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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, we are requiring employers to disclose the use of artificial intelligence in the recruitment process. In the old days, job applications would be manually reviewed by an employer to find the best fit. Now, artificial intelligence can automatically sort hundreds of job applications in a minute. When used fairly and respectfully, this technology can be used effectively to help both employers and employees, helping employers to cut the time for sorting through those applications and helping the employees by finding the right skill set for the job. I’m very supportive of all the different technologies, especially new technologies, given my background in technology for 38 years, but we need to make sure that we are cautious of the ethical, legal and privacy implications of this new technology. This bill would set the ground rules for the ethical use of AI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a win-win situation when highly qualified immigrants get a chance to work in their field and contribute to the province’s economy. It is a win-win situation. They need a job. They came to this country to start their new life based on the qualifications they have and they were accepted based on. We put that upfront as a requirement because we needed those professionals but, when they arrive and they can’t work, none of the two sides achieved anything: not the professional who arrived here to start the new job or the province who accepted them to do the job but didn’t give them the licence or the credentials to do the job. Neither of the sides achieved anything. By those changes we are proposing in this legislation, it’s actually a win-win situation for the newly immigrated professionals and for the province who needed these professionals; they needed them in the job. Immigrants can provide for their families. Businesses have access to the talented, skilled workers they need and we accepted.

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

I really thank my colleague for the good question.

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

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

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

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

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