I want to thank both members for their remarks. Maybe this one will be directed to the member for Mississauga–Lakeshore, given I know he’s got tremendous experience in the manufacturing sector. I know it’s been a difficult couple of days for me and my community, Windsor–Tecumseh, with the discussion of the Stellantis plant. That’s evidence, however, of Ontario attracting billions of dollars in automotive and clean steel investments in the last few years. We definitely want to keep on attracting those investments. So this budget contains measures like the Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit. That’s introduced in this budget.

I’m wondering, why is it important that we have many, many facets of investment, including this particular tax credit in the 2023 budget?

Next question?

I hate having my back to you when I answer your question, but just for the sake of the microphone—listen, I think there has been a lot of misconception when it comes to parts of this bill and when we talk about development charges. All new builds are still subject to development charges, unless they are purpose-built rentals or they are not-for-profit. For anything else, it still applies. There is a bit of a sliding scale when it comes to some certain developments not being able to have 100% of development charges charged at the time, but they can charge up to 80%, and then there’s that 20% that gets made up after that. But just to be very clear again, purpose-built rental and not-for-profit housing are not subject to development charges. New greenfield, brownfield, infill, single-family homes that are being built out in the country, and townhomes still can be part of that development charge process.

This member spoke about the climate crisis, spoke against gridlock and carbon emissions, and talks about the fact that he wants to see more people get off the road, wants to be using transit. He mentioned two-way, all-day GO specifically. These investments will help two-way, all-day GO become a reality, and I hope he will support this budget, and I hope he will support the transit infrastructure within it.

I want to thank the member from Windsor. I’ll tell you this: When my father first immigrated here to Canada in 1950, that’s where he went to work. He was in Windsor, working at the Campbell Soup plant back then, in 1950, and then he moved to Port Credit, where he worked in a refinery.

I was lucky; I worked in the automotive industry, and I think the automotive industry is the lifeline to this province. We’ve invested over $25 billion in automotive investment in this province to attract the automotive industry back to Ontario, to make it the number one jurisdiction in the world to build EVs. But not only that, we’ll be building the battery here, and we’re going to be using our own natural resources so we don’t have to depend on countries like the Congo, where they use child labour for the minerals. The 10% reduction for manufacturing to keep those jobs here and attract more is what we need to attract even more than $25 billion moving forward.

I want to thank the member for that question.

In my neighbourhood alone, we’ve had 25 cars stolen over the last month. My neighbour’s car got stolen—well, once, it got stolen, and then the second time, they tried again to steal the other car. They were not able to do that. Not only that, on the other court, one of the neighbours came out, and they were stealing his car at 3 o’clock in the morning. The criminal told them, “Go back in the house and call the insurance tomorrow morning.” That’s how it’s become now in that business.

So I know it’s a difficult issue, and I agree that we have to do something to improve the cost of insurance through the province of Ontario.

Madam Speaker, I want to expand a little bit on what my colleague was mentioning earlier about DCs, development charges. We hear often from the opposition what I would say is not necessarily factual: Development charges can be applied to all new builds, and often we hear that municipalities are being handcuffed and cannot raise or generate any revenue because development charges have been waived.

I would like either of my colleagues to speak to the development charges and clarify, present the facts: Where have they been waived and why, and can municipalities still insist that developers pay development charges on new builds?

I was listening to the member from Durham earlier, and a lot of talk about transparency and fiscal responsibility, so I wanted to look at that a little bit and where money is being spent by this government. It really puts that into question, the transparency and fiscal responsibility, so I’d like to make a tally here.

I’m thinking here of the mandate letters that have been in court now for five years, and still the government is too frightened, I assume, of what the public will think to reveal what ministers have been directed to do. We all hear every day in this Legislature what the government wants people to believe—they’ve got a narrative—but wouldn’t it be enlightening to compare these creative narratives to what has actually been laid out in the mandate letters? Unfortunately, it’s clear the government would rather spend our tax dollars on lawyers rather than on public transparency. So I ask, is that an example of fiscal prudence?

The Ontario Superior Court has ruled that Bill 124 is unconstitutional wage repression, and the repression of the right to collective bargaining is what Bill 124 does. But is the government prepared to stop fighting nurses, educators and other public-sector workers? No. They would prefer to keep spending taxpayer dollars on lawyers and court costs.

Now, we know that if they lose their appeal of Bill 124, they will be forced to pay back wages, probably in the billions, that will be owed to those workers. And these are the workers who did so much for people during the pandemic, who have been treated very poorly by this government. In the end, if they lose that case—first of all, the case is costing a lot of money—then they’re going to have to pay out a lot of money. So why keep fighting and spending tax dollars on a court appeal?

I like to think in terms of strategy, and again, I’m asking myself: What is in those mandate letters? Let’s put this together with another massive health care expense, so that people can see that the wage repression represented by Bill 124 is actually part of a larger strategy to collapse the public health care system so that well-connected people can come in and make hefty profits on the backs of people who are ill.

Bill 124 has effectively pushed health care workers out of hospitals, and hospitals have been forced to spend an incredible amount of money on agency nurses. The fact that people close to the Conservative government own some of these agencies is one piece of the puzzle, but it’s only one. Agencies are costing the public 550% more than it would cost to pay staff nurses. So then you can see that the repression represented by Bill 124 is actually not about saving money; it’s about creating a permanent state of crisis in public health care so that there are opportunities created for private shareholder profits.

Now, wouldn’t it be interesting if we could see the mandate letters for the Ministry of Health and the rationales for imposing Bill 124, which has led to an increase of 550% in health care costs for nursing staff? I find that incredible. Well, let me see: a massive transfer of public dollars into for-profit hands at the expense of health care workers, the ones who actually work on staff and are committed to their communities.

But there are other court cases. There’s the court case around Treaty 9 and undoubtedly there will be more with the imposition of Bill 71. We heard from the Chiefs of Ontario, representing 131 First Nations. The first letter came from the Matawa group, nine First Nations, all in the area of the Ring of Fire and where a lot of the mining the government hopes will take place. Treaty 9—really a very, very serious court case—and then Whitesand, all sending letters in opposition to Bill 71 and effectively saying, “Cease and desist. You do not have the right to be on our property. You do not have the right to be digging and exploring without our consent, without our agreement.”

I just want to say, as we’ve made very clear on this side of the House, that talking about First Nations’ rights is not saying we don’t want mining, but that we want mining done responsibly and we want those relationships built properly, with justice at their core. Right now, that’s not what’s happening.

To me, this is the same old, same old story, and it can be spun any way you like. The latest spin from the Minister of Indigenous Affairs is legacy infrastructure. I think we’re going to hear those two words again and again as the latest spin. It sounds nice, but when you shove things down people’s throats with a father-knows-best attitude, you are showing yourselves to have exactly the same approach as the architects of the residential school system. Surely we should be past that, and we should be capable of recognizing when we are bringing that kind of arrogance: “We know best what’s good for you. We’re going to do it anyway, whether you like it or not.”

The result is actually uncertainty for business. It’s uncertainty for business because there will be court challenges, and if it comes to it, do we really want to see Ipperwash happening here in northern Ontario? Surely not, but that is exactly what’s being invited right now. We had 80 people from the Far North of Ontario here, and chiefs, saying very directly, “The Ring of Fire will not happen without our consent.” Well, the Premier was not willing to even meet with them. What kind of consent is that?

The first letter I received, going back to April 3, was from Matawa—and by the way, Matawa includes Marten Falls and Webequie. Those are the two First Nations that agreed to have the road. I find it perplexing to hear the Premier say that those two First Nations—that it’s going to be their job to convince everybody else that this is a good deal. First of all, it’s not their responsibility to do that. Secondly, they signed the original letter in opposition to Bill 71. Matawa and Marten Falls signed the letter in opposition, so you cannot expect them to do the work that was asked for, which was to set up—let’s see if I can remember the correct words—a process—I’m sorry, I’ve lost the words now, but a process for negotiating so that companies and First Nations—

A quick question for my friends across the aisle: You’ve been probably in meetings with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario or the Ontario Good Roads Association and know that there’s a $52-billion infrastructure backlog in Ontario that’s putting huge pressure on municipal budgets.

On top of that, according to the Financial Accountability Officer, Ontario will experience an additional $26.2 billion in infrastructure costs due to the climate crisis. This has led to some real-world situations. In Chatham-Kent, there’s a local highway closed. I know the member from Haldimand–Norfolk keeps asking about an unsafe bridge in her riding.

Can the members explain why there isn’t anything in the budget that really addresses this critical need for infrastructure funding to repair the infrastructure that we already have in Ontario?

Thank you. We’re going to move to questions.

Framework.

What was that? Framework. Thank you very much—to establish a framework so that business had security and First Nations had security, knowing that they would be able to work together and come to an agreement that everybody could live with.

I want to talk a little bit about—jeez, I’m going to run out of time, and I had so much I wanted to share. Biigtigong Nishnaabeg, also known as Pic River First Nation, is just east of Marathon on Lake Superior. They recently signed an agreement with Generation Mining. The town of Marathon and Biigtigong Nishnaabeg worked very closely together. That’s a relationship they’ve been working on for years. And the relationship with Generation Mining has also been worked on for years. The entire community voted on whether they would go ahead with this agreement, and that actually was a very beautiful ceremony in which that agreement, in principle, was signed.

It’s possible to do this right. It’s possible to build these relationships. If we really wanted to, we could get clean water in every one of those communities at the snap of our fingers, but instead, that doesn’t get done and, in fact, it’s kind of used as a bit of a—the nice way to call it would be a bargaining chip. “If you do what we want, maybe we’ll give you your water.” Instead, we have a bill—Bill 71—that overrides the wishes of First Nations and tramples on, compromises on environmental protections for mine remediation. We know that these things can work if they’re done properly, with respect. We also know that pushing through Bill 71 was not an act of respect and that it will not provide the business security that people are looking for and it will lead to more court cases.

Thank you to the member for your presentation here. We need to understand that in this House, this is the crown, and you are a signatory to Treaty 9 and you have an obligation to make sure you are engaged in free, prior and informed consent in any lands that belong to Indigenous communities and First Nations governments.

In this House, we’ve heard how opposed they are to this. The member from Brantford–Brant brought Logan Staats to the House, and he stood in his place and said to this government, “We are opposed to you taking our land.” We had the Land Back movement with Skyler Williams in Caledonia. We do not want to see an Ipperwash, an Oka Crisis, another Caledonia here in the province of Ontario. You shouldn’t want it either.

So why is this government recklessly pursuing a divide-and-conquer colonial strategy when they know it will only lead to confrontation and you are not living up to your responsibilities as signatories to Treaty 9 and representatives of the crown?

I listened intently, and I enjoy hearing about all of the different locations across our province, and I appreciate it, truly. I just wanted to know what the member’s opinion would be on the First Nations and industry Ring of Fire projects. These investments are part of Ontario’s commitment of close to $1 billion that will support critical legacy infrastructure, all-season roads, broadband connectivity—which is such a huge issue across our province. I’m just wondering, will the opposition please support these measures, because it will allow communities to work towards their own benefit, keep costs down and help the labour force in those locations?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for recognizing me today as I rise to speak about the truly inspiring budget 2023 that was put forward by the Honourable Minister of Finance. I am inspired by this budget because it is an incredibly positive turn for our province and for our economy, because, Speaker, if you’ll forgive a very well-worn cliché, a rising tide floats all boats. I am inspired to see that this government, under the leadership of the Premier and the finance minister, are continuing to engage with and encourage real, sustainable growth in our economy—growth in jobs and industry that will not only support us financially for generations to come, but will also guide this province to be a world leader in the very innovative and modern high-tech green solutions that the entire world needs right now. This is an incredibly impressive feat. Investors and countries all over the world are chasing these investments to recognize and react to the existential threat of climate change.

We know that the internal combustion engine was a marvel of the 19th century and revolutionized the industrial world throughout the 20th century. But like many of the technologies that have effectively rocked our worlds and improved our lives and livelihoods, after a time, we came to realize that there is a challenge with the internal combustion engine, as the use of fossil fuels leaves emissions in our atmosphere.

So if cars are polluting, why don’t we just stop using them? No, that’s actually not the answer. Vehicles have provided a means of mass transportation to bring people to where the jobs are, to where the food is, to bring the food to where the people are, to bring emergency services to where they are needed, quickly and efficiently. No, the answer is not to turn back the clock and reject automobiles, but rather to become more innovative and fix the problems with them while maintaining and even improving the benefits of them.

So yes, the whole world is seeking billions and even trillions of dollars in investments to produce cars and other vehicles that do not produce CO₂ or other greenhouse gases. To lean on another well-worn cliché, necessity is the mother of invention. Keeping our world from overheating and reducing our dependence on petroleum as a fuel is an existential necessity, and with necessity comes invention. The scientists, the engineers and the entrepreneurs have faced that challenge and brought forward ideas that will, I am optimistic, get us over that hill.

So the inventors have done their job and now the investors are doing theirs. They’re the ones that make sure our economy actually provides the things that we need. In a recent debate about mines, which the other member had spoken about very eloquently today, it was noted by the Minister of Mines that governments do not dig mines, companies do. And by that same token, governments—not even this one that is so dedicated to building Ontario—are not going to be the ones that build the new technologies that will update and replace the vehicles of old with newer ones. No, it is companies that will build those electric vehicles—companies like Umicore, Stellantis and Power One, and I could go on, actually. The Premier and our fantastic Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade have been out there making sure that we have the jobs for the future prosperity of this province, and pushing for those green jobs for us and for the future of the whole planet.

Earlier in this session of the House, we also debated something called the Working for Workers bill and that bill was focused on making sure workers in this province are the best-treated workers in the world. And it still manages to do that without driving away the manufacturers that bring the jobs—as we know the previous government did for 15 long years in this province. Ultimately, I would submit to this House, Speaker, that the budget is doing even more for workers across the province than Bill 79 actually did because you can only say that you’re working for workers if you have workers. And the definition of a worker, Madam Speaker, is easy to understand: A worker is a person with a job.

It seems simple, but I really wonder how it is that the opposition party that purports itself to be the “labour-friendly party”—the opposition that claims to be the political face of unionism in this province despite evidence to the contrary—does not seem to get the idea that you can only call them workers if they have jobs. This Progressive Conservative government is bringing the jobs to this province. The previous government chased them away. I guess they didn’t want to help workers; they didn’t even want to have workers.

So, Speaker, this budget is very focused on the things that we need in this province to bring jobs to this province. I wish to be precise with this House: We are bringing jobs of tomorrow, the high-tech green industry jobs with fully sustainable supply chains. We are bringing investments to this province that are not the fly-by-night jobs, here today then gone tomorrow. We’re bringing the long-term, high-paying, “increase the standard of living for the people of today and their children” type of jobs, and for those children, so that they have jobs when they get old enough. This is generations of jobs, generations of workers that are being supported. I would go so far to say that this government, this Premier and this Minister of Economic Development, Minister of Labour and Minister of Finance are creating jobs for this century. And so, Speaker, that’s what this budget is about.

What’s even more awesome, Speaker, is that we’re not just planning to bring those jobs, we’re not just budgeting funds to attract the industries—we’re doing it. We have the track record. We’ve not only reversed the loss of 300,000 jobs caused by the naysayer NDP and “study it forever but don’t actually do anything” Liberals—we have not just talked the talk, Speaker, but we’ve walked the walk. We’ve brought over 600,000 new jobs to this province. We have the track record. We have the right plan, the right program and proven successes under our belt.

When this budget bill was introduced, the Minister of Finance took us on a verbal road trip, if you will, to show us the $2-billion investment from General Motors, then passed by the Tesla plant on the way to Alliston where Honda is making hybrid vehicles, then the Ford electric vehicle plant, then off to Hamilton where ArcelorMittal Dofasco was producing green steel, continued on to Cambridge and Woodstock to the see the Toyota hybrid facility and Ingersoll to see another EV plant by GM and to Windsor where Stellantis and LG Energy are putting $5 billion into a large-scale battery plant and, of course, mentioning St. Thomas, the future site of the Volkswagen plant.

All the major auto sector companies know that Ontario is the place to be. The major steel manufacturers know that Ontario is the place to be and the battery manufacturers know that Ontario is the place to be. I have to add that the minister didn’t extend his road trip a little further east to my hometown, Loyalist township, and yet another investment in battery production by a European giant in the industry, Umicore.

These are billions of dollars of investment that the whole world wanted, but Ontario got. This Premier, these ministers and this Ontario Progressive Conservative government achieved this. We did more than talk; we got it done.

And to the naysayers, to the members of this House who somehow think that it’s not important enough to support this budget, I say this: I want each of you to remember that when you choose not to vote for this, the people of Pickering, the people of Durham region, the people of Richmond Hill and the people of Alliston are watching. The people of Oakville and Hamilton, the good folks of Cambridge and Woodstock, Ingersoll, Windsor and St. Thomas are watching and the people of Loyalist township in my Lennox and Addington county are watching. Trust me when I say that all of these people think it’s important to get jobs for themselves, for their communities and for their children, and all of these people know that you can’t support workers or even call them workers if they don’t have jobs.

Speaker, I started this speech saying the budget inspired me. I would say the budget inspired optimism for real growth, for real, sustainable prosperity for the entire province.

The next question.

Thank you to my colleague. This budget bill, when we look at it, talks about a lot of investment in the Ring of Fire. We’ve seen First Nations come here. You mentioned it in your allocution—dans ton allocution—and talked about what First Nations said: pre-informed consent. And last week, we heard the Premier telling First Nations—pit First Nation against First Nation. I would like to hear from you, is that worthy of a Premier, saying that—pitting First Nations. Instead of de-escalating the issue, he poured gas on the issue. I’d like to hear your concerns or your thoughts on this.

I listened to the remarks from my colleague the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North and want to thank her for the issues that she raised and the concerns that she identified with this budget.

One of the issues that we face in my community, in the London area, is a dire shortage of family physicians, primary care providers. We’re short 65,000 family doctors in the London area, which has a huge impact on people’s ability to access the preventive programs and services they need.

I wondered if the member would comment on whether there was anything in the budget to deal with that significant shortage of family physicians across the province and what the people in her community are facing in terms of access to primary care.

Thank you for the question. We have about 45,000 people who don’t have access to primary care at this time. I know that the government has opened up some spaces for doctors, but it’s not enough. We really need to increase the spaces to train doctors. We also need to increase incentives to bring doctors to remote regions. I would like to see some of the work that’s being done to incentivize other health care workers to work in remote regions applied to doctors and see those spaces increased.

I want to thank the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North for her comments. I’ll build on my earlier question to the member for Mississauga–Lakeshore: We’ve seen the success the province can have in attracting investments that create good jobs, and our government has been able to attract billions of dollars’ worth of investments in automotive and clean steel manufacturing. That includes the recent announcement from Volkswagen and the Stellantis/NextStar Energy battery plant in my riding. So my question is whether you have support for the Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit that is included in the budget.

We have seen a successful story right here in Ontario, where Ontario can be attracting investments that will create good jobs. Our government has attracted billions of dollars in investments in automotive and clean steel manufacturing, including Volkswagen’s first overseas EV battery manufacturing plant. Will the opposition help Ontario keep up the momentum by supporting proposed measures like the Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit?