intelligence—AI—is being used during the hiring process, giving workers more information to make informed decisions in their career search. With the increasing use of AI to streamline candidate selection and the historical pay differences between men, women and those from under-represented groups, we are taking action to ensure our province can tackle the labour shortage and job seekers get a fair shot at the Ontario dream.

In February of this year, 6.6% of businesses in Ontario were planning to adopt AI over the next 12 months. This number will likely increase over the coming months and years. The fact is, governments have a responsibility to keep up with evolving technologies. AI technologies can adopt harmful biases and decision-making that even their owners don’t properly understand. Algorithms generate high volumes of personal data about applicants and employees. As employment decisions affect people’s lives, job seekers should be informed when automated systems are being used to make hiring decisions.

Christin Cullen, CEO of the John Howard Society of Ontario, said, “The John Howard Society offices across Ontario specialize in assisting job seekers facing multiple barriers in finding employment. A transparent recruitment process is crucial to ensuring that applicants are well informed and have the tools they need to make decisions about their careers, which is why we welcome the Ontario government’s initiative to introduce legislation that requires employers to provide more comprehensive details in job postings, enhancing applicants’ access to information surrounding the hiring process.”

Thirdly, to help end workplace misconduct and hold abusers to account, our government is proposing to conduct consultations and detailed analysis on the use of non-disclosure agreements—NDAs—in the settlement of cases of workplace sexual harassment, misconduct or violence. The consultation would identify legislative options to restrict the use of NDAs while protecting the rights of victims and survivors. Ninety-four per cent of Canadian Bar Association members recently voted in favour of discouraging the widespread use of NDAs in settlement of cases of harassment and discrimination.

There are concerns within the legal and survivor communities about the adverse impact of using NDAs. Signing an NDA could prevent survivors from talking about their experience and protect perpetrators unjustifiably. However, prohibiting or limiting NDAs could be a disincentive to settlement, forcing more matters of this nature to litigation. Consultation with the legal community, survivors and employers would support a more complete assessment of risk and benefits.

Additionally, our government is introducing legislation that would, if passed, support injured workers by enabling super indexing increases to Workplace Safety and Insurance Board—WSIB—benefits, above the annual rate of inflation. What this means is that for an injured worker who earns $70,000 a year, a 2% increase could mean an additional $900 annually on top of the cost-of-living adjustments, which were 6.5% in 2023.

The proposed super-indexing amendment to the WSIB would, if passed, enable the government to make regulations setting out additional indexation increases and the dates on which they are to be imposed. This would require the board to apply the prescribed increases to benefit amounts—increasing the money injured workers receive. The proposal would deliver on our government’s public commitment to increase WSIB benefit payments to injured workers and survivors. This increases fairness to these recipients and helps them at a time of rising costs.

Ontario is also improving cancer coverage for firefighters and fire investigators by lowering the employment period needed to receive presumed compensation when diagnosed with esophageal cancer from 25 to 15 years. This means a firefighter with 24 years of service would no longer have to contest that their cancer was connected to their employment, giving them faster access to WSIB benefits and other critical services. Firefighters are everyday heroes, and they deserve our support. We are taking action to assist our brave firefighters and fire investigators dealing with cancer after workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances and chemicals.

On November 9, I attended the 2023 Central York Fire Services recognition ceremony in Aurora. It was an amazing event, so well attended by our local Newmarket and Aurora firefighters, their families, as well as local dignitaries, all in support of our local firefighters. I was so honoured to be there to recognize newly hired staff, federal exemplary service medals and bars, as well as the provincial long service medals and bars. These individuals choose a higher-risk profession. They are a unique brand of people who voluntarily place themselves in harm’s way in service for others.

As Edward Croker, the fire chief of the New York City Fire Department at the end of the 19th century, recognized, “When a person becomes a firefighter their greatest act of bravery is accomplished. What they do after is all in the line of duty.”

I also recognize the families for their unwavering support. It may not seem like a lot, but without their support, the firefighters could not make the difference that they have made and continue to make for the benefit of our community members.

After the ceremony, I had a conversation with Jason Beuving, president of the Central York Professional Firefighters Association, who was pleased with the minister’s announcement the day before regarding the improvements being proposed: “We’re very thankful to this government for recognizing that our current legislation needs to be amended. Reducing the latency period from 25 years to 15 years means the fallen firefighter’s death is recognized as a line of duty death and ensures that they, and their families, will have security moving forward should they succumb to esophageal cancer.”

I would also like to highlight the feedback I received from Ian Laing, fire chief of Central York Fire Services: “Firefighters are dedicated to serving their communities, and unfortunately, despite continually evolving safety measures, this job puts them at risk for various types of cancers. Continued support and enhanced policies that further protect the firefighters that put their life on the line to protect us all is very important. I am proud that Central York Fire Services recently introduced a wellness program that promotes early detection of medical issues. The program offers all firefighters an extensive annual medical exam based on the unique risks and adverse working environments that firefighters face daily.”

Furthermore, to help workers dealing with a critical illness, the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development will be launching consultations on a new job-protected leave to match the length of federal employment insurance sickness benefits, which is 26 weeks. Currently, under the Employment Standards Act, employees are entitled to three days of unpaid sick leave per year for personal illness, injury or medical emergency.

Also, the ESA currently provides unpaid job-protected critical illness leave for employees to care for specified family members with a critical illness. However, it does not apply to employees with a personal critical illness. A job-protected leave could ensure workers who receive a diagnosis of cancer or other diseases peace of mind, while they seek treatment, that their job will be there for them when they return.

If approved, these changes would expand on the groundbreaking actions the government has taken under the Working for Workers Acts, 2021, 2022 and 2023, that are already helping millions of people by introducing more leading-edge, pro-worker supports to help workers earn more, increase protections, and support newcomers.

Speaker, Ontario is facing a historic labour shortage, with nearly 250,000 jobs unfilled, which is costing billions in lost output. At the same time, only a quarter of internationally trained immigrants in Ontario work in the regulated professions they are trained for. To build a stronger province that works for everyone, we need newcomers with experience in health care, skilled trades and other critical sectors to be able to contribute when they arrive in Ontario. Our government could be earning $12 billion to $20 billion of GDP growth in each year by 2025 by closing unemployment and increasing participation rate gaps for recent immigrants in Ontario’s labour market. That is why our government is leading the country with proposed changes to help internationally trained immigrants work in the fields they’ve studied in, to build stronger communities for all of us.

After introducing historic legislation that banned regulated professions from requiring Canadian work experience in more than 30 occupations, we are introducing new legislation to prohibit Canadian work experience requirements in job ads or application forms. If you have work experience, regardless of which country you obtained it from, you should have a fair shot at being considered in a job interview. We want employers to hire the best candidates, and too many are unfortunately screening some of these options out before they’ve had a fair chance to be considered. Our government intends to introduce legislation that would, if passed, amend the ESA to prohibit employers from including a requirement for prior Canadian work experience in job ads or application forms. The proposed change, if passed, would ensure that prospective employees with the knowledge, skills and abilities to perform a job are not screened out during the initial stage of hiring.

In addition, these changes would, if passed, make it easier for international students learning in our province to qualify for the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program, and improve oversight and accountability of how regulated professions like engineers, architects and geologists use third-party companies to assess international credentials, to ensure it’s done quickly and fairly.

Together, these changes will help thousands of otherwise qualified professionals pursue their dreams over the coming years, all while maintaining Ontario’s world-class licensing and exam requirements.

Also, our government is proposing several changes that would help the over 400,000 people in the restaurant and hospitality industry by updating the province’s Employment Standards Act, including by banning unpaid trial shifts and making clear employers can never deduct an employee’s wages in the event of a dine and dash, gas and dash or any other stolen property. No worker should have their pay deducted or see themselves put in harm’s way because someone else is breaking the law.

Dine and dash is more common than we might think it to be. Studies have found that one in 20 customers have dined at a restaurant and left without paying. Recent media coverage has shown that many restaurant owners in Ontario are unaware that they are not allowed to deduct employees’ wages for unpaid meals. While Ontario’s laws generally require employees to be paid for all hours worked and prohibit pay deductions, unpaid trial shifts and punitive deductions are still common in the restaurant and service industries.

While employees are generally prohibited from deducting wages, too many workers are unaware of their rights. This change would amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000, to send a clear message that deductions from wages for property stolen by customers, like in dining and dashing, are prohibited.

Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, along with his two parliamentary assistants, for their remarks last week on this great bill that reiterates our government’s commitment to working for workers.

On sait tous que les pompiers, ce sont des héros qui risquent leur vie pour venir en service aux gens. Vous l’avez dit, vous l’avez mentionné un peu. Donc, ce qu’on peut comprendre, c’est qu’en opposant ce projet de loi, vous comprenez que ça va être plus difficile pour, justement, les pompiers et leur famille d’avoir le support nécessaire quand ça vient à faire face à des maladies causées par leur travail.

Further questions?

Thank you to my colleague from Newmarket–Aurora for her excellent comments today on Working for Workers Four. The thing that I’m most excited about in all of these things we’re doing to help workers is helping newcomers who we desperately need to have working to their potential, not to mention the fact that a lot of immigrants come here from all over the world, they bring their skills, they bring their hopes and dreams and it’s wonderful to see people be able to realize those hopes and dreams.

I think this is something so important, so I wanted to ask the member from Newmarket–Aurora if she could elaborate on what the government is doing that will help job seekers who are newcomers who can contribute to Ontario’s economy, and give us a little more detail on that.

Questions?

Madam Speaker, through you to the member, yes, I did speak about the salary transparency, because we know that pay transparency has become more common as workers desire open discussions about their wages. They want to see and they want to discuss these wages. This is why we are proposing this in this legislation, because we firmly believe that everyone deserves to be paid fairly for the work that they do.

One of the steps—and I did mention this in my speech—is closing the gender pay gap. Research shows women in Ontario earn an average of 87 cents for every dollar earned by a man. So, yes, in this legislation we are moving forward with the salary transparency.

Speaker, through you, as I noted just a couple of weeks ago, I attended the exemplary awards recognitions for our firefighters. This was held, in fact, the day after our announcement, and there was such wonderful feedback. When I spoke with many of the firefighters at this event, they thanked me, their families thanked me, because you know what? It’s the families behind the firefighters—they are the ones supporting them. While they go out and fight fires, they are caring for their families.

So this is so important. If this happens to a firefighter, we’re not just talking about the care of the firefighter, we’re talking about the care of the family. That’s why I’m so proud of our government with what we are doing with esophageal cancer and recognizing that as one of these presumed cancers and lessening the time from 25 years to 15 years.

In New York, Colorado, Washington and California, they have also enacted similar pay transparency laws. So, if approved, there will be limited administrative costs for employers, but it will ensure salary disclosure is added to the job ad templates.

Speaker, I’ll give you an example that’s close to me: my husband. My husband is an American, and he came to live in Canada with me, and when he was applying for jobs, even though he had 40 years of experience in manufacturing, he had the hardest time. He said to me, “I can’t believe that when you have this much experience, all they’re focused on is Canadian-relevant experience.” So what we are doing—well, it would help my husband, who’s retired now. In any case, it’s going to help the people who are coming to this country so we can—

I listened to the comments from the member for Newmarket–Aurora, and one of the provisions of this bill that she didn’t mention is around the new requirement for employers to post information about compensation levels. I’d just like to ask the member whether she is aware that in 2018 this Legislature debated a bill called the Pay Transparency Act. We passed that bill. That bill went to committee. It came back much stronger, with great amendments. It was passed at third reading. It got royal assent. It is sitting somewhere in the back rooms of this Legislature waiting to be proclaimed to provide real pay transparency for women in this province to close the gender wage gap. Why is this government not proclaiming the Pay Transparency Act?

It’s my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 149, which is the government’s fourth kick at the can at bringing forward legislation when it comes to workers in the province of Ontario. What’s interesting is, there are some things in this bill that the NDP were talking about before the government drafted the first bill. One can only draw the conclusion that had the government actually consulted labour, consulted the workers and the unions in this province before even the first bill, we wouldn’t be to the point where there’s now a fourth bill—we wouldn’t have needed a second bill; we wouldn’t have needed a third. If they had just actually consulted with labour—we heard from workers and unions around this province that this government didn’t do that. They didn’t actually talk to the workers in this province to find out what was needed.

Speaker, I’m going to start by briefly talking about anti-scab labour legislation, which is glaringly missing from this fourth bill. It’s something that we, as New Democrats, passed during an NDP government and that the next Conservative government immediately ripped up. We have had 16 attempts now, through successive Liberal and Conservative governments, to bring back anti-scab legislation, and every single one of those times the Conservatives voted against it. They’ll have another opportunity tomorrow to support our bill, when it’s debated, and I would hope they would do that, because that would be working for workers.

The member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell and the member for Newmarket–Aurora talked a lot about firefighters and presumptive legislation, the important work the firefighters do, the life-saving work firefighters do, and I don’t think anybody in this House is going to argue with those facts. Nobody is going to argue with those facts. But what I don’t hear the government talking about and what is not in this bill is women workers who are in abusive partnerships, intimate partner violence and the lack of supports for women and their children to be able to leave that abusive situation and to have financial stability, to have the mental health supports that they need in a connected and timely manner, to have access to a shelter bed while they wait for transitional or permanent housing.

They were talking about closing the gender pay gap, but the workers that work within the women’s shelters—those shelters are so underfunded, so incredibly underfunded, and they need very specialized, highly trained people to work with the women and children that come through their doors seeking help. The barriers and the issues that women who are fleeing intimate partner violence or children—their needs are incredibly complex, and the workers that are supposed to be there to support them need very highly specialized training. But these shelters don’t receive enough funding from the government, and so they can’t pay these workers the wage that they deserve. In my community, they don’t even make a living wage.

It is a revolving door of workers because the work is intense and it’s difficult physically, mentally, emotionally. So it’s a revolving door of workers. They have trouble recruiting and retaining workers because you can’t even live off of $17 an hour. You can’t. You certainly can’t buy a home, and good luck finding a place that you can rent because this government cut rent control. You can’t pay for a place to live and feed yourself and your family, so many of these workers end up at a food bank. Imagine that: These are people who dedicate their lives because they love what they do, supporting these women and children, and this government doesn’t think they’re worth even a living wage—not even a living wage.

We have a repair backlog in our not-for-profit affordable social housing in Windsor. Five per cent of social housing in Windsor is uninhabitable because this government won’t fund it—5%. Those are housing units that women and children fleeing domestic violence would be placed in—a home of their own. Can’t use those units. In a housing crisis, this government will not fund the repairs of those units. Last year alone, 31 of the non-profits that run these non-profit affordable social housing units needed more than $26 million just to do repairs for that year. This government gave them less than one sixth of that.

So when we’re talking about working for workers and they want to stand over there—and the member from Newmarket–Aurora talked about non-disclosure agreements for workplace harassment—what are you doing in this bill or anywhere else to actually support women to get out of abusive situations? Speaker, this year, in the last 12 months alone, we have had two women murdered by their spouses, one just within the last two weeks, because there was nowhere for them to go.

These shelters are over capacity. They have done everything that they possibly can. They’re putting women and children in hotel rooms—which they are not funded for, by the way—and are expected to then go and provide food and give them access to these workers that will help try and connect them to the other supports and services they need: the mental health supports that they need, the housing and the food supports that they need. The children, if they have learning disabilities or developmental disabilities—they’re expected to go in there and help with that, but the province doesn’t fund it.

What the province is doing, what this Conservative government is doing, is downloading more and more expectations and responsibilities onto these shelters. There’s no really relevant protected, paid leave for women workers to acknowledge that when they are in an abusive situation or when they are fleeing domestic violence—either on their own or, if they have children, taking their children with them—there’s nothing in this bill or the previous three that addresses the financial precarity those women are in. There’s nothing. And if they need time off work, there are no permanent paid sick days for them to be able to stay home and take care of their children, and deal with the complex issues that those children will be dealing with fleeing domestic violence. There is nothing to ensure that the people who need it the most, the most vulnerable, will actually get the supports and services they need. There’s nothing.

We often talk—the government side does too—about, “You have to recognize intimate partner violence. You need to seek help. We’ve got these different organizations that will help you.” But they don’t fund it. They don’t fund it adequately. And when you’re not paying the highly specialized workers that work at these domestic abuse shelters, when you’re not paying them a living wage, how do you expect them to be able to support the women who are fleeing domestic violence? How do you expect them to do that?

So while I had said earlier—the members opposite were talking about firefighters and the incredibly difficult, physically, mentally, emotionally demanding jobs that they do, and how they save lives. Recognize that the women that work within the sector that support women and children fleeing domestic violence—recognize that their work is physically, emotionally and mentally demanding, and the work they do also saves lives.

Speaker, it’s getting really—it’s so incredibly frustrating that we hear the government constantly talking about supporting workers, supporting women. The reality is that it is 2023—nearly 2024—and women are still having debates about their value: their value to society, their value in the workforce. What is it going to take for this government to actually take it seriously, to actually do something, to actually give a damn?

Because in the meantime, they are continuing, perpetuating, a cycle of women living in poverty, women staying in abusive situations because they feel they have no other option, because they can’t take time off of work to deal with the complexities of the situation that they’re trying to flee. They can’t stay home and support their children. They can’t get access to affordable housing, so if they leave their partner, they could be living on the street.

So I’m going to ask: At what point do the lives of women actually matter to the government? When do they actually matter? There have been 55 femicides in the last two years; 55 women have died as a result of intimate partner violence, because they didn’t have the resources, thanks to the government, to be able to flee the situation—

Thank you to the member opposite. Obviously, I don’t know the specifics of his specific constituent.

Injured workers in Ontario definitely deserve the supports to recover, and by introducing this legislation, if passed, it would support injured workers, enabling the super-indexing of increases for WSIB. And it will go above the annual rate of inflation. I’ll give you an example. For an injured worker who earns—

I was listening closely to the member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Something that I want to comment on, as the transit critic for the province reflecting on this piece of legislation: While I think it’s great the government wants to do efforts—there are many sequels to this effort, four—I would like to see a commitment to workers in this province spread across all the legislation of this government.

I’m thinking, in particular, of a bus driver in Hamilton whose name is Cassie Theaker. ATU 107 just got a tentative agreement, but they had to fight and struggle in that city. Cassie told the crowd on a picket line that she can no longer feed her kids, pay the rent and drive a bus in the city of Hamilton. If this government, in this legislation—if it was connected to operational transit funding, Cassie could feed her kids.

My question is, what is the member’s message to Cassie? Today is she going to call for what transit authorities are calling for: the government investing $500 million in transit to make—

Thank you. Further questions?

Further debate?

This government has repeatedly said that Ontario has the safest roads in North America, and the Liberals always said that, too. But I can assure you that Highway 11, the Trans-Canada Highway—the two-lane from North Bay north—is not the safest road in North America, not the safest road in Ontario, and it’s the Trans-Canada Highway. The trucks that cross the country go through that.

I’ll tell you what happens on the Trans-Canada Highway north of North Bay. I was driving here on Sunday afternoon, but Sunday morning—oh, highway’s closed. It snowed—highway’s closed. When the highway opened again, I got there—transport on its side, it’s one lane. You know what the highway north of North Bay is right now, or at least half an hour ago? Closed. Closed again—again. This is the Trans-Canada Highway—another major accident.

There are things we can do: Make sure there’s places for trucks to park—that was announced years ago—not done; make sure that the people who are on those roads are actually trained to drive on those roads—again, it’s not happening. It’s not happening.

It is not the safest road in North America. It’s not the safest road in Ontario and everyone knows it. And it’s our main street, and people are dying because of it. Come on. Let’s get going.

I am pleased to highlight an even that took place last month in my great riding of Newmarket–Aurora. I was honoured to welcome the Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity to Newmarket to visit the Women’s Centre of York Region. This non-profit is one of 10 sites that this government has invested $6.9 million over three years in the expansion of the Investing in Women’s Futures Program. The goal of this program is to help more women who experience social and economic barriers to connect to supports and develop the skills they need to gain financial security and independence.

There are now 33 service delivery locations across this province, and to date the program has already yielded significant results. In 2022-23, this program assisted nearly 1,300 women across Ontario in securing employment, launching their own business or pursuing further training and education.

For more than 45 years, the Women’s Centre of York Region has been a beacon of empowerment for women in York region, and I was proud to announce that they are the recipient of $325,000 of this funding to help the women in our region reach their full potential. Thank you to the York region women.

Thank you to the member. We’ll continue debate after.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

It was a pleasure to join the Minister of Education as well as my colleague the member for Cambridge in Kitchener on Friday for an important announcement. Our government will be opening 3,725 new child spaces in Waterloo region by 2026. This represents a nearly 25% increase in child care spaces which our government will deliver over the next three years.

The region of Waterloo has said that growing wait-lists have become a concern for every centre in the area, and obviously, this is great news for families in my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga and, of course, across our region. These new spaces will be part of the Canada-wide Early Learning and Child Care system, which includes a mix of not-for-profit and for-profit centres.

I want to applaud the Minister of Education and his hard-working team for this initiative.

Keeping options open for parents and communities is a key goal of the government of Ontario to provide families with choice and flexibility. This flexibility makes sense, especially in small towns, which is often where child care spaces are needed the most. That includes Wilmot, Wellesley and Woolwich townships, which are all listed as priority areas under our plan.

We remain committed to delivering more affordable and accessible child care spaces across the province.