I thank the member for the question. I very much agree with her about this program, ODSP, and how important it is and, more particularly, the changes that we have made to make it a much more effective program, particularly three: number one, having increased the overall amount, which hadn’t been increased in a decade or so; number two, pegging it to inflation, starting next year—that is a fundamental change to the program; instead of year-by-year arbitrary changes, we’re pegging it to inflation, so when CPI is rising, that program matches; and number three, a fundamental change to the income test, raising that threshold from $200 to $1,000 a month—it’s such an important structural change to the program; we’ve heard first-hand from employers what a big change that makes.

So there are many, many important and fundamental changes to make this program better.

You’re right; we did hear from committee members across as we were doing our travelling in the lovely months of the winter. One thing that struck me—I think there are two points in response to your question. Again, I get back to the structural change to raise the income threshold from $200 to $1,000. No, that doesn’t affect everybody, but for those who are impacted, it was a fundamental change. But more importantly, on the broader program, ODSP is not the only program, typically, that applies, and we have made so many other changes to the tax system for low-income seniors, for a working tax credit—on and on and on—so that these programs work together.

On the household income point, I take the member’s point. That may be an area we want to look at and see whether we can adjust the program going forward.

I look forward to being in Owen Sound tomorrow and talking about the importance of Georgian College and the role it’s having in the community.

So many of the educational measures begin on page 93 in the budget, and for the health care—it’s too many pages to mention.

What is great, I’d say, and what struck me most when the Georgian College program opened—I mentioned this in my remarks in passing—is the fact that it is attracting local students. One of the biggest challenges we’ve had in rural Ontario for many, many years is that people had to go away to get their education and often they didn’t come back. It was then a hunt to track down these doctors, nurses and PSWs. What’s great about this is that we have local students who will get educated in our community and stay in our community. It’s very, very exciting.

I’ll start with the overall comprehensiveness of the infrastructure spending. As I mentioned in my remarks, sector by sector, it’s a major, major investment, and not only in the near term but in the long term, because this kind of commitment anchors a government’s thinking for many budgets to come. And that’s the perspective I very much like.

I acknowledge the point that the member is making about investments on-reserve.

I think the other thing that I like about how this funding is designed is that we will be listening to communities in the future and sectors in the future to identify their priorities and look forward to dealing with them. So, hopefully, that addresses the member’s comment at some point in time.

The programs and the impact we’re seeing in the community is absolutely extraordinary. Bruce Power management made the—

Oh, gosh. Bill 124, again.

Bill 124: so Bill 124—this is exciting. I think there are 34 more days until this government loses in court again on Bill 124. I will want to say, the fact that you already lost Bill 124 and then you’re using more tax dollars to fight it is really—you know, there are some truly Progressive Conservative people who are not very happy with this. In fact, a lot of them do live in K-W and they have very strong opinions on it. But when you lose in court again on Bill 124, you will have to make up for lost time, for lost wages and the impact this has had on workers. Certainly, this is what we heard going community to community across this province.

But just to finish off with OLG, because I’m really just starting on OLG: The Internet gaming revenue grew by $139 million and $511 million in 2021-22. That’s a growth of 70% per quarter. There are so many people gambling in Ontario today, including when those hockey stars or those football stars start saying, “Get out there and gamble”—it really is such a dangerous precedent. We would never have these professional sports stars advocating for smoking or more drinking—actually, the drinking does happen, but the smoking doesn’t happen anymore. But the gambling in this province right now is certainly out of control, and the government has even undermined its own initial goal of generating some revenue around addictions and around supports for those who are addicted to gambling.

Meanwhile, private competitors saw growth of 65%, so introducing private competitors has cannibalized the OLG’s growth. What kind of smart business person creates a competitiveness, a competitor, to compete against themselves to generate revenue? It has gone according to plan. I’m totally in agreement with Chief LaRocca: If you had consulted with First Nations, who have a lot of experience in this sector, you would have found that there are many barriers, many loopholes and certainly a lot of risk that the province has taken on, and you didn’t have to. You didn’t have to do this. But for us, it has also encouraged less responsible practices, providing a far smaller share of its revenue for the province. That’s less money for schools, less money for hospitals, less money for child care—the things that we should be actually investing in.

I do want to say that it does appear that colonialism is alive and well in 2023, with the government saying, “Do you know what? We know best,” and the House leader and the minister responsible for mining saying, “Get out of the way if you’re not with us.” The only place that this government is going on these constitutional challenges is court. The law still matters in Ontario, as does the Constitution and as does the charter. Ironically, especially—we saw a real lack of respect, I think, this morning on the mining question—really disappointing.

However, what the government does not acknowledge and what our critic has made very clear is that we should have learned from the past. Some of us remember Ipper-wash. Some of us listen when Indigenous leaders and nations say to us, “This is our land. By law, you need our permission, our informed consent, to come onto this land,” and it is not helpful when this Premier says, “I’m going to get on my bulldozer and just go up there, and it’s going to happen regardless.” It’s irresponsible.

Actually, this is one of the major findings from the Ipperwash review, that it could have completely been avoided if there was respect—even a little bit of respect, Madam Speaker. So the Ring of Fire will be a ring of smoke, because this government is going to be in court. If you really care about mining, if you care about northern jobs, if you care about northern infrastructure, then don’t spend your time in court.

And so it does feel a little bit like déjà vu. Certainly in one of my first elections, we talked a lot about Dudley George over the course of that election, and I’m genuinely sad about this: We are going to be talking about these conflicts when the conflicts were completely avoidable if respect was on the table and if the law was followed. That would be a win-win-win for northern communities, for mining and for Indigenous communities, as well. This budget certainly reflects poorly on that.

The other thing that I did get to ask the finance minister in committee was about Ontario Place. Ontario Place also feels a bit like déjà vu in many respects. It does feel like the 407. The people of this province are in a 99-year lease for the 407. We paid for it, we built it, and we keep paying and paying over and over again. I will say that this 95-year lease for Ontario Place feels very similar to that.

The finance minister is a successful businessman, by all accounts, but I asked him some basic questions about this lease, because smart business people don’t sign 95-year leases. They also don’t sign 99-year leases. They also don’t sell off good portions of—because this is a de facto sale. A 95-year lease is a de facto sale, right? We’re not going to see what happens in 95 years, but it is about legacy, because we should be setting the tone from an environmental perspective, from an inclusion perspective, from an accessibility perspective for Ontario Place.

The entire narrative that the Minister of Infrastructure has created is that Ontario Place is not used and it’s falling apart and it’s a write-off. That is not true of Ontario Place. For those of us who go there and use it and spend time there, it’s a treasure.

Just to recap here, we did hear in 2021 that the government announced their friends at Therme were building an elite luxury spa on public parkland. I just want to tell you, there’s no huge call to our offices for huge public spas. People want food prices to be controlled. They don’t want to get evicted. They’re looking for child care. Their special-needs children—they want them included and accommodated in the public education system. These are what people are asking for. No one is calling MPPs and saying, “We want a spa.” It is just not happening.

You cut to March of this year; a city report shows a long list of problems with this plan. The spa is too big. The $450-million taxpayer-funded parking garage—or $350 million; it goes back and forth—violates even this government’s own policies.

The Minister of Infrastructure pressed on, and they told us that they signed a standard commercial lease for the spa that just happened to be for 95 years but—not so standard—that it must be kept secret. There’s no business case for a 95-year lease. Let’s be really clear about that. That is the seed of distrust. There’s no reason for this government to sign on to a 95-year lease—none at all. Ontarians already feel cheated on the 407, and this was the last time you signed a 99-year lease. So to draw parallels is very natural for so many of us. The lease is obviously not a standard commercial lease because if it was, then they could share it with us.

And then there are a number of issues around the transparency of this lease that I really do want to get onto the record. First of all, what we don’t know about this 95-year secret lease: Is the Therme parent company or a locally incorporated, ring-fence subsidiary—who’s financing this? Who has designed this lease? Is the guarantor Therme Austria, Therme’s bank or Republic of Austria? These are good questions. People want to know. Is there a break-free clause? Could we get out of this? Because that was the point I was pressuring the finance minister on in committee.

The improvement for the site—and this is interesting: the $350 million for 65,000 square feet. Now you do the math on this. It’s $5,400 per square foot for this parking garage versus, as a comparator, $1,000 per square foot for medical buildings and $1,200 for theatres.

What is the actual goal here? Is this a spa or a water park?

The parking garage: Is this even practical to build 2,000 spaces under Lake Ontario? Is that going to last? Is that doable? Is that a good investment to build all these parking spots close to or under the water?

The rental payments: They’re level for 95 years or they’re adjusted, either by CPI or predetermined adjustments. Is this tied to inflation? Is this a fixed amount?

These are damn good questions, I have to say. I would ask these questions when I was in business. I would look at a lease very carefully. I would say, “What is the intent here?”

I think the biggest question that people have about Ontario Place these days is, “What is the intended purpose?” What is the real goal here? Because if you don’t have trust, then you have incredible questions like, “Will this end up as a casino or a nightclub?” Because I don’t think the average life term of a spa is 95 years, and if it is, I don’t want to go to it. So these are some of the questions.

I put these questions to the finance minister, and he said “Well, call the Minister of Infrastructure to committee.” And so I moved a motion in public, and I said, “Listen, I do want to invite the Minister of Infrastructure.” She seems very keen on the plan. She’s very enthusiastic. If she’s really that proud of it, come to committee and show us the money, show us the numbers for sure, because there are lots of outstanding questions.

And if you look at the value of what this province has lost even with the 407, if you’re doing a comparator, okay: The government has signed the secret lease for 95 years with Therme. We don’t know who has written it, who is financing it—the financing of this is going to be very interesting—but we do know from past experience that in 1999 the Conservative government handed over a 99-year lease for Highway 407 for $3.1 billion. That’s about $4.4 billion in today’s dollars. What is the 407 worth today? Really, it is worth $40 billion, nearly a 1,200% increase in just 24 years. Do you think that the previous Conservative government sold off this highway in our best interest? Absolutely not. Was that ever the intent? Absolutely not. As I recall, this was to try to clear the way to get rid of the operational deficit. And what are we doing? We are paying so much money. If anybody was paying attention to what people are experiencing in Ontario, it is a true cost-of-living crisis. There’s so much pressure on people in this province. So we called on the government to release the lease. They’ve not yet chosen to do that.

Okay. For some reason, it’s going really fast.

I want to talk about autism, because autism was not mentioned in this budget. And this also led, I believe, to the minister resigning. I’m happy to hear that she is healthy and that she has moved on, but I have to say that it was a very sudden resignation. Merrilee Fullerton took a lot of heat on the long-term-care file. I do believe one of the stories that was shared about this particular minister, when she was with long-term care: that she did go to cabinet and she asked for money. And I do believe that looking at this budget on budget day and not seeing autism mentioned once would be a tipping point—not to speculate too much. I’m glad that she’s healthy and spending more time with her family, but I’m really, really concerned about the autism file.

In addition to introducing these amendments to try to make the bill stronger, which is our responsibility to do—we take that duty and responsibility very seriously. The autism file—to say it’s a mess doesn’t even do it justice, really. Given the increasing wait-list to access core clinical services, providing interim funding to everyone on the wait-list would be a way to provide immediate relief and support to families. We’ve made some recommendations in consultation with our critic on this file. We want the government to make interim funding available to everyone on the wait-list. That should happen right now, because the wait-list is huge.

We want the government to address the structural administrative model of the OAP. This is something that the government can do. I like the minister who is responsible for this file. I wish him well. I wish this minister strength and courage. When he first got the file, I said, “This ministry and these responsibilities have left more experienced ministers looking for the door.”

The third thing is to re-evaluate the determination-of-needs process. This letter that I sent to Minister Parsa back on May 9 was really a reach across the aisle: “Let’s figure this out.” But the fact that the budget did not address this backlog—this obviously was an intentional decision that the government made. I can’t see why you thought that was the ethical or responsible model.

This is what Bruce McIntosh, who came to committee, said to us—and this is exactly from Hansard: “The calls that the parents get—and I see this daily ... make them think that something is actually happening.” Actually, this is validated by our critic, because she explained this to the minister before the minister moved on.

This is what parents do: “They open up an account on a server to get correspondence back and forth with the new program, and then they wait for that invitation to services. That wait ... is years long. The government stopped publishing the number of registered children in December. At that point, it was 60,411” children. “Four months later, I suspect it’s approaching 65,000 and they missed their target at the end of the year to bring kids into the program. You know, the kids that they do bring into the program are faced with more waiting and the kids that they fail to bring into the program to meet their targets are—you guessed it—faced with more waiting.

“This program needs to be made more efficient. The bureaucrats have to get out of the way of the clinicians. The red tape and delay in reconciling a group of—we had a mom whose entire submission of invoices was rejected because she uses a post office box for correspondence and as a billing address”—can you imagine how broken the system is, that because a mom uses a post office box, she was denied the funding? This is all in Hansard—“and the people at the ministry took issue with the fact that she was apparently presenting herself as living at the post office”—well, there is a housing crisis, but I want to say that people do not live at the post office; it’s ridiculous—“seriously. They sent it back to her. It added another three weeks to getting a new block of funding. This is just one in 100,000 of these sorts of incidents.

“This government has a minister for red tape reduction”—this is his recommendation, and I actually love it—“for heaven’s sake, what is that fellow doing?” That would be a wonderful amendment. So we’re going to introduce an amendment, because there’s a common sense solution: Let’s put the minister of red tape in charge of the autism file, and make sure that those bureaucrats actually are streamlining those services.

Yes.

In essence, everyone who is connected in any way, shape or form to the autism file believes that this is an unethical process that has been set up. It’s hurting families, and it’s actually causing financial ruin for so many people.

We can do better. This budget could be better. We tried to make it better. One day—I don’t know—I’d like to introduce one, because let me tell you, it would be focused on people. That’s where our focus is.

The education folks also came to finance committee as we were trying to review Bill 85.

This is what OSSTF said:

“In its current format, Ontario’s 2023 budget falls short of what is needed to ensure all students are set up to succeed. Neither the budget nor the 2023-24 Grants for Student Needs will cover increased inflationary increases on costs in a wide variety of budget lines, let alone the rising, complex needs of students following the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It’s time for true investments. It’s time the Ford government stop shortchanging the students of this province.

“As the representative of over 60,000 front-line education workers and teachers, we hope the government will finally begin working with us in earnest so our schools can have the necessary resources and support that our students need to succeed.”

This is consistent from all education advocates, actually.

I have to say, the pandemic did leave many school boards shortchanged.

I did ask my local school board if the Waterloo Region District School Board had to use reserves to cover COVID costs over the last two years; the answer was unequivocally yes. They incurred $5.7 million in unfunded COVID expenses, and total COVID expenses were $27.7 million—$22 million of that was funded by the ministry, so there was a gap around addressing COVID in our schools. That gap has not gone anywhere. It is very real.

Finally, on the social services piece, which this budget misses entirely, is the privatized foster care that this province has. Many people don’t really understand this: When children come into the care system—the previous Liberal government decided that they would outsource that care. This used to happen through family and children’s services. These agencies—and one of them the member from Windsor West has brought to the floor of this Legislature; it’s called Hatts Off. We had a delegation come, through the OFL, who talked about what these kids are experiencing in these settings where care is not prioritized. The care component is not the first item. The first item is “How much money can we make off of these kids?” There’s a per diem, and there’s a funding formula. But do you know who doesn’t get picked up by these agencies? It’s the most complex, high-needs children, because they cost too much money, and that digs into the profit margins of these organizations like Hatts Off. This is happening in Ontario. It has been happening since the Liberals privatized it. This government has had several cases now where we’ve seen the death of children in these private care options. They’ve died from neglect. It needs to be said that these are children who have already experienced trauma, and then they get sent to a place that is not caring, that sometimes overmedicates and sometimes uses restraining orders to a degree that is not based on facts, on the best interest. So this was an opportunity for this government to address that, especially because we did have family and children’s services here lobbying us at Queen’s Park not that long ago. Because these private care companies don’t want to take care of medically complex children, they’ve had to start their own homes at their own cost. So family and children’s services are actually running deficits because they don’t have the funding, because the government hasn’t acknowledged that this is a big issue.

Finally, I want to wind up a little bit with the housing, because I cannot emphasize enough how Bill 23 is cooling the market in Ontario. In Waterloo, for instance, there was a subdivision planned of about 800 homes, but when you factored in the loss of development charges, city council did the responsible thing and said, “We don’t have the money for the infrastructure.” You can’t build homes without waste water, without water, without roads. The fact that the minister has not made these municipalities whole, not addressed this gap from a planning perspective, is downright irresponsible; it’s irresponsible when municipalities want to build the houses. In fact, there are so many municipalities that have already made approvals for housing, but the housing isn’t getting built. The minister has, in his tool box, a way to hold those developers to account. If developers are receiving the approvals to build houses and then they’re sitting on those approvals for 20 years, that’s not how you accelerate the building of homes.

The intensification is something that we are completely and utterly supportive of. It is ridiculous that we get this NIMBYism back. This is exactly where we want the housing. We want the housing to be built where the infrastructure is, but it’s not going to happen if the municipalities don’t have the funding to actually upgrade and modernize the infrastructure. I think for Waterloo region, it kind of feels a little bit like ground zero. The region of Waterloo has done an extensive job of highlighting within the urban boundary where we can build housing, and this includes the missing middle housing. This is the housing that is accessible, that is close to transit, that is in the core. This is what needs to happen.

I was really pleased to see that last week the city of Toronto passed a motion to end exclusionary zoning, essentially. They’re going to build housing wherever, whenever they possibly can, within the urban boundary.

So this narrative the government has created that we must build on the greenbelt; that the greenbelt, according to the Premier, is just a piece of fiction, that somebody took a crayon and developed the greenbelt—the studies, the scientists, the communities, the ministry that was involved in developing the greenbelt, they must be watching this Premier. As I said, it was a bizarre press conference last week. There was singing. There was some dancing. No bees were harmed in that particular press conference.

I do want to say the greenbelt is real. The ecosystem is real. The wetlands are real. The farmland is real. We need that greenbelt. In fact, there is a call to action from every community across this great province, because people are not buying what this government is selling. They don’t like the narrative that the greenbelt is some form of fiction. There’s a cost to the entire province when people are so irresponsible with their language and with their words.

The Premier did come to KW. We’re going to have a by-election there, so there’s a lot of interest in KW these days. I think that the response, by and large, from the community is that they are very concerned with this Premier and with this minister and with this government unilaterally rewriting the local official plan, moving urban boundaries, violating the countryside line to open previously protected lands to development. At that particular occasion, the Premier said that this was a no-brainer. I would agree that brains were not used in this decision. The people of Ontario and the people of Waterloo region feel insulted that this is happening. They feel insulted that the government is also, for some reason, gaslighting new immigrants.

We’re totally receptive to new immigrants in Ontario, from the skilled trades to all sectors. But when those new immigrants are coming into this province, they are not likely moving to a McMansion up in the greenbelt. New immigrants have said to us—we’ve sat down with several groups that said, “We want to be close to transit. We want to be close to schools. We want to be close to hospitals.” This social infrastructure matters to new immigrants. Certainly, the employment piece is very key, as well.

The other thing that seems to be completely missing from this budget, especially around conservation—the damage to our conservation authorities will be hard. It keeps me up at night a little bit, actually, because I keep thinking about the damage that is happening and how we’re going to have to undo that damage—because you can’t transport a wetland. That’s not really how it works. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

Waterloo region relies heavily on an aquifer. We rely on source water protection, and that is built into our regional plan. Now the government has said, “We don’t need that plan. It’s just an arbitrary line around our area”—it’s not; it’s based on where the aquifer is and where we have access to clean drinking water.

Do you know what’s bad for the economy and what’s bad for business, Madam Speaker? When a whole community loses their source of water. That’s pretty much it. That’s pretty much done. It doesn’t matter where you build the houses. We’ve had examples of this in this province. We should have learned from Walkerton. There are so many examples of people saying, “We have lots of water”—water is life, as MPP Mamakwa always says—but there were no hydrological studies done.

So this budget has its own agenda. That’s where I would take it.

What missed opportunities—just to circle back to the whole theme that this was a budget that missed the moment, that failed to listen to the very people who came to us in good faith.

And this is another thing: Why have budget consultations if you’re going to ignore the lived experience, the expertise, the data that we heard on this budget round?

The Alzheimer Society, when they came to us—and the statement today around the tsunami on dementia and Alzheimer’s. That is real. When the Alzheimer Society came to us and said, “You promised us in 2021-22 that you would invest $5 million, but that money never flowed”—they came again to finance committee and said, “It’s 2023; it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing.” So really, really hoping—and we’ll be tracking it, of course, through expenditures and the monitoring of that. But we heard in finance committee that if this government does not take aggressive action and invest in the solutions that exist on dementia, every hospital up and down University Avenue, just to the south of this building, will be filled with dementia patients.

The smart thing is to partner with the Alzheimer Society of Ontario. They have great community connections. They are doing amazing work with very little money. Think of the potential that they could do if you actually invested the money that you said you were going to invest.

The other thing is for hospice—I met with Hospice Waterloo. Hospice Ontario came here from Ottawa and they said, “We need you to fund 100% of our clinical services.” I didn’t know that hospices were not fully funded for clinical services. They have to fundraise for basic medical health care, because palliative care is health care. And then they’re still fundraising for operational costs. We actually had a hospice that went to a food bank—a food bank. The research is really clear: Hospices provide a very important role in the health care system. They keep people out of emergency rooms. They provide a compassionate end of life for folks. Nobody wants to die in a hallway in a hospital, and if there’s not an option for a home arrangement, hospices are very special places, I just want to say.

Finally, I want to end on community support services. In what world is a 40% reduction to community social services acceptable? These community support services are Meals on Wheels—Meals on Wheels provide eyes on seniors and on vulnerable Ontarians. We know from the pandemic that isolation kills, and it’s a painful, painful way to die. Being lonely—we can do so much better in Ontario. The 40% reduction is really quite cruel.

So despite our best efforts to make this budget more responsive on rent, on the environment, on housing, on health care, on mental health and addictions—we really fought hard at committee and even through conversations during committee, but this is not a budget that can be supported by us. There may be some good things in this budget, but overall, it does not address, from a moral perspective, from an ethical perspective, the needs that we heard very clearly from Ontarians, and we feel that this government could do so much better.

Thank you very much for your time.

I’ll support that.

Questions?

Thank you to my colleague from Waterloo for her remarks on the budget. I know she spoke a lot about housing. I find it kind of perplexing. As the minister mentioned this morning in question period: over 27,000 new housing starts in 2023 and a 16% increase from last year, which was a historic year, as well, Speaker, so it looks really promising for 2023 so far. And she mentioned the Homelessness Prevention Program allocations. Our government made some changes around that. It was a new funding allocation model which was based on the Auditor General’s report from 2021, the value-for-money audit. The member for Waterloo mentioned the Auditor General many times.

Does the member for Waterloo support the Auditor General and her recommendations around that funding formula?

Thank you, Speaker, and to the member opposite, thank you for your presentation today. As the finance critic, I think you probably share your concerns about the province’s financial situation, and the budget, of course, is the blueprint to our financial situation. I wanted to share some news from the last week or two and quote Moody’s, which is a rating agency: “While the slowing economy and ever-growing demands on government spending will challenge the province’s ability to keep its budget balanced ... it now sees ‘a material probability’ that Ontario gets back to balance faster than it previously thought.

“This view is supported by the province’s revenue collection and ‘a building track record of controlling spending even when revenue exceeds prior expectations’....

“Balancing the budget sooner would allow the province to reduce its debt and keep its debt service costs under control, despite higher interest rates....”

So you may not agree with all the details in the budget, but is it fair to say you’re happy with this good news, as all Ontarians should be?

Questions?

To the member opposite: I had an occasion to sit on that side of the House with that member opposite for approximately one year. I seem to remember the disdain that she had for the Liberal government of the day. I also seem to remember her voting in favour of a Liberal budget. I’m not sure if I remember all of the times before that, because certainly I wasn’t here for the year prior, but the one thing that I find quite confusing is the disdain for the former Liberal government, the disdain for this government and all of the references to the people that you’re supportive of and all these individuals that you say are so upset.

But perhaps you can explain how it is, then, that this government was able to get an increase in some 20-plus odd number of seats and your particular party was able to only see a decrease in 10 seats, if what you say is accurate and everyone is so incredibly frustrated, as you claim them to be.

I appreciate the opportunity today to rise to speak to the budget. I am grateful to be able to speak in this place after hearing from both the Minister of Finance in earlier iterations of the debate, and also from the parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Finance: my seatmate, the excellent member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, and of course the member for Oakville.

I appreciated hearing from both of these members some of the important investments that are being made across this province. I appreciated hearing about the record expansion of health care that’s being provided through this legislation. I appreciated hearing about the ways that our government is committing to expanding access to skilled trades programs to ensure that more and more young people and those who are retraining and reskilling are able to access the education they need to have a good career within the skilled trades. And I appreciated hearing about the massive infrastructure projects that are being built in every corner of this province. I know that those members in their debate, in the participation that they had, spoke to some of the more broad provincial needs and the broad provincial investments that this government is taking.

This afternoon I have the great privilege of, first of all, sharing my time with the member for Markham–Unionville and the important voice that he brings from another part of the province, from the region in York, but I’m going to be speaking a little bit about some of the investments that this budget makes in the Niagara region. I have the great honour and privilege of being able to represent what I consider—and I’ve heard from many other members in this House that many consider—to be the most beautiful part of not just Niagara but of, frankly, the entire province: Niagara West, a unique gem sort of nestled between two Great Lakes, with a vibrant ecosystem of economic diversity, social diversity and, really, people who believe strongly in the value of hard work, of family, of communities that are working to build up a stronger future for them and their families.

And so, I’m going to speak about a couple of the changes that this budget makes and some of the investments that this budget makes. It’s going to build upon the response I had this morning to a question from the member for Carleton. When she asked me about the ways our government is making changes that will benefit the people of Niagara, I was struck by news that I read just a couple of weeks ago with regard to our unemployment rate. Ontario, of course, as a whole is booming. We’re restoring our leading edge as the economic engine of this great country. But in Niagara, we’re especially seeing what I termed this morning a renaissance, a revival of sorts, in our local economy, which for too long had been left behind, had been ignored, and, under this government, is now leading in so many ways. One of the ways that it’s leading is in record low unemployment.

Niagara, of course, has a long, proud history as an auto parts city, as an auto parts region, where manufacturing that services the auto sector was a crucial part of our economy. We saw for many years that the former Liberal government, propped up by the members of the New Democratic Party, failed to lend themselves to creating an environment that was supportive of that manufacturing sector. Now, under the leadership of this Premier and through the changes also in this budget—for example, introducing the new Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit, which will make Ontario manufacturers lower their costs, innovate and become more competitive—we’re seeing a growth in this sector after decades of abandonment by previous governments.

We’re also seeing investments in the infrastructure that is crucial to our agribusiness sector. Agriculture is a crucial sector of the Niagara economy. It contributes billions to our GDP, and it has a wide variety of characteristics. Niagara isn’t like some of the other regions who, of course, we all love throughout southwestern Ontario but who are perhaps really stuck to some of the more traditional commodity groups: corn, soybeans, wheat, perhaps some beef or dairy and some pork producing. We have those sectors, as well, but we also have a lot of value-added sectors. We have, of course, our famous wineries, but we also have new groups that are coming forward.

I think of the Ontario Hazelnut Association, who I met with recently, who are investing in the Niagara region because of our unique microclimate and also because of the changes that our government has brought forward to make the costs of doing business more predictable, by investing in access to natural gas and making sure that natural gas expansion across the Niagara region and across southwestern Ontario become a reality after many years of talk but no action by previous governments, by seeing meaningful efforts to reduce the red tape that the agricultural sector has to deal with when it comes to approving an expansion or to adding a new commodity group, to adding some of the unique viticultural gems that we also rely on in the Niagara region. So that has been a really, really important part of the puzzle, both expanding our competitiveness in manufacturing through tax reductions, through stable electricity supply, and also by ensuring that the agricultural sector is being supported.

But one of the areas I know many of the people who I grew up with and many of the people who I call friends and neighbours work in is construction. The investments that our government is making in world-class infrastructure projects, whether that’s the new West Lincoln Memorial Hospital or the new South Niagara hospital, or whether it’s the half a dozen new long-term-care homes that are going up across our region or simply the industrial and commercial expansion that’s happening—I just saw, even a couple of days ago, in Lincoln and their industrial park, a new job creator coming to town, building a new site and adding 75 jobs. I saw Welland is adding more jobs in manufacturing as well.

Each of these areas, of course, requires labour. It requires skilled trades and it requires people to be able to come forward and work hard in construction. Construction is becoming an increasingly important part of our local economy. It’s part of the reason that I believe our government is going to be able to achieve its goals of building 1.5 million homes to ensure that people are housed in a way that is safe and respectful. It’s about ensuring that people have that opportunity to go to work knowing they will be safe and supported by their government and that they’re able to build a province—a stronger Ontario, one that they can be proud of. So when I go back to my constituency and I meet with people from across not just West Niagara but from across the Niagara region and I speak with them about the future that Niagara has, there’s a palpable sense of excitement.

Unfortunately, for some years under the former Liberal government, we saw manufacturing leave. And I know, as someone who grew up in the agricultural sector, there was a real sense of alienation from the agricultural communities. There was a real sense that the work that they did wasn’t appreciated by the provincial government and they weren’t appreciative of the value that they added to the local economy. That has changed. So much of this budget, I believe, is about building on that culture of change. It’s about building on that culture of investment, yes, but also being responsive to the needs of the people of the province, whether that’s in the Niagara region or in other regions across this great province.

Earlier today, I had the opportunity to be in a couple of different meetings with representatives from various levels of government in the Niagara region who came here to meet with local cabinet ministers and to hear from those ministers what the vision for the province is from our government but also to share the work that’s happening at so many local municipalities to streamline services, to be able to provide the services that the taxpayers who pay provincial taxes, federal taxes and property taxes expect and deserve from their government.

One of the pieces that I see in this budget is a real reflection of the consultations that went into it. I’ve had the opportunity to host the member for Oakville, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, in Vineland. We had stakeholders from across the region come forward and share their ideas. One of the pieces that we heard about the most was the need for, yes, housing—housing that’s affordable, housing that’s attainable—but also the need to make sure that the most vulnerable in our society are being taken care of. So I think the change to increase the ODSP to make more earnings available for those who are on ODSP was a great step and a response to the consultations that were held not just in Niagara but I know in various parts of this province.

But I think something that’s also historic is addressing the funding shortfall that Niagara region had experienced when it came to the homelessness prevention program. Going from $11 million to almost $21 million in annualized funding is tens of millions of dollars that will be taken off the backs of property tax payers, off the tax base in the Niagara region, and will be invested directly into new services, ensuring that our property taxes in Niagara are kept low but also ensuring that those who are the most vulnerable in our society are being looked after.

So I think recognizing the various parts of that equation—a strong economy with strong communities—is something that this budget aims and succeeds to do. Speaker, I know that I’m going to have to cede my time to the member from Markham–Unionville who will speak about his particular community, but I just wanted to add my support in debate of this budget. I will be supporting it because I believe it’s good news for the people of Ontario and the Niagara region.

Thank you to the member from Waterloo. During her speech, she talked about autism. I remember, prior to the 2018 election, that the Premier had promised that families with children with autism would never have to protest outside on the Queen’s Park lawn. There have been many protests since then. I believe the number back then on the wait-list was 28,000; I could be wrong about that. But I do know what was trending last year was #50KIsNotOk, meaning the wait-list was now at 50,000. The member from Hamilton Mountain recently brought up just, I think, today in question period that it’s now at 60,000.

To the member from Waterloo: What is going wrong with their strategy with autism where this number keeps ballooning, even though the Premier had promised that families would be taken care of and not have to protest?

I’d like to thank the member for Waterloo for her comments. Listening to her comments as a whole, they were insightful, they were incisive. But I would say that it’s doing this budget a kindness to call it as exciting as a three-pack of socks. It’s disturbing because we see a deliberate and calculated way that this has ignored the issues that are facing Ontarians after the many deputations we heard at the pre-budget consultations. We see that the gravy train of this Conservative government is going full steam ahead, whether it’s bad business decisions through the privatization of the 407, the Ontario Place lease, online gambling, the greenbelt, all of the legal losses, Bill 124. My question, though, to the member is, I wonder if they could speak about the agency nurses, yet another example of privatization that this government seems in favour of.

Thanks to my colleague for the question. He travelled with us for budget, and so we heard first-hand the damage the use of agency nurses is doing on the morale of nurses. But this is actually a quote: “‘It’s Going to Bankrupt Health Care’: Spending on Temp Agency Nurses Up More Than 550% Since Pre-Pandemic at One Toronto Hospital Network.

“As Ontario hospitals grapple with a staffing crisis, critics warn the rising reliance of temp agencies is not financially sustainable.” It is not financially sustainable. Having a hospital nurse make a certain amount of money and then having a temp agency nurse come and work right beside her at three times the cost is demoralizing. One nurse told us it’s humiliating. One nurse also says it is, from a health care practice, irresponsible. So this government should be capping the use of agency nurses in Ontario.

I just want to say, I think when Bruce McIntosh came to finance committee, he was really clear. He was like, “This is a program that has been designed for bureaucrats by bureaucrats.” He actually asked the government to ask the minister of red tape to investigate, because it is not a program that is designed to be successful.

Certainly, if you think about the cost of lost productivity and the cost to the education system, there’s a good case to be made in investing in and getting this program right, because right now, it is so very, very wrong.

The fact that we show up here each day and bring the real voices of the people of this province to the Legislature—we try to speak truth to power. We try to get the powers that be to listen. The fact that only 17.8% of the people voted in this province is a sign of how cynical people are about our democracy. I think the disdain that this Premier has for our democracy is also a very big part of that problem.

The member for Markham–Unionville.

Thank you to the member from Niagara West for sharing his time with me and for sharing his important point of view in supporting this bill. This bill is called Building a Strong Ontario Act.

I rise today to speak on this budget. This budget represents our government’s commitment to driving economic growth, expediting vital infrastructure projects, and attracting more jobs and investments to help businesses, families and workers.

Our government has an ambitious plan in place to build more roads, highways, hospitals and over 1.5 million homes. We are expanding subways and public transit and creating more opportunities for people in communities throughout our province. We are taking a responsible and targeted approach that addresses the needs of today while establishing a solid fiscal foundation for future generations. We are building a stronger Ontario that works for everyone.

Speaker, our government has been creating the environment and the conditions for companies to come here and to thrive, prosper and grow. When companies thrive, prosper and grow, so do the people who work at these companies. Ontario continues to lead the nation in job creation, with more than 600,000 jobs added to the province since 2018.

I am proud to share with you some remarkable achievements that have occurred in recent months. For April 2023, the monthly employment data released by Statistics Canada showed that employment in Ontario has increased by 32,700 jobs. This is seven consecutive months of job growth for our province as we continue to attract significant investments that create good-paying jobs for workers across our province.

Over the last two and a half years, Ontario has successfully attracted over $25 billion in automotive and electric vehicle battery-related investments, including a $7-billion investment from Volkswagen to build their first overseas EV battery manufacturing facility in St. Thomas. This groundbreaking investment from Volkswagen, Europe’s largest automaker, will generate up to 3,000 direct jobs and up to 30,000 indirect jobs. Ontario’s partnership with Volkswagen, among many other global automakers, demonstrates our ability to attract historic investments and reinforces our position as a global leader in the electric vehicle supply chain.

Furthermore, our government has also attracted over $3 billion in investments from the life sciences sector and global bio-manufacturers over the past two and a half years, the most recent being a multi-million dollar investment from Moderna to partner with Novocol Pharma, an Ontario-based manufacturer, which further reinforces our commitment to economic growth and job creation.

To complement these achievements and continue to build a strong economy, we need the infrastructure to support it. Our government’s plan to build is investing in critical infrastructure projects that are needed to support growth across the province. We are building new highways, roads, schools, hospitals, long-term-care homes and transit. We are making significant progress and taking action to ensure we have a safe and reliable transportation network, regardless of where in the province you live.

One of the projects that holds a high importance for my constituents is the Yonge North subway extension. The extension is a key part of our government’s plan to fight gridlock. It is a critical project for York region that will provide much-needed access to reliable public transit and will connect more people to major employment centres in Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill. Once completed, the approximately eight-kilometre TTC Line 1 extension will put 26,000 more people within a 10-minute walk from transit, and it’s expected to reduce daily travel times for commuters up to 22 minutes.

We are committed to reducing gridlock, connecting people to more jobs and making travel faster for everyone, and we are getting it done on public transit.

But we are not stopping here. We must keep the momentum up. As we continue to attract global investments, as we build Ontario, we are facing a historic labour shortage, the largest labour shortage in generations, with hundreds of thousands of jobs going unfilled each and every day. We must tackle this issue hands-on, using every tool at our disposal.

This is why our government is investing heavily in training to help people prepare for good, in-demand jobs. We can grow our economy by filling all these jobs to care for those in our communities who need it most and to help build new homes, schools, hospitals, highways and transit. We need more skilled workers, and we need them now.

Our government will continue to invest in our people and support our growing community and economy. This is why we are investing $25 million over three years to make it easier and faster for skilled newcomers to come to Ontario to help fill the jobs in the skilled trades and health care. This new investment will ensure Ontario is ready to welcome new skilled workers. We will focus on removing the barriers that newcomers need to deal with, recognizing their credentials and helping newcomers find more meaningful employment sooner in their field. We are committed to building a better life for them and their families, because no matter where they come from, they can build their Canadian dream right here in Ontario.

Speaker, we are making the historic investments to train the workforce of tomorrow as part of our $1.5-billion skilled trades strategy, including a $225-million investment to upgrade and build new training centres. Ontario has the jobs, and our government has the plan—a plan that has a bright future for the people of Ontario, a future that includes a skilled workforce to build our historic infrastructure plan. Whether it is upskilling workers through our skills development programs, attracting more young people into the skilled trades, or breaking down barriers to get more skilled newcomers into the province, we are leaving no stone unturned. We are building a stronger Ontario that works for everyone.

I urge all members in the House to support this plan, to pass this budget, so that together, we can build a strong Ontario.

Speaker, last week was nurse appreciation week. Of course, we appreciate all health care workers and especially nurses on the front line every day, but this budget—they haven’t put money back into hospitals like they’re supposed to. They’ve been underfunded. They’re encouraging agency workers. They have actually increased funding being diverted into independent health care facilities from $18 million last year to $72 million this year in their budget.

I sent out a newsletter and asked people what they think about how to respect nurses. They write back and they tell us that, rather than spending time and money on appealing the court ruling on Bill 124, Ontario could be investing in our health care system to expand access, reduce long wait times and hire more nurses. I’m getting hundreds of responses back. Why won’t this government listen to the people of Ontario?

I just want to say that this budget has launched the largest health care recruiting and training initiative in the province’s history. As one of the immediate actions last year, we introduced a lump sum payment of up to $5,000 for eligible nurses in order to retain and stabilize the workforce. And building on the 12,000 new nurses registered to work in the province last year, our government is also investing in a wide range of initiatives to attract, train and hire more nurses and get them into the system sooner. We’ve added $342 million to add over 5,000 new and upskilled registered nursing positions and registered practical nurses as well as 8,000 personal support workers. We’ve also expanded the Learn and Stay grant to help our graduates receive full tuition reimbursement in exchange for committing to practise in an underserved community.

There’s a lot more that we’re doing.

I appreciate the member raising this important subject.

Questions?