It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 85, Building a Stronger Ontario Act.

This budget is another missed opportunity by this government to address the main issues that are confronting Ontarians. In Niagara, we’re seeing more and more people struggling to find an affordable place to live as the cost of housing continues to rise. We’re seeing patients waiting months for medical tests and appointments, off-load delays worsening and hospital services being cut. This budget is a missed opportunity to address many of those issues. We’re seeing this government once again break their promise to municipalities after promising to make them whole after Bill 23. And we’ve been focusing, the last week, on some of those issues.

AMO has calculated that cities will see a $5-billion revenue shortfall from this government’s legislation, Bill 23. Municipalities are cancelling affordable housing projects. The city of Toronto says its entire housing capital plan will need to be scrapped if the minister doesn’t cover the shortfall of his failed legislation. We’ve heard, from Peel and Brampton, of huge property tax hikes that will have to happen—and service cuts—if they are not reimbursed as this government promised. There’s no money in the budget to make municipalities whole, and the government is cutting things like the Streamline Development Approval Fund by 25%, as I raised last week in a question, and the Municipal Modernization Program by 70%. These are the programs that fund initiatives to speed up housing development approvals and fund audits. If the minister is holding off on compensating municipalities for Bill 23 because he wants to speed up housing and perform audits, I ask the minister, why is he cutting the very programs that fund these initiatives instead of addressing them in the budget, and why is there no money in the budget to make municipalities whole as was promised? This is causing, obviously, a great deal of a stress and anxiety for municipalities as they struggle to meet targets that this government imposed but is not supporting with their budget.

Budgets are about choices, and it’s clear that this government is choosing to help the well-connected and wealthy few, because there’s very little in the budget to help out Ontarians with the cost of living or improving access to public services and the other issues that they care so much about.

Speaker, as you know, this is Niagara Week at Queen’s Park, and there are many local mayors, councils and representatives here from all different political backgrounds to advocate for Niagara. This year’s theme is “Growing Better, Together.”

I have to recognize folks who put on a really nice reception last night. I want to congratulate Niagara College, who provided the food and some refreshment, as well as 13th Street Winery. And of course, it was sponsored by the Greater Niagara Chamber of Commerce. I want to congratulate folks from Niagara for putting on a great reception.

I also have to recognize the team that came from Niagara, who came with some very focused asks of the government; some very well-researched, factual and strategic priorities. I understand that their meetings are going quite well with government ministers and they’ve made some headway. We’re grateful for that, but of course the budget was an opportunity to address these concerns, which is why municipalities are coming, hat in hand, to the government. I’d like to talk about some of those priorities.

There’s nothing in the budget that will attract the health care talent that we need to reverse the health care crisis. We know the health care crisis was created by legislation like Bill 124, which this government could have chosen to reverse and address the funding shortfalls that have resulted in wages that have been suppressed. We know that the health care crisis is a human resources crisis. Nurses and others are leaving the profession. This budget was an opportunity to address those problems.

For Niagara Week, the Niagara region is seeking reimbursement for local property tax dollars that were used to mitigate ambulance off-load delays. Niagara has been asking, for some time, for that issue to be addressed.

Between 2021 and 2022, Niagara experienced a 55% increase in off-load delays. It’s a tremendous problem in Niagara. In the latter half of 2022, a total of $1.7 million of the regional levy was spent to address the record number of EMS calls in Niagara. The region has pointed out that three of Niagara’s hospitals consistently rank near the bottom for off-load times. In 2022, EMS incurred 33,908 off-load delay hours. That’s equivalent to 24 paramedics working for 365 days. Yesterday, I directly asked the Minister of Health if the government would commit to reimbursing the region the $1.7 million and ensure that Niagara is funded for an additional health team to help address the underlying causes of our EMS crisis, as requested by municipal leaders. I hope that the government is seriously taking that request. Unfortunately, the answers that we’ve received from the government so far is to list other investments, as if everything is okay in Niagara. Let me tell you, Speaker, everything is not okay.

Back in April, all the parties in this House supported a motion that I put forward to keep full emergency department services and acute-care services at the Welland hospital. What has happened at the Welland hospital has created a great deal of stress in the community. Without warning, local Niagara Health decided that they would permanently remove after-hours and weekend emergency surgery. If you know Niagara, there is some distance between hospitals, and many of the hospitals in Niagara have shut down. We have urgent care centres where hospitals used to be. Shutting down those urgent care centres is being discussed in places like Port Colborne and Fort Erie.

Folks in Port Colborne—which is in my riding—have to travel to Welland, to the Welland hospital, if they’re seeking emergency services. Well, as of a couple of months ago, if somebody from Port Colborne comes to Welland and they need emergency surgery, for example, for an appendix, where it’s recommended within an hour, guess what they have to do? They have to wait for an ambulance to come and take them to another hospital. In a region where off-load delays are a huge problem, that is creating a huge amount of stress and anxiety for people in the community. Many front-line doctors, nurses and medical professionals have made clear to me that losing those services will almost certainly result in avoidable deaths for patients who need to be in an operating room within an hour.

From 2018 to 2020, the Welland hospital ran at over 100% capacity, as did all of the Niagara hospital sites.

We hear from the government constantly that a new hospital is being built in Niagara Falls, and that’s true, but it’s not supposed to be done until 2028-29, and we’re seeing a reduction in all of our hospital services now. Having a hospital being built four, five or eight years down the road is not helping folks who are spending time in ambulances in loading bays and not having their health taken care of. That’s something that this government could have chosen to address in this budget.

As a region, Niagara surpassed both national and provincial average growth rates, increasing its overall population by 6.7% from 2016 to 2021.

The city of Thorold, where I live, had an increase of 26.7%. It’s the eighth-fastest-growing community in all of Canada, and here we have emergency services being cut, reduced and completely removed from a local hospital.

I’ve requested to meet with this government and the Ministry of Health multiple times to come up with a plan to save these services at the Welland hospital; each time, this government has refused to even meet. I’ve asked the government during question period if they’re willing to leave the people of south Niagara without timely access to life-saving care; each time, they’ve avoided directly answering the question. If this government won’t listen to me, they should at least listen to the thousands of folks from various political backgrounds who have signed our petition to save the hospital.

In talking to people at the Seaway Mall, where I recently spent some time in Welland—talking with folks as they walked through the mall and having them sign our petition. Folks were absolutely shocked and dismayed with the direction that this government is taking our health care system in. They know that privatization will only allow the wealthy few to jump the line while the rest of us are stuck waiting even longer.

In our community, one of the examples that people are aware of of this government’s lack of priority—and we talked about this during the election campaign, actually—is their plans to expand the Garden City Skyway in Niagara, which is a bridge over the canal that goes from St. Catharines to Niagara-on-the-Lake, and the hundreds of millions of dollars that the government is planning to spend. I’m not against highways. I’m not against bridges. Fixing them, repairing them, expanding them creates jobs and can be good for the local economy. But what does it say when you’re losing life-saving emergency services in a hospital—an issue the government won’t address—but they will expand a bridge that is not terribly busy at the present time? That has been talked about on local radio shows, and it really shows that this government is completely out of touch with the priorities of people in Niagara.

Under this government, it has become even harder to find an affordable place to live. There’s nothing in the budget to actually build the houses we need. The province’s own budget shows that we’re moving in the wrong direction on housing. And the dismantling of the greenbelt isn’t doing what the government promised. The budget predicts fewer housing starts next year than this year, and they’re nowhere near on track to meet their stated goal of 1.5 million homes in 10 years. In 2022, 96,100 homes were started, with even less projected to start in the following years—in 2023, only 80,300 new homes, and another decrease in 2024 is projected. As reported recently by Global News, that means that over four of the 10 years set out in the province’s plan, just 23% of its total target of homes will be built. When I asked about the government’s ability to meet these targets, the Minister of Housing said that we will do “everything we can” and “there’s things out of my control.” Well, it’s within the minister’s control to make or not make commitments and to admit when a plan is not working.

It’s becoming clearer to the people of Ontario that their plan is not working. The government needs to change course if it’s to effectively address the housing crisis and meet any of its targets. They can only make excuses for so long.

For Niagara Week, the region’s representatives have made clear that they’re asking senior levels of government for co-investment in long-term capital funding for Niagara’s consolidated housing master plan, which will allow us to grow sustainable housing solutions. These are some of the local investments that could be made through a budget to help municipalities build more homes. This plan lists shovel-ready sites that are awaiting co-investment, and it will guide the development of new community housing units between 2022 and 2045. It includes unique opportunities to leverage investment in non-profit and co-operative housing—something that this government has completed ignored—as well as municipal housing. It identifies existing land assets that will support the development of approximately 11,000 new community units. So here’s a program that the government could choose to partner with municipalities on to build more of the kind of affordable units that people need and have asked for.

In addition to the low number of homes started, we know that many of the homes being built are not affordable.

In Niagara, we’re seeing people spend upwards of 60% of their take-home income on housing alone. According to the Niagara Association of Realtors, in March 2023, the average home sold was $699,913. It’s becoming more and more unaffordable for folks. And of course, that has a tremendous effect on rental prices.

We all agree that we need to build more homes, and we need to keep pointing out that you can’t just look at supply. We’ve talked about this many times. The government’s ideological bent is really just to look at supply. They’re not looking at demand—which is a demand for affordable homes.

The Niagara region recently created the attainable housing team to focus on building more of the missing middle, and I hope that the government listens carefully to the proposals that the region makes.

There’s no new funding in the budget to help struggling tenants afford skyrocketing rents. There’s no real rent control.

The 5% ODSP increase puts people even further from a livable income, following a year of skyrocketing rents and inflation in Niagara and across Ontario.

For Niagara Regional Housing, the wait-list for an affordable unit in Thorold, where I live, is 10 years; in Welland, you’re waiting seven to 12 years; in St. Catharines, eight to 19 years. And in Niagara Falls, you could be looking at anywhere from five to 20 years for an affordable housing unit.

This government has ignored the advice of its own experts and its own Housing Affordability Task Force by not ending exclusionary zoning. The minister is failing to enable missing middle housing to make it easier for people of all incomes, ages, family sizes and abilities to access affordable housing options in the neighbourhoods and communities that they live in.

Governments used to play an important role in building new, affordable and non-market housing and stabilizing the housing markets, but starting back in the 1990s, successive Liberal and PC governments abandoned any meaningful public role in the delivery of new non-market housing, and it’s being completely abandoned in this budget as well. That’s what set the stage for the housing crisis we’re facing today.

I want to talk for a few minutes about modernizing municipal services.

For the first time in the Niagara region’s 53-year history, we have dedicated resources through a new council-approved office with a mandate to accelerate shared service opportunities across the region. This is an ask that our team from Niagara is making of the government, and the reason that we need to come forward with this request is because nothing was provided in the budget. There was no new funding for municipal transit operations in the budget, and that is creating quite a bit of stress on municipal budgets as well.

The government promised to make municipalities whole, as I’ve mentioned, and there’s nothing to make up for Bill 23 municipal deficits which will result in service cuts and higher taxes. Municipalities have cancelled affordable housing projects, as I’ve mentioned. The government is cutting the very programs that municipalities use to try to speed up the construction of more housing.

When I asked the Premier about this in question period, his response was, “When I went down to city hall, I heard the same song and dance. First meeting with the CAO—’We’ve got to raise taxes 30%.’ ... We found a billion dollars, did a 0% tax increase, never went once to the province hat in hand.” I was amazed by that answer, because it’s like asking a mugging victim why they want their wallet back. The Premier has taken $5 billion in infrastructure revenue away from municipalities, then promised to reimburse them, and when municipalities asked for that promise to be fulfilled, the Premier accuses them of acting like beggars and going hat in hand to the province. They’re the ones who took the revenue away. They’re the ones who promised to return it.

This is a situation that is going to become more and more acute as municipalities struggle with their budgets. We’ve heard of some enormous tax increases and service cuts that are going to happen. That’s something that could have been addressed in this budget—treating municipalities like partners rather than creatures of the province or beggars.

My time is just about up, Speaker.

Clearly, we are disappointed with a budget that is full of missed opportunities. We hope the government will take a good look and listen to municipalities and many Ontarians who believe, as we do, that we can do a whole lot better.

I want to thank the member for his speech and for his advocacy on behalf of the Niagara region.

Yesterday in this Legislature, there was a reception hosted by a number of elected officials and others from the Niagara region, and I had the opportunity to talk to the chief of the paramedic service in Niagara. He talked about the impact that off-load delays are having on the people in that region, both from the point of view of not being able to access emergency transportation when someone is in a medical crisis and also for those paramedics who are stuck waiting in hospital parking lots.

I wondered if the member wanted to comment on whether this budget provides any hope that the government has a plan to deal with the off-load delay pressures in Niagara.

We’re going to move to questions.

To the member from Niagara Centre: I really appreciated your comments today.

You mentioned Bill 23, the “building fewer homes slower in Ontario act.” We have a housing crisis in this province. You mentioned that this government downloaded a taxpayer-funded donation to developers of $5 billion, and when the Premier was asked about this, about how the municipalities cannot build housing because they can’t afford that tax donation to the developers, the Premier basically accused them of being beggars and insulted the municipalities. What is your response to this? When you’re having to manage the budget and the government is handing out municipal tax dollars to developers so that they have to pay for the infrastructure, what is your response as a former city councillor?

I always enjoy engaging with the member from Niagara Centre. I think we have a great relationship.

I have to ask him a question about his speech. He spent a good chunk of his speech talking about how we’re not doing anything to help build affordable and attainable housing, and then he spent the last part of his speech talking about how bad it is—what we’re doing to help support the building of affordable and attainable housing. I have to ask him: Which is it? Does he support what we’re doing to make attainable housing by getting rid of the $160,000 per unit in development charges and fees that builders have to pay, so that they can build those units much cheaper to get those on the market? Or does he not support those decreases in fees so that we can see more attainable housing get on the market? You can’t—

The reality is, we’re getting more housing starts than ever.

And we’re hoping for the opposition’s support on the budget.

Thank you to the honourable member for the question.

The point I was trying to make is that the government, with Bill 23, took away $5 billion in infrastructure revenue, and then, when municipalities complained how it would actually hurt their ability to build more housing, the government promised to reimburse to make those municipalities whole; and then, when municipalities said, “Well, are you going to keep your promise?”, the government turned around and compared them to beggars going hat in hand to the province. That is the kind of doublespeak I was talking about, that I believe the government is guilty of.

I used to be a budget chair of a large municipal organization. You can’t run deficits municipally. There are very few choices when you lose a huge chunk of revenue. You’re either going to raise taxes, or you have to cut services. That’s the situation that municipalities are being put in. So when you hear the government promising to make them whole, that’s a huge commitment, and when they go back on that commitment, what happens is, you have municipalities like Brampton that are saying, in order to cover that shortfall, they have to raise property taxes 80%. That’s backed up by numbers. They’re not making that up. So that revenue has to be replaced somehow or we’ll end up with huge tax hikes and cuts to services, which will then hurt the municipality’s ability to participate in the kind of partnerships that build more housing in that municipality.

What I can tell you is that I have very few people in Niagara who are concerned about hospital services, who are concerned about finding affordable housing, who call my office and say, “Do you know what we really need? We really need a luxury spa near Lake Ontario. That’s what I need. Don’t worry about the emergency services that are being taken out of the hospital. Don’t worry about finding an affordable place to live. I would really like for the government to facilitate a luxury spa near Lake Ontario in Toronto.” I don’t hear that at all.

So I think we need to really look at what our priorities are when we put a budget like this forward—and I doubt that this party will support those kinds of priorities.

This is probably the biggest issue in Niagara in terms of stress for folks. We have one of the oldest populations, not only in Ontario, but in Canada, and it’s also a growing population. In my riding, it’s the part of the region which is growing most rapidly, and yet they’re losing hospital services, losing emergency services. When you shut down an emergency department in one city, it puts stress on the entire system.

The government did not provide any kind of money in the budget to facilitate one emergency department closing by making another one in another city bigger. They just had to take on that stress, and so we’re seeing ridiculous ambulance delays of eight to 10 hours, of people sitting in an emergency bay when they really need to get into an emergency room. It’s a situation that’s getting worse, and it’s a real shame the government didn’t look in their budget—

Suck and blow.

We’re going to move to further debate.

We’re going to move to questions.

I thank the member for the question.

What we have a problem with is a government that completely ignores the affordability issue. What’s happening here is that they’re taking money away from municipalities and giving it to developers. They promised to reimburse municipalities, and they’re not doing that.

Money doesn’t just fall from the sky. You have $5 billion of revenue shortfalls created by the government’s housing legislation, and that money has to come from somewhere. It’s going to result in steep property tax increases and cuts to services that people need. That’s the result of the government’s decisions and their priorities in this budget.

I’m glad to have one more chance.

It was interesting listening to the member talk about how awful it was that we are taking off $160,000-a-unit of cost for low-income and attainable housing for the people of Ontario, for purpose-built rentals and low-income development.

I would like to ask the member directly if he fully supports and feels that it’s appropriate that there’s $160,000 of cost per unit built into some of the costs for units for the most vulnerable Ontarians that municipalities charge. I need to have that answer from him here in the House. If he feels that’s appropriate that we took that away—that he supports that that should be charged by municipalities to the most vulnerable Ontarians, that they have to pay later through rent.

We’ve known each other for five or six years now, or even longer, I think, and I know how passionate she is about the agricultural community, especially in her own riding, but indeed across the entire province of Ontario. I didn’t hear whether she would be voting in favour of the budget or not, but I’m hoping she would consider supporting the budget, if for no other reason than just to support agriculture, because of the fact that we’re getting a new veterinarian school in the province of Ontario and that we are actually supporting veterinarians who will be going into the north or to underserved areas. I’m very, very excited about that for the agricultural community in my riding.

I was wondering if she had comment on her support for the new veterinarian school from the budget.

I appreciate being able to speak to this bill this morning. It’s a budget bill that I would describe as mediocre, underwhelming. Overall, I felt there was nothing really dynamic in the bill. I won’t use my time to talk about the numbers that have already been thrown around, but rather what I hear from my constituents.

The past three years have been difficult for the people of Ontario, including in my riding of Haldimand–Norfolk. I hear it, and I see it.

My predecessor taught me that we have government for a reason. It’s government’s job to look after the people and make tough decisions. And in the budget, I see neither tough decisions being made—nor little help for families.

Members on the government side, during debate, have said that Bill 85 is this government’s plan to build Ontario so we can have a strong economy for the future and the infrastructure needed to support growth across the province. It’s allegedly a plan to build the economy, build highways, build infrastructure, work for workers, keep costs down, and serve the public better. It sounds great, but I’m not certain the measures contained will actually help families as they continue to grapple with inflation.

Insurance, for example, is something my constituents are continually calling me about. They simply can’t afford it.

Folks who have never used a food bank are now relying on one to feed their family.

And for the first time in Haldimand–Norfolk, homelessness can be seen in most of our small towns.

I had hoped the budget would offer affordability measures for Ontarians struggling with inflation-related costs. Legislation enacted to counter price gouging, for example, would have been welcome.

Bill 85 fails to address some of the major crises we’re seeing in Ontario, such as the failures of our education system and the weaknesses in our health care, long-term care and home care systems.

I am the orphaned fiscal conservative, but I think there has to be more targeted and sensible spending on key areas. Oversight is badly needed when we continue to spend more while critical services get worse. The government can boast of delivering the biggest budget ever, but if these monies continue to chase after bad money, it becomes a moot point. I am a fiscal conservative, so I don’t really feel that this unprecedented spending is something to be proud of. This isn’t a fiscally conservative budget.

Sometimes, money isn’t the issue. I sat through the budget finance committee pre-budget consultations across this province, where some presenters were asking for a lot of money, and I called them out on that. Money isn’t always the problem. The problem, I believe, can be mismanagement, a lack of accountability. Sometimes the problem is systemic. And I see many issues in this province that can largely be fixed with a better approach or strategy. We simply have to listen.

We know the Ontario government has an ambitious plan to build one and a half million homes in 10 years. Along with the challenge of building those homes, allegedly 72,000 more workers are required. Credit where credit is due—the government continues to invest in skills training, apprenticeship and skilled trades to encourage the trades as a career. For example, the government is enhancing the Skills Development Fund with an additional $75 million over the next three years. That is good news. My overarching concern regarding the aggressive housing target, however, is that I don’t see any oversight to ensure proper housing is being built—and by “proper,” Ontario needs affordable housing and housing that’s affordable. I fear without proper oversight, we will see housing few people can afford.

I’m like a broken record on contraband tobacco, which has become one of the most common illegally traded goods in the world, and this province is ground zero. It’s ruining the social fabric of our communities. During pre-budget consultations, we heard from folks who recognize the damage illegal tobacco is doing to our communities as well as to the Ontario economy. All of us have heard from legitimate businesses, like corner stores, that suffer financially. The government loses out on $750 million in taxes annually. That’s a lot of money, especially when Quebec has proven that they have the recipe to deal with this disaster. I understand that Quebec model was going to be adopted in the 2019 budget, but it was pulled, and I’m very disheartened that it is missing again in 2023. There are some housekeeping items in schedule 10 of Bill 85 with respect to the Tobacco Tax Act, but they only scratch the surface of contraband tobacco. I’ve asked in this House and on finance committee, in the spirit of transparency, who or why the Quebec model and associated policy was pulled and why it is missing again. I still haven’t heard an answer.

Schedule 10 should have also corrected the definition of “unregulated tobacco” back to what it was originally—“contraband,” “illegal” or “illicit”—in the Tobacco Tax Act. When this government came to power, one of the first things that the Ministry of Finance did was change the wording from “contraband” to “unregulated.” Page 184 of the budget makes this reference. Why would the ministry change the definition from “contraband” to “unregulated”? It seems like an ambiguous term, and those enforcing the law tell me it is an ambiguous term and makes it much easier for criminals to work around the law. Once again, it’s a change that could have occurred without money being spent.

To address teacher and nurse shortages, we should be focusing on getting potential professionals through their education much faster than they are today. Implementing additional accelerated courses would get students to the front lines faster.

I represent many farmers. The veterinary training that has been of concern the past few years was addressed in the budget, and I hope that it works. It’s nice to see this government attempting to address this issue. Expanding high-speed Internet across rural Ontario is vital because not being able to connect puts our farmers at a competitive disadvantage.

In closing, when any legislation is introduced in this House, I take great care in determining how it will affect the people of Haldimand–Norfolk. Do I feel this budget will harm my constituents? No. Do I think it will help them? It will help some, but with the current environment—

Yes, I am a huge advocate for my farming community, and I see measures in the budget for our farmers, but I think we could have taken those measures a little bit further.

I will say that the Minister of Agriculture does a great job of supporting our farmers. I hear it every day. I heard it as recently as yesterday. But I think she has a very tough job in supporting our farmers to the best of her ability within this government.

I was heartened to see that there are some measures—veterinary training, agricultural soil health and conservation, and investments in high-speed Internet—because, as I said, we can’t have our farmers competing in a global market if they don’t have access and they’re not connected. It puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

I won’t let you know whether or not I’m voting in favour of the budget. But thanks for the question.

I listened intently to the member from Haldimand–Norfolk. I always enjoy her remarks. She represents her riding very well. Some might be surprised to know that I would also consider myself as a fiscal conservative. One of her remarks touched me. This is the highest-spending budget in Ontario history, yet there are so many people who, quite frankly, aren’t impacted. The homelessness crisis is impacting rural Ontario and my riding as well and many other things, and yet this government seems to be missing the mark—that there’s almost two Ontarios—and the government is forgetting one side of our province.

This week, something happened that we’d never heard of before. It’s seeding time in Timiskaming. There’s lots of farm equipment on the highway. Thank you to our farmers for doing all the work they do. This week, a tractor was on Highway 11, and a transport passed it on the right, on the gravel shoulder. It’s amazing that that didn’t cause a major accident.

I’ve spoken with the minister about this. This isn’t a partisan issue—not at all. We all care, and we want the highways safer. Something needs to be done to make sure that aggressive drivers of all kinds, but especially transports, respect others on the road.

Finally, I would like to express my condolences to the family of someone who lost their life on Highway 11 this week for another reason, another danger in northern Ontario. A vehicle hit a moose, the highway was closed, and someone tragically lost their life. Our condolences to the family.

Please be careful on the roads.

Next question.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Our government knows that a safe Ontario is a strong Ontario.

Last week, in my constituency, I had the tremendous honour of attending my first Windsor Police Service badge ceremony as MPP for Windsor–Tecumseh, on behalf of Solicitor General Michael Kerzner. I was able to congratulate Windsor and Amherstburg’s 11 new constables who have selflessly dedicated their lives and careers to keeping our residents safe and our community secure.

Led by Chief Jason Bellaire, the Windsor Police Service embodies all the best of their motto, “Honour in Service,” through integrity, innovation, respect and professionalism.

Speaker, I share Chief Bellaire’s enthusiasm for our government’s recent announcement in support of the brave men and women who serve as Ontario’s first and last line of defence. By removing key barriers to entering the profession, local police services across Ontario will better reflect the diversity of our great province at large.

To the 11 newest recruits and those still to come: We thank you, we honour you, and we wish you well as you do us proud in your service to us.

Speaker, Bill 85 proposes a plan that is responsible and targeted to help people and businesses, while laying a strong fiscal foundation for future generations. It is reflective of a thoughtful, transparent plan with a path to balance. It contains investments that are attracting and protecting jobs—while investing in hospitals, schools, transit, highways and other infrastructure projects.

Why will the member opposite not commit to supporting Bill 85?

En cette Semaine nationale de la police, j’aimerais prendre cette opportunité ici en Chambre pour remercier les premiers répondants de ma communauté, mais aussi de toute la province.

Comme vous le savez, nous avons vécu une situation tragique dans notre circonscription la semaine dernière dans le village de Bourget, dans la municipalité de Clarence-Rockland. L’embuscade qui a causé le décès d’un de nos sergents et blessé deux autres agents de police est une situation qui est inexplicable et nous laisse sans mots. Nos pensées sont avec les familles, les amis, les collègues du sergent Mueller et avec toutes les personnes qui ont été affectées par cet évènement.

Je tiens à remercier de tout coeur les membres du service de paramédic de Prescott et Russell, tous ces gens qui se sont rendus sur les lieux, ceux qu’on appelle les premiers répondants, qui ont mis leurs vies en danger pour venir au secours de leurs collègues. Nous ne comprendrons jamais comment difficile ça peut être de vivre avec des souvenirs de toutes sortes de situations comme celle de la semaine dernière, parce que la plupart de nous ne seront jamais confrontés à de telles situations.

Lorsque je suis revenu de Toronto jeudi soir dernier, pendant les cinq heures de route, j’ai eu beaucoup de temps à penser—à penser à tous les amis, parents, enfants, à tous ces premiers répondants, policiers, paramédicaux, pompiers et autres intervenants, qui mettent leurs vies en danger chaque jour pour venir en aide à nos citoyens. J’aimerais les remercier. Merci à vous tous pour votre travail incroyable.

Earlier this month, I joined the Minister of Long-Term Care for a tour of the construction site of Wellbrook Place, our new, state-of-the-art long-term-care home on Speakman Drive in Mississauga–Lakeshore. When it is open this fall, it will be the largest long-term-care home in Ontario, giving 632 new residents a modern, safe and comfortable place to call home. It will meet the latest standards for long-term-care design and safety, including private bedrooms and an enhanced HVAC system. Special units will care for people with advanced dementia, and a dialysis program will support residents living with kidney disease. Specialists from Trillium Health Partners will operate these programs, so that residents with complex needs get the care they need right at home, without unnecessary visits to hospitals or emergency rooms.

Future phases of this project will include a new health services building, and the first residential hospice in Mississauga, to be built and operated by Heart House Hospice.

I want to thank Tess Romain and her team at Partners Community Health for all their work on this project.

And I want to thank the minister for our historic investment of $6.4 billion in the largest long-term-care building program in Canadian history, including 1,100 new and upgraded beds in Mississauga–Lakeshore alone, more than any other riding in the province of Ontario.

Thanks for the question.

I’m probably going to take a bit of a different approach than what my friends to my right here are taking. But I’m a fiscal conservative, and I think there’s a better approach to be taken.

The minister said earlier this morning that this government is here for every Ontarian. My constituents don’t feel that way. This is a government that was elected in 2018 to make life more affordable for Ontarians, and my constituents simply don’t see it. They don’t see it with respect to auto insurance rates. They don’t see it with respect to natural gas.

The Premier was once called the emperor who has no clothes when it comes to cutting taxes. When we talk about cutting taxes, we obviously turn right to cutting services—and that’s not always true.

So I think there are missed opportunities, as one of my colleagues said this morning.

I want to talk about the relief needed for rural Ontario. We see tax relief for northern residents who get a break for all the travel that they do, and it’s time those in rural Ontario get that same tax break. With respect to natural gas, the federal government’s energy prices disproportionately target rural residents and people of my riding. That doesn’t make life more affordable for them—

Today, I rise to share a message that my offices and I hear from constituents in our riding and across the province every day. The impact and effects of the rising cost of living, both short-term and long-term, are harmful and hurtful in so many ways. The struggle to make ends meet, to raise a family, to be safe, warm and fed with a place to call home should not be this tough for so many. Affording and maintaining basic needs should never take over the quality of one’s life or health, physically or mentally.

We hear the stories of families, friends, neighbours and community members who have exhausted all options, made every call and find themselves with nowhere to turn. We hear their current situations of unstable living conditions, lack of mental health supports, and long wait-lists due to underfunding. We bear witness to these conditions in our communities, in parks, schools, health care settings, workplaces and homes.

Deplorable government policies and budget constraints that hinder the very programs and people who have the solutions—solutions that can change lives and reverse some outcomes. We feel the effects when we see these programs closed due to funding, wait-lists growing even longer, and social service rates not meeting today’s living expenses, including shelter, food and health care.

I call on this government to listen, learn and fund these critical solutions.