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.

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?

Through you, Madam Speaker, I was very interested in your very detailed statement, and I appreciate that. We talked about different methods to create a more, let’s say, balanced approach to this Ontario economy and create more jobs, which is so important. Could the member talk a little bit more about the tax credits that are available to businesses that are so important to creating a thriving economy?

I thank the member for his speech. Aside from all the things the member spoke of that were part of the budget speech, I don’t think there was really a true focus or an understanding of the fact that we are truly in the midst of an affordability crisis. I think we all agree on the need to create more jobs, that’s for sure. But there are countless thousands of people unable to work for a number of different reasons—people on OW and ODSP—and the government’s response was a below-inflation increase. In Toronto and other places, the cost of rent is at $3,000 a month. Do you truly believe that with a 5% increase to ODSP, to the most vulnerable among us, that this is enough? They are barely treading water, and they’re sinking. Don’t you think more needs to be done?

We’ll move to questions.

I thank the member for his question. He’s absolutely right. Inflation is running high. Inflation is running high across the world. We are participants in the world economy, and that is challenging for many, many people.

This is why this government increased ODSP by 5% and guaranteed with this budget that it would be locked into an inflationary index on an ongoing basis. It guaranteed that there was an increase in the allowance for them to work on top of that income, from $200 to $1,000. There are a lot of different ways that you can support people who are struggling.

Those are just a couple of them. The budget is full of many more of them, and I would encourage the member to focus on those and see the growth that the entire province is going to gain, and that will, in turn, pay for all of the social programs that we need.

Thank you to the member opposite. Yesterday, there was a member from the opposition who, when I asked a question about Moody’s, which is a financial rating service, where they’ve upgraded the province’s debt, said that it was irrelevant, that it didn’t matter, that it was of no relevance to people walking down the streets in her community. I was shocked, quite frankly, by that statement. That’s financial illiteracy.

I’m wondering if you can talk to why it is important that Ontario have a strong debt rating and is financially sound and how this budget is moving in that direction.

Thank you to the member from Hastings–Lennox and Addington. The member talked about working for workers, and I’ve got to tell you, that bar is really low. It is the “low-hanging fruit” bill. I want to know, in this bill—he talked about how, during the election, what he heard most was people talking about the government debt. What I heard most was people talking about the affordability crisis, talking about putting food on the table, putting gas in their cars.

So I want to know, in this budget, are you happy? Are you happy that more working people than ever before—every single year, that number increases—are having to use food banks to make ends meet? Does this make sense in this budget?

Next question?

Report continues in volume B.

While I appreciate the member’s question, I have to respectfully disagree with the idea that “all” only includes the wealthy. “All” includes all of the people of Ontario: the people that are in business, the entrepreneurs; the people that are struggling; the people that are doing well—all the people of Ontario.

This government is applying extra attention to those areas where people are struggling the most. We can talk about the ODSP—I mentioned it in my previous answer. We can talk about the Guaranteed Annual Income System: We’ve doubled the value and we’re adding 100,000 new people to the eligibility for that. This government continues to not just increase business but also increase the available supports for the people who need it most.

Just like governments, all of us have a credit rating and it affects our ability to do the things that we want to do. It affects our ability to get a mortgage to buy a house—which is the goal of this government: to make sure that everybody has an equal opportunity to afford their own home and, if they can, to actually buy a house.

That’s why this government kept putting money back into their pocket, whether it’s cancelling the tolls on the highway, whether it’s putting money back into their pocket from the licence plates. All of these things are pieces that go back to affordability. We’ve continued to lower the price on gas. That is an incredible boon, especially to the people in the member’s and my ridings, who have no choice but to use their vehicles a lot because we live in the rural environments. It is important that we continue to use these tools to make sure that people can afford to live every day.

I appreciate the member quoting John F. Kennedy—“a rising tide lifts all boats”—but we know that neoliberalism is a failed strategy. We know that it has shown to result in higher incidents of poverty and health care costs for the average person anywhere that notion was applied.

My question to you is, what do you say to the people that have no boats? What do you say to the people that, in fact, see this government supporting people with the big boats? Corporations, the for-profit health sector—to look at companies like Therme, who are getting a 95-year lease. They’re doing well. Their boats are being raised by this government. But people in the province, moms that have kids with autism, people that are using the food banks—this is an aphorism that is an insult to them when they themselves see that they are suffering and you are just saying that if we support the bigs, they will profit, when it’s not the case.