My question is to the Minister of Labour, Speaker. Earlier this month, the Naujawan Support Network, a worker support network in Brampton, wrote to the minister to highlight how investigations and enforcement of wage theft complaints to the ministry are dramatically down under this government.

They have asked the minister to reply by June 1 to set up a meeting to discuss this important issue. Will the minister agree to meet with the network to learn of their concerns?

This information comes directly from the ministry, the result of a freedom of information request: In 2014, there were 18,000 employment standards investigations. In 2021, that number dropped to 8,000.

Speaker, I want to quote the letter, actually. The workers whose wages are being stolen “regard the ministry as weak and ineffective—an institution that cannot enforce the orders it issues, and that will not prosecute employers who ignore the orders. Some employers are so carefree towards the ministry that they mockingly encourage their workers to file employment standards claims, believing they will never face serious consequences even if those claims are successful.”

Speaker, does the minister think it’s acceptable that millions of dollars—actually, $9 million—owed to workers in Brampton and elsewhere in the last year has been pocketed by greedy employers?

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour.

Last week, we were all shocked to hear about the 64 Mexican nationals who were labour-trafficked here in Ontario.

Advocates across the province are calling for an end to the exclusion of migrant workers from Ontario labour laws.

The minister, when boasting about the new Working for Workers 3 act, his legislation, told the Toronto Star that his ministry is establishing an anti-trafficking team—changes to ensure that workers like these in this story will be protected.

Can the minister clarify exactly how the Working for Workers 3 act would have ensured that these migrant workers would have been protected?

My question is, what is the minister doing to ensure that migrant workers like these, who contribute to our province, will be protected?

Which means we could’ve done more inspections and more prosecutions—during COVID migrant workers died because they weren’t protected. During COVID we needed more inspections done because a lot of our workplaces, even coffee shops for example, did not have proper safety measures, which meant a lot of gig workers, a lot of precarious workers were not protected—a lot of front-line workers, a lot of essential workers who were defined as essential, Speaker.

And this is one piece that I know many of you know—and I know the President of the Treasury Board knows this very well because back then he was the minister for this. I talked about essential workers. An issue that I just can’t get over, Speaker: The fact that the Ministry of Labour could not define what was essential. And guess what happened? So many of these vulnerable workers went to work and caught COVID. Their family members were at risk. Some of them lost their family members. Some of them lost their lives, including health care workers like PSWs and nurses. In Scarborough as well, Speaker, they lost their lives because they were not protected, and this government could not even define what was essential.

I’ve talked about it many, many times, so I won’t go into that detail right now, but it’s in Hansard, and I’ve talked about it. I begged the ministry, I begged the Premier, I begged the House—just go back to look at what you have done, look at your policies, because you can save so many lives if you could just go back and define it—because guess what was happening? Some of these vulnerable workers, like migrant workers, a lot of women workers, Speaker—especially women workers—guess what they were doing during the pandemic? I know we talked about the pandemic, but guess what these people were doing? They were working at makeup factories. They were making foundation and lipstick. They were forced to go to work in order to protect their jobs, and they were risking their lives for that. How was that essential? That was not essential, and we asked the government to take action. They did not, and that’s on this government. That is on this government.

When we talk about foreign nationals and migrant workers and we want to come off as, you know, this incredible bill, Working for Workers Act 3, we need to also talk about the exploitation, the way it happens and the way we have to help them. We have to make sure that we understand who these individuals are. That includes women. That includes international students. That includes vulnerable people who rely on these incomes for their livelihoods.

There have been dozens of instances of the “scumbag employers,” as the minister describes, withholding wages, physically intimidating and threatening the livelihoods of these students. We have organizations that talk about it. I want to actually take a moment to highlight one of the organizations that just does amazing work to help workers. I had the opportunity to meet with a group of young organizers, many of whom are international students, who face precarious work conditions themselves. This is the Naujawan Support Network, the NSN Peel group. They have fought to win back hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages from these employers. What they’re doing basically is they’re shaming the employers. They work closely with the employees. This is like detective work: You have to really be careful of saving the identity and working closely with the employees, helping them. And then once it doesn’t work through negotiations, you have to go out there and shame them, and sometimes that’s how it worked.

One of the examples that you will hear, Speaker, is in Brampton, where international students actually worked together, and they shamed some of the restaurants and contractors, because the conditions were just brutal. They made sure that the employees got paid. Satinder Kaur Grewal actually said that she was paid C$100 per day for 12-hour workdays at Chat Hut. This was an example that was in the newspapers—$100 per day for working 12-hour workdays. The Chat Hut place actually had promised to support her permanent residency application, a tactic that I talked about. Many employers use it on international students to keep these workers in line.

After protesting with the NSN group, Satinder actually received C$16,495 in back pay from Chat Hut, in February. I want to thank this group for the work that they’re doing. There’s a lot that we can learn in terms of the actual problem that’s going on on the ground.

The other thing I want to point out is, when we talk about these conditions and how the whole information system will work, there’s a piece of awareness that needs to be put in place for this province as well, because a lot of workers are not watching this debate. They don’t see the highlights that take place. They don’t read the Toronto Star or find out. A lot of the people, for example, sometimes are removed from accessing some of this information as well. So we have to break that barrier and help them break that barrier so they are aware of some of their rights that are available to them. So that awareness piece and how they will get that information is also a big missing piece in this legislation as well.

When we talk about unannounced inspections for washrooms, I have to say, I’ve talked to some of my colleagues who go on the highways, and some of my colleagues, actually, who don’t live in Toronto or in Scarborough go further down. Sometimes they even have stories of how, when you go from Sudbury to Thunder Bay, for example, or Queen’s Park to back home in some northern parts of the province, you don’t have public washrooms. Actually, just let me correct that: You do have public washrooms in certain locations, but they’re not all season. Sometimes, they’re closed during wintertime because they’re not maintained. And the times that they are maintained, it’s disgusting. Sometimes even women will say, “You know what? Leave it open because I can’t breathe.” That’s how dirty it is.

That’s a big piece that people who just travel from one part of the province to another will tell you. Imagine constructions workers, imagine taxi drivers, imagine truck drivers who have no option but to find facilities like that. I want to highlight that, and I appreciate those who are listening, because it is an important piece that you have to really take into consideration when you legislate, when you put this bill together, when you put the regulations together. That’s schedule 1, Speaker.

I hope to go into schedule 2, which is the Employment Standards Act. This actually adds a clause: “the employee is in treatment, recovery or rehabilitation in respect of a physical or mental health illness, injury or medical emergency that results from participation in an operation or activity referred to in this subsection”—it actually goes on, so I don’t want to read the specifics on the bill.

I want to highlight that this is a very important piece that I’m really glad to see happen, especially as it relates to the Canadian armed services reservists, because adding it to the ESA in 2007—the Ford government made some changes in the past, and now we’re seeing some more amendments to it. I think it’s very important that workers, especially those who risk their lives to protect us, anyone who’s contributing to this province should have the ability to access health supports, especially mental health supports. It’s very important that we have this provision in there as well. I want to say thank you to the government for adding that.

I also see there is a little bit of some technical changes made as well. I think probably my dad is watching, so for him, I’m going to explain this. This section also includes changes to some of the technical pieces in terms of definitions of certain words, which allows for things like mass layoffs and who gets what—if you work in a home, for example, what does “establishment” mean? If it’s not a workplace—before that home did not qualify as that workplace. Now, it will allow for that, and it means that there’s notice that needs to go out.

However, there are some limitations to that in terms of how that will take place, and I think there’s some tweaking that needs to be done in the regulations, because if someone is working in a home, for example—because it’s based on seniority, if someone is new or works part-time, they may not be aware of exactly what’s happening in that workplace, that establishment. So there is some clear guidance that’s needed for the ministry here as well.

The other piece that I want to say—which is in schedule 2—because this talks about mental health; it talks about the support that will be provided. I want to actually highlight what I was expecting to see in this piece as well, which is the piece that the minister actually made another headline for. This is actually a piece that the former leader of the official opposition, Andrea Horwath, and many of our members, including our current leader as well, have highlighted in the past. Recently, we met with firefighters and we talked about this as well. Based on the recent announcement—and I call this “the headline bill” for a reason, because you made a headline for this. This is an excellent piece that could have been included in this legislation. What we were actually anticipating—but it was not included in this bill—was the addition of pancreatic and thyroid cancers as presumptive occupational illness for firefighters. I was really surprised this morning to actually see the Minister of Labour speak to this as well, as if it was in the bill. He spoke about it and how important it is, and I wholeheartedly agree: It is very important. When I met with firefighters who came for the lobby day, it was very simple. It was one of those things where I was just like, “I don’t understand why it’s not there already.”

So having this change enshrined, ingrained in the legislation would have been beautiful. I think a lot of people were anticipating seeing that as well in this bill, but, unfortunately, it wasn’t there. I was actually expecting to see it in this schedule as well, Speaker. This would have been a meaningful change for so many firefighters who have suffered through this. I hope that it will be retroactive as well, so that people who have already suffered through this and deserve to get compensation and deserve to get the support receive that support as well.

Moving on to schedule 3: This adds a new subsection to the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act. You all know this is one of my favourite acts. I feel like I have spent so much time talking about fair access to regulated professions. This schedule adds the section “Duty re public interest.”

I want to say, one of the things that I think the team was trying to do with this was to figure out how we make sure that we have—and they did say, in consultations with the minister and the minister responsible, to identify specific things in terms of qualified skills. Let me just go back a little bit so that anyone who is listening outside—and I know, members of this House, when we talk about skilled labourers, skilled workers, who come here with years of skill, with years of education and experience, they have worked hard. Based on that skill, based on that education, through a point system, they immigrate to Canada; they come to Canada. Whether you’re a migrant worker or whether you’re a domestic worker, you come here and you’re able to come to a new place so that you can make a living. You have hopes and dreams to do that.

What happens is that a lot of people, when they come here, in order to get recognized for their skills, have to go through a whole new process again. They have to go through a system where they have to prove their education, they have to prove their skills, but we don’t have a system. We don’t have a bridging program that actually allows that.

I brought in legislation, in my previous term, for second reading, and the government did support it. And do you know what? I’ll take it. I will take the fact that the government took pieces of that legislation and the feedback that I’ve given in my previous term and actually put some of that in their legislation. For health care workers they did put the PRA, the practice-ready assessment piece. The minister talked about it and they recognized it. I have yet to see the full result. I have yet to see the quota increased for internationally trained professionals—especially health care workers—to be recognized, to be able to find those opportunities. We are not there yet, but, unlike some of my colleagues, I think, I’m going to say I’m optimistic with this government that maybe they’ll get there. Let’s hope that they will get there. Let us really hope that they’ll get there.

What this section does is it looks at—where the regulated profession does not have a responsible minister, they actually allow for the Ministry of Labour to work together.

The other piece of it is the Canadian experience bit. When I talk about anyone who is internationally trained and comes here to work, it’s like when you pass grade 12 and you’re kind of dropped and you’re told, “Now go find a job.” If you want to go through any sort of regulated profession then you have to go through the whole system. In fact, it’s actually worse because they don’t have any networks. They don’t have the ability to go through a whole system. What happens is, people who come with, let’s say, five or 10 years of experience—I talked about a gynecologist who moved to Buffalo because she could not practise in Ontario. There are people who come here with an amazing, tremendous amount of skill and experience, but they are not able to practise, and one of the reasons is because they’re asked to provide Canadian experience. I’ve talked about this in the past, and I’m really happy to see that the government will be removing that requirement for Canadian experience.

I actually expected that in Working for Workers Act 1—and we kind of had a hint of it; it’s sort of like a drop in the bucket, but 1, 2, 3? We’re getting there; we’re slowly getting there.

The other loophole that some of the employers were trying to use which was an alternative to Canadian experience, which was injuring a lot of workers in order to be able to find work and be able to qualify—this loophole will be closed through this schedule, as well, I’m actually really excited to see.

However, one of the things that I have to point out is that this clause is very convoluted. What happens is that, in theory, this makes sense, but if you listened carefully in my past debates, I talked about what happens when you actually go to find a job. The discrimination you face, whether it’s an accent, whether it’s the country you’re from, the colour of your skin, the way you sound—all of those things actually make a huge difference. So coming from one country and having that skill all of a sudden puts you at the back of the line versus if you come from another country.

I have highlighted the fact that if you come from the UK or Australia, you get preferential treatment sometimes than many other countries. And, then, for example, I’ve had constituents, I’ve had advocates, I’ve had internationally trained professionals who have joined me during press conferences in past years to talk about their experiences, to talk about what they went through, as well, and how important it is to address this discrimination and address the way that a workplace will treat them when they try to get a job and get an opportunity.

So this clause, although in theory it is an excellent idea, there will be a lot of work that needs to be done still—maybe in Working for Workers Act 4 or 5 where we’re going to address the discrimination and we’re going to look at what kind of barriers a lot of these internationally trained professionals face, as well.

The next schedule that we have is schedule 4—another topic that I’ve talked about in the past, as well—which amends the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act to add the subclause granting access to the ministry to collect personal data from post-secondary institutions relating to employment services programs. This is tied into the recent employment services and the changes the ministry is making, and I really hope that the ministry will work together in terms of how we can make education closely tied with the job opportunities that students across this province have or right now lack. I hope to see respect for personal data, as well, from this schedule. This is similar also to another schedule that we’ll go into later on in terms of personal data.

Schedule 5 looks at the penalty contravention for the health and safety act, and I’m also glad to see the increase in penalty for anyone who’s in contravention of that. But, again, I have to repeat the same thing I started with, which is: How are we making sure that we know what kind of contraventions are taking place, how employees are treated, what kind of health and safety measures are there or lack thereof, and how are we making sure that employees are able to report those in a safe way so that they’re not risking their jobs? That’s something that is not part of schedule 5, and we have to make sure that if someone is in violation or if someone wants to report a violation, that they’re able to do that.

Now moving on to schedules 6 and 7. First, schedule 6 amends the ODSP Act to permit the Ministry of Labour to collect personal data of recipients relating to the expansion of the employment services program and the contracting out of these services, and then schedule 7 does the same thing for Ontario Works. My one piece of advice would be that I hope you do respect people’s personal data, and you must, especially when we’re talking about people with disabilities, people with personal histories, medical histories, and making sure that we are—and there is some ambiguity in this schedule, as well—we have to make sure that we’re helping people, especially the way that the service is administered in the province. Anytime I hear agencies and contracting out, I become very curious, because that means there’s third-party involvement and that means we’re also looking into the private sector—how are we doing that and are we taking away jobs from the public sector, and the fact that we have to work together to make sure that we are protecting our public services, we’re protecting the public networks that we have that help people who are trying to get a job, who are on Ontario Works, especially those who are dealing with a disability.

But when I looked at these two schedules, Speaker, and I saw ODSP and I saw Ontario Works, I thought that there must be something more. Because you have a chance to open up the Ontario Works Act and the Ontarians with disabilities act, and this is what you’re amending? Like, after everything we went through for the past years and all the questions and all the stories, this is what you’re amending?

It was just Monday when we had Feed Ontario here, and we had people here telling us how there was a 40% increase—a 40% increase—in food bank use, and so many of those people—guess what—are on ODSP and OW. Yes, there are results, and I know the government’s probably going to ask me questions and talk about the previous record, but if you look at the last 10 years, which is when that 40% increase happened, within those 10 years, five are on the Liberals, but the last five here are on this Conservative government.

I frequently get people coming into my office who talk about when they start getting their CPP, for example, or if they qualify for anything else, guess what happens? There’s clawbacks. Our government deducts money from people who are getting a benefit, who are getting another benefit from the federal government, for example, a benefit that’s deserved. You have clawbacks on CPP, for example. I can’t even fathom—it’s heartbreaking. Someone will come in, and they’re so happy. They’ll tell us that maybe next month they’ll have $300 more, and guess what happens?

Interjection: Nope.

Point of order, Speaker.

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 22, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 79, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi, le travail et d’autres questions.

As the critic for immigration, citizenship and international credential recognition, it’s an honour for me to speak to this bill, Speaker, because any time I have the opportunity to talk about workers’ rights, to talk about Ontarians and people who contribute so much, dedicate so much of their labour and hard work to put food on the table, but also to really make Ontario a better place and make this country a better place, it’s incredible for us to have this opportunity to talk about them and to be able to make laws that help them. So I’m really hoping that I can highlight some of these things in this legislation, and as an official opposition member, I also believe that it is my duty. We have reminders across the House here that tell us that you have to listen to the opposition, so I will also take this opportunity to talk about some of the ways that we could have done better and some of the missing pieces of this legislation that have been proposed as well.

Speaker, I also want to say before I begin that my colleague from Sudbury, our critic for labour, has also given me a lot of guidelines in terms of the conversations that he’s had with a lot of workers across the province. As critic, he has the opportunity to meet with a lot of labour unions and a lot of workers’ organizations and hear really incredible and, I would say, heartbreaking stories of so many workers, especially during the pandemic. I will take the opportunity here, if I can, to highlight some of those as well.

Over the last couple of weeks, we saw the Minister of Labour really—before this bill was actually introduced, Speaker—make a lot of headlines. We recently saw the headline about calling employers who take advantage of workers “scumbags,” and rightfully so. We also saw the minister make headlines about the bill and how he is going to provide washrooms for workers who don’t have access to clean washrooms. There are people who actually called me up and said, “You know what? This is great. A minister who is making toilets accessible is excellent.” These headlines really gave me a lot of hope, because these are some of the things that we heard about during the pandemic.

I want to start first by sharing one of the stories I heard right at the beginning of the pandemic. It was from a taxi driver who talked about how as soon as washrooms in Tim Hortons and McDonald’s were closed, they did not have the ability to have any access to washrooms if they were to go to work. This is something that I have highlighted in the House in the past as well, so when I heard these announcements, I was filled with hope, because these are some of the things that we know people across Ontario need. We heard about truck drivers who have always talked about how we can make their lives easier and, talking about essential workers—how important truck drivers were to make sure that we have food in our grocery stores and therefore we have food on the table as well, and how important it was for them to have an accessible, clean washroom.

So I was really hopeful seeing these headlines, but then when I went through this bill—and I must say, Speaker, after all the headlines, which means that we knew that this bill was coming, we only had an opportunity of just one day, yesterday, to actually go through this legislation. We are actually missing out on a huge opportunity to meet with stakeholders who would have been able to give us a lot of feedback. Should we introduce it? Talk to the stakeholders, talk about the specific schedules and hear their feedback so that we can actually do justice to this. Unfortunately, I am a little disheartened to see that because I would have liked the opportunity to talk to more of the stakeholders, more of the workers, more of the migrant workers, who I’m sure have excellent feedback, who have done a tremendous amount of work highlighting the issues that workers across this province face, and we would have had the opportunity to do so.

My question that I want to start with: Is this a headline bill or is this a bill about taking real action? To answer that question, what I want to do is go through the different schedules, because people across this province—and I know my colleagues across the aisle will agree as well because many of them sat on this side for many, many years. I was talking to the Minister of Labour this morning, and I know he sat on this side as well as an opposition member. You hear government after government make promises and give really beautiful, big words, but they’re hollow words, Speaker. They’re empty promises, and people have yet to see real action that actually facilitates these necessary jobs, which people across the province are calling for.

So what we’re debating in this bill—is it actually about empty promises, is it about some hollow words, or are we going to have some real action? And for that, I want to go through the different schedules, Speaker.

Let’s go through the breakdown of schedules. Schedule 1 really looks at the control of foreign nationals’ passports and work permit documents, and one of the things I started with, which was the minister’s announcement about the fines and the penalties and the increasing fines and some of the stories we’ve heard about the way a lot of migrant workers have been treated. The fact that any employer in this province would confiscate someone’s passport, someone’s travel documents, someone’s identification cards or any such documents, is just unbelievable, especially in a province like Ontario.

That has been happening for many, many years, and we’ve heard so many stories like that. We’ve heard about it after it takes place as well. We’ve heard about the $250 fine. We’ve heard about how people are forced to do work that they didn’t even sign up for because they’re afraid of losing their travel documents, their passports, and the fact that a lot of people are given this hope of a work permit and then they spend months and months working somewhere and then sometimes they don’t even get the income that they deserve, the pay they earned or the fact that the employers don’t live up to the promise of that work permit. Then this worker will be left without any hope, without any options, without any choice, really, to do anything.

Sometimes, many are forced to go back. Not only did they lose the money they earned, that they’re supposed to receive, but they have also lost money in coming here, in the application process and the fact that their living accommodations and the fact that they—and I know there are colleagues on both sides of the House where we have family members who have immigrated here. My father immigrated here. A lot of us know the struggle you go through to actually get into Canada and the cost there is. Then, obviously, once you come here, the cost of that as well. I am really glad to see that the minister is at least recognizing that problem.

And, then, the individuals who we’ve found in violation will be fined up to $500,000 and can face up to one year in jail, and for corporations it will be $1 million. The face value of this looks great. However, one of the things I looked at last night was—I thought, “You know what? We have the migrant workers’ alliance which is an organization that works for migrant workers that we are supposed to be helping through this legislation.” This is the response that the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change Canada wrote:

“Today’s announcement about increased fines for migrant passport seizures is designed as a distraction from Ontario labour law exclusions that allow for migrant exploitation and abuse.

“The EPFNA—Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act—doesn’t work. It is simply too difficult for migrants to prove exploitation under it. Increasing fines under this law will not ensure an iota more of justice. We call on Ontario to end employment standards exclusions, increase proactive inspections, implement the temporary help agency licensing regime to regulate employers and recruiters and hold employers financially liable for any exploitation throughout the recruitment process. The federal government must ensure permanent resident status for all as that is the only mechanism for migrants to assert their rights at work.”

The reason I wanted to read exactly the statement that the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change Canada wrote is because it really highlights the core of the issue here. It’s great to say, “You know what? A $250 fine is not enough.” But the new fine that is highlighted in schedule 1 is a scale. Going back to the idea of making headlines, on the headline it will say, “$1-million fine;” it will say, “$500,000 fine”—and that looks great, but it is a scale. The problem that the alliance pointed out is that if you don’t know that there is a problem, that there was something done wrong, then there will not be a fine, and this announcement actually distracts them from highlighting the main issue, because the actual system that we have doesn’t work, and a lot of these workers don’t even have the ability to assert their rights.

Speaker, I want to highlight some of the issues that migrant workers face in Canada, specifically in Ontario, and the inhumanity of their working conditions. During the pandemic, we heard about some of those. I know some of the members visited farms, visited workplaces across the province. There were life-threatening living conditions for many workers who were the ones who were picking the fruits, for example, who were providing food on the table for us. There were migrant workers who actually died during the pandemic because they did not have the right protocols, the right safety measures put in place in the places that they were supposed to sleep in, in the places that they were supposed to stay in.

The fines against employers who mistreat workers, for example—the other part of this is, who reports it? When we talk about someone whose passport has been confiscated, when we talk about someone whose travel documents, whose identification documents have been confiscated, do we really think they’re going to come out, call some hotline and say, “This is what’s happening; this is my employer”? And, now, on top of that, add the fact that this is someone who is relying on that employer to make a living, and they’re probably sending that money back home as well. That’s why they’re here, right? They’re migrant workers. If something happened to their employer, they’re also worried: “Am I going to be making an income?” If it happens to one of their colleagues and they witness it, are they going to be reporting it? What does that mean to them? Some of these pieces need to be highlighted.

The Ontario labour law exclusions continue to put migrants in exploitative and abusive work conditions. This is another part that a lot of migrant workers point out, because the current labour laws we have actually exclude these workers. So we can say that we’re adding all these regulations, we’re adding all these extra measures, but if you have a cut and you’re not healing that cut but you’re putting a Band-Aid on a different place, it doesn’t work. You have to first make sure that you heal that cut, you take the right ointment that’s necessary and then you do the other parts of it. So this schedule misses this significant part of it.

The other part is that when we have the enforcement mechanism, if someone does report it, let’s say—and the legislation reads, as the minister has pointed out, that we are actually expecting the migrant workers to call in complaints. So once someone does make a complaint—let’s say someone is able to come out and is finally able to make that complaint of that workplace violation and exploitation. We are really relying on these workers and their livelihoods and how precarious their working condition are to make these complaints and go through it.

The other problem that we have is the fact that we are actually relying on a whole claim method to be able to go through. If you look at international students, a lot of international students who work part-time, for example, face similar situations. They have to go through the Ontario website to file a complaint. Now you’re relying on this worker to risk their income, risk their livelihood, risk the income of their family’s livelihood to make that complaint.

This is important because it does bring us to a solution that we could have highlighted here as well. This goes back to some of the things that the minister talked about. One of the other headlines that was made was about the number of inspections that we’ve had. We saw the minister standing in front of a toilet or something—I don’t know—in front of a washroom. He talked about the inspections and how we are finally able to find out what’s happening in workplaces. What we need to do to actually solve the problem I just talked about is the number of inspections necessary in workplaces—I think we all agree that would have been a good method to find out what’s happening within these workplaces. You’re not putting the onus on the worker, but you’re putting the onus on the inspector, who is working for the province to make sure workplaces are safe and that they’re not exploiting workers. You have inspectors who go into these workplaces unannounced to find out what’s going on. Wouldn’t that be something? And we’ve tried this during the pandemic as well.

Unfortunately, Speaker, that is not something that’s part of the legislation. And let me tell you, not only is this not part of something that should be here—I really hope maybe the regulations will cover it—but in 2017 there were 3,500 inspections. Trust me, Speaker, you and I both can agree we are not praising the Liberal government. We know they could have done a better job, right? We all agree on that. I notice there are some heads nodding on the other side.

But, Speaker, guess what happened in 2017? We actually saw a decrease. So in 2017 we have 3,500, and guess what happened last year when we had—guess which government was in place? Was it the Liberals? No, it was this Conservative government, Speaker. So in 2017, under the Liberals, we had 3,500 inspections, but under the Conservative government in 2022, we had 215 inspections. From 3,500 inspections to 215 inspections, and you’re talking about making a headline? And this is actually online. This has been reported.

Now, the Ministry of Labour data shows that the number of inspections conducted to identify overall workplace violations such as wage theft has dropped significantly in recent years from 3,500 in 2017 to 215 last year. So I really hope that the minister will take this official opposition member’s feedback and this highlight that’s online, that’s in the Ministry of Labour’s report, and actually fix something that’s necessary, which is the amount of inspections that we need to have in order to actually find out whether employees, especially vulnerable employees who are migrant workers, are being exploited, and if they are, how can we help them? What is happening in that workplace, and how can we support them without putting their livelihood at risk?

Now let’s talk about the number of prosecutions. The number of prosecutions for employment standards violations also dropped to 34 from 233 over the same period. So you know how I told you all about 3,500 to 215 from 2017 to 2022? Now, the number of prosecutions for employment standards violations also dropped to 34 from 233 over that period of time. Speaker, there is nothing to be proud of for that.

My question is to the member from Brampton East, because he spoke in depth about skilled labour. One of the things we heard from the member from Waterloo, speaking also about skilled labour, was the way we make sure our workers are safe in their workplaces. The fact that we have workers who don’t come home—not only are they not safe, but we have workers who have died in their workplaces because we have failed as government, and not just this government; previous governments have failed to do the right thing and make sure our workplaces are safe.

So my question is to the member from Brampton East. How do you think that you can have a complete budget when you’re not investing in making sure that workplaces are safe? How is that justified?