Ontario boosts personal support worker pay, stability

Summary#

Bill 69, the Respecting Workers in Health Care and in Related Fields Act, 2025, would create a new Act. It would require the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development to take all necessary steps—including introducing more legislation if needed—to secure the standards below. The bill’s stated goal is to improve working conditions and encourage workers to stay in or enter these fields.

  • For hospitals, long-term care homes, home care agencies and defined health care providers that employ more than 20 people, the Minister would have to take steps to ensure at least 70% of their employees work on a permanent, full-time basis.
  • The Minister would have to take steps to ensure personal support workers are paid at least $8 an hour above minimum wage, receive paid sick leave, and have health benefits and pension-plan membership.
  • Full-time personal support workers would be entitled to at least 10 paid sick days per calendar year; part-time workers’ days would be pro-rated based on hours worked.
  • The Minister would have to take steps to ensure homemakers are paid at least minimum wage and that rules on hours of work, eating periods and overtime pay apply to them.
  • The bill does not set out how these standards would be enforced or say that the standards would take effect immediately without further steps. It would come into force one year after Royal Assent.

What it means for you#

  • Government: The Minister would have a duty to take all necessary steps to achieve the listed standards. The bill does not specify what those steps must be, beyond allowing the Minister to introduce legislation if needed.
  • Personal support workers: The bill sets out the pay, paid-leave, health-benefit and pension standards the Minister must work to ensure. It does not explain how benefits or pension plans would be provided.
  • Homemakers: The bill defines a homemaker as someone employed by someone other than the householder to do homemaking work in a private home. The Minister would have to take steps to ensure the listed wage and employment standards apply.
  • Hospitals, long-term care homes, home care agencies and health care providers: If they employ more than 20 people, the Minister would have to take steps to ensure at least 70% are permanent, full-time employees. “Health care provider” means a member of a college under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 acting within their scope of practice.
  • Other workers and the public: The bill does not directly change other workers’ pay, benefits or services. It creates no application, complaint or appeal process in the text provided.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s total public or employer costs.

  • The bill sets standards that could require employers to pay higher wages or provide benefits, pensions and paid leave, but gives no cost estimate or details on who would pay.
  • It requires the Minister to take steps, but does not specify staffing, administrative costs or funding.

What is unclear#

  • What steps the Minister must take, and how the standards would be enforced, are not specified.
  • The bill does not define “personal support worker,” “permanent,” or “full-time.”
  • It does not explain how to calculate part-time paid-leave days, or what health benefits and pension-plan membership must include.
  • The bill does not explain how the 70% requirement would be measured or what happens if an employer does not meet it.
  • The Employment Standards Act, 2000 is not supplied, so its current rules and any existing exclusions for homemakers could not be checked against this bill.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to address job insecurity and low compensation in health care and related work.
  • Setting minimum standards for permanent, full-time employment could give workers more predictable jobs.
  • Higher pay, paid sick leave, benefits and pension access could improve the terms of personal support work.
  • Applying hours, eating-period and overtime rules to homemakers could give them clearer protections.

Case against#

  • The bill sets broad targets but leaves the Minister to decide what steps are necessary, so workers and employers cannot tell from this text how or when the standards would be put in place.
  • The pay, benefit, pension and staffing requirements could add costs for employers; the bill does not estimate those costs or explain how they would be shared.
  • The 70% target could limit employers’ ability to use part-time or non-permanent jobs, but the bill does not explain how exceptions or shortfalls would be handled.
  • Key terms and details—such as what counts as full-time work and what benefits must be offered—are left open.