SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Ontario Assembly

43rd Parl. 1st Sess.
February 23, 2023 09:00AM
  • Feb/23/23 1:30:00 p.m.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas in the First and Second World Wars, over 7,000 First Nation members, as well as an unknown number of Métis, Inuit and other Indigenous recruits, voluntarily served in the Canadian Armed Forces; and

“Whereas countless Indigenous peoples bravely and selflessly served Canada at a time of great challenges for Canada; and

“Whereas this spirit of volunteerism and community marked the life of the late Murray Whetung, who volunteered to serve in the Second World War; and

“Whereas many First Nations individuals lost their status after serving in the wars off-reserve for a period of time; and ...

“Whereas the values of volunteerism and community are instilled in the army, air, and sea cadets across Ontario; and

“Whereas the Murray Whetung Community Service Award Act establishes an award for the cadets and tells the story of Indigenous veterans’ sacrifice and mistreatment;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the passage of the Murray Whetung Community Service Award Act, 2022.”

I will sign this petition and give it to page Taylor.

194 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 1:30:00 p.m.

J’aimerais remercier Laurent Henri et Rachelle Trottier pour ces pétitions.

« Réparons les subventions aux résident(e)s du nord ... pour frais de » transports médicaux.

« Alors que les gens du Nord n’ont pas le même accès aux soins de santé en raison...des déplacements et de l’hébergement;

« Alors qu’en refusant d’augmenter les taux des subventions aux résidents du nord de l’Ontario pour frais de transport à des fins médicales...le gouvernement Ford impose un lourd fardeau aux Ontarien(ne)s du Nord » de l’Ontario « qui sont malades;

« Alors que le prix de l’essence est plus élevé dans le nord de l’Ontario; »

Ils et elles demandent à l’Assemblée législative « de créer un comité ayant pour mandat de corriger et d’améliorer » le programme de subventions aux gens du Nord à des fins médicales. Ce comité...réunirait des fournisseurs de soins de santé du Nord ainsi que des bénéficiaires...pour faire des recommandations à la ministre de la Santé qui amélioreraient l’accès aux soins de santé dans le nord de l’Ontario grâce au remboursement adéquat des frais de déplacement. »

J’appuie cette pétition, madame la Présidente. Je vais la signer, et je demande à la page Lindsay de l’amener à la table des greffiers.

214 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 1:30:00 p.m.

This petition is titled “Repeal, Don’t Appeal: Save Our Public Health Care.” It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the nursing shortage across Ontario has doubled in the past five years to push our public health care system to collapse;

“Whereas public health care is a human right that must be available to all Ontarians when they need it;

“Whereas Bill 124 has capped the wages of public sector workers, including nurses, to a 1% increase per year, which once adjusted to the current inflation rate of above 8% in 2022, represents a pay cut of 7%;

“Whereas the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that Bill 124 substantially interfered with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, declaring the law to be void and of no effect;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to respect the court decision and immediately repeal the wage-suppressing Bill 124 as part of the solution to save Ontario public health care.”

I fully support this petition and will affix my signature to it.

176 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 1:30:00 p.m.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, it’s always lovely to see you in the seat. My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas Ontario has one of the most dedicated and highly trained health workforces in the world. Over 60,000 new nurses and 8,000 new doctors have registered to work in Ontario; and

“Whereas hiring more health care professionals is the most effective step to ensure Ontarians are able to see a health care provider where and when you need to; and

“Whereas starting in spring 2023, the government will expand the learn and stay grant and applications will open for eligible post-secondary students who enrol in priority programs, such as nursing, to work in underserved communities in the region where they studied after graduation. The program will provide up-front funding for tuition, books and other direct educational costs; and

“Whereas with new as-of-right rules, Ontario will become the first province in Canada to allow health care workers registered in other provinces and territories to immediately start caring for you, without having to first register with one of Ontario’s health regulatory colleges. This change will help health care workers overcome excessive red tape that makes it difficult for them to practise in Ontario;

“Whereas” the government is “investing an additional $15 million to temporarily cover the costs of examination, application, and registration fees for internationally trained and retired nurses, saving them up to $1,500 each. This will help up to 5,000 internationally educated nurses and up to 3,000 retired nurses begin working sooner to strengthen our front lines;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario continue to build on the progress of hiring and recruiting health care workers.”

I fully support this petition and will hand it over to the Clerk through page Bianca.

320 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 1:40:00 p.m.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario has one of the most dedicated and highly trained health workforces in the world. Over 60,000 new nurses and 8,000 new doctors have registered to work in Ontario; and

“Whereas hiring more health care professionals is the most effective step to ensure Ontarians are able to see a health care provider where and when you” they need it; and

“Whereas starting in spring 2023, the government will expand the learn and stay grant and applications will open for eligible post-secondary students who enrol in priority programs, such as nursing, to work in underserved communities in the region where they studied after” they graduated. “The program will provide up-front funding for tuition, books and other direct educational costs; and

“Whereas with new as-of-right rules, Ontario will become the first province in Canada to allow health care workers registered in other provinces and territories to immediately start caring for you, without having to first register with one of Ontario’s health regulatory colleges. This change will help health care workers overcome excessive red tape that makes it difficult for them to practise in Ontario;

“Whereas we are investing an additional $15 million to temporarily cover the costs of examination, application, and registration fees for ... up to 3,000 retired nurses” to “begin working sooner to strengthen our front lines;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario continue to build on the progress of hiring and recruiting health care workers.”

I fully endorse this petition. I will give it to page Keira to take to the table.

“Whereas in the First and Second World Wars, over 7,000 First Nation members, as well as an unknown number of Métis, Inuit and other Indigenous recruits, voluntarily served in the Canadian Armed Forces; and

“Whereas countless Indigenous peoples bravely and selflessly served Canada at a time of great challenges for Canada; and

“Whereas this spirit of volunteerism and community marked the life of the late Murray Whetung, who volunteered to serve in the Second World War; and

“Whereas many First Nations individuals lost their status after serving in the wars off-reserve for more than four years in Europe fighting for Canada; and

“Despite this injustice, many continued to recognize the value in continuously giving back to their community; and

“The values of volunteerism and community are instilled in the army, air, and sea cadets across Ontario; and

“Whereas the Murray Whetung Community Service Award Act establishes an award for the cadets and tells the story of Indigenous veterans’ sacrifice and mistreatment;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To urge all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the passage of the Murray Whetung Community Service Award Act, 2022.”

I fully endorse this, will sign my name to it and give it to page Vedant.

497 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 1:40:00 p.m.

I’m presenting this petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and woefully inadequate to cover the basic costs of food and rent;

“Whereas individuals on the Ontario Works program receive just $733 per month and individuals on the Ontario Disability Support Program receive just $1,169 per month, only 41% and 65% of the poverty line;

“Whereas the Ontario government has not increased social assistance rates since 2018, and Canada’s inflation rate in January 2022 was 5.1%, the highest rate in 30 years;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized through the CERB program that a ‘basic income’ of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to increase social assistance rates to a base of $2,000 per month for those on Ontario Works, and to increase other programs accordingly.”

I fully support this petition. I’ll sign my name to it and give it to Yonglin.

187 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 1:40:00 p.m.

Unfortunately, that is all the time we have for petitions.

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 23, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 63, An Act respecting the adjustment of the boundary between the City of St. Thomas and the Municipality of Central Elgin / Projet de loi 63, Loi concernant la modification des limites territoriales entre la cité de St. Thomas et la municipalité de Central Elgin.

73 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 1:40:00 p.m.

It gives me great pleasure to stand and add the voices of the wonderful people of London North Centre to the debate on Bill 63, as the official opposition critic for economic development, job creation and trade. As I begin my remarks, Speaker, this bill is quite a surprise to the official opposition. I understand that there have been talks that have been ongoing for many months, according to city officials and municipal officials in St. Thomas, as well as central Elgin, and I must make sure that it is on the record that the official opposition has requested a briefing from the government but none has been provided to us yet. It is important. This legislation really is something that could lead to great jobs in the area, and certainly that is something that we on the official opposition side support.

If I think back, my grandfather actually was an employee at Ford Talbotville, and it is as a direct result of his being a union member that my mother was able to go pursue university at the University of Western Ontario, now known as Western University. It was because of that union job she received a scholarship, you see. It changed the trajectory of her life, of course, and, as a result, needless to say, of my life and my sister’s and my brother’s.

I think it’s wonderful to see that we have an 800-acre or 320-hectare site of land. Flavio Volpe has gone on the record to say many good thing about this. He said it puts St. Thomas “at the head of the pack right now,” and, “One of the most important things in chasing one of these investments is land assembly, being close to multi-modal access (highways, rail and airports) and labour. St. Thomas has all of that.” He also goes on to say that he’s glad that St. Thomas “has bought a ticket to the dance.”

London was a great manufacturing city, as well as St. Thomas, back many years ago. Unfortunately, due to a lack of continued provincial investment and provincial attention, many of those manufacturing jobs left. London had Kellogg’s, McCormick, major industries that unfortunately chose to leave. There was also General Dynamics Land Systems—pardon me, I’ll need to correct my record. I’m misremembering.

In terms of Bill 63, it would be creating a mega-site. A land of adequate size, it’s going to be a suitable location capable of accommodating this major new investment. What is unclear about this, though, is we don’t know who the industry players are. This has not been revealed to us by the government. There is no indication of who will be occupying this site, what this is going to look like, how many people will be employed by this. It’s all very unclear.

In theory, this looks like something that we can absolutely support, because it will be the creation of good jobs—hopefully well-paying jobs, hopefully union jobs. What is surprising is that, on first glance—because, as I said, this was just dropped upon us with no briefing whatsoever—I’m pleased to say that there doesn’t seem to be any poison pills in here, which is often happening with omnibus pieces of legislation, as I’m sure you well know.

But because this legislation seems short on details, we’re being asked to go on trust. We’re being asked to simply push this through. In this bill itself, I don’t see any mention or use of any MZOs or changes to land use planning, but I would like to also make sure that it is on the record that this government recognizes that there does need to be additional investments for child care, additional investments for housing. These are important things that this site is also going to require.

If we delve back into the history, a decade ago auto manufacturing facilities closed down. It cost the area thousands of jobs, and this is also part of this Job Site Challenge that the government has announced in 2019. Hopefully, if the rumours are true, this will be the site of an electric vehicle battery plant—but again, still pretty short on details.

Flavio Volpe has also said, “I like St. Thomas’s story. Everyone loves a comeback, and 2008 to 2010 was not kind to this community that has an incredible manufacturing history. It would be great to see another major auto investment in a town with a past.” I couldn’t agree more, Speaker. This will be a great economic benefit for the city of St. Thomas as well as for the city of London, because there will be also people who are travelling to these great jobs.

Also, as we look towards this, I look forward to the briefing from this government. I am surprised that this has been dropped upon us—there have been no details—because this goes back all the way to June. In June, St. Thomas announced that it had assembled this site, and it announced that it was doing so to woo manufacturing. So we know that there have been discussions that the government has had with the city of St. Thomas and with industry players, and yet the official opposition has not been made aware of those discussions.

I also wanted to add to the record the voice of the London Economic Development Corporation’s Kapil Lakhotia. He confirmed that the St. Thomas area—now, again, this is news from back in January. Kapil Lakhotia confirmed that the London-St. Thomas area is getting attention from manufacturers. And also recently in our news, there is an EV battery plant in Windsor that will employ almost 2,500 people when it opens in 2024. Lakhotia said, “As we work with EV suppliers, we’re confident more investment will come to this region. If a facility is being purpose-built for Cami, that’s wonderful. Winning a major investment bodes well for our region. It shows confidence to other (automakers) that we have the labour and capacity and business climate for EVs.”

EV investment, of course, is going to require a number of things. It’s going to require land. It’s going to require a workforce. It has to make sure that there’s a stable electrical supply and the access to raw materials. Southwestern Ontario really is the automotive manufacturing hub of Canada. There are so many different automakers as well as auto-parts suppliers; it is a wonderful industry. There are good-paying jobs—union jobs—which are cap-able of supporting a family, one where there are pensions, one where people can go to work, make a good day’s wage, come home and know that they have benefits, that they will also be able to retire.

It is concerning. I would like to see more protections for workers from this government. This is wonderful; we see many announcements about jobs. But I want to make sure, with all these announcements about jobs, that they’re also going to be well-paying union jobs. On the side of the official opposition, we’ve always been in favour of things like card-check certification, making sure it’s easier for people to be able to join unions, to make sure that they have those workplace protections, because without them, it is just a job. We want to make sure that these are jobs that, again, can sustain a family, can support young people when they eventually go to school and support people when they’re in retirement.

As we look through this bill, it is interesting that this bill is being pushed, because clearly there is a lot of interest in this. With this, these tools that are being achieved within this bill are also possible within other means. Annexation is provided for in the Municipal Act, but this seems to be rushing it through. Perhaps that’s because there is going to be a substantial investment from industry which, again, is a great thing, because our manufacturing sector had a major collapse almost 20 years ago. There were so many workers in southwestern Ontario who were the ones who were hit especially hard.

There have been fears for a number of years about the long-term viability of Ontario’s auto sector. Many have even wondered if North American manufacturing would move to California with Tesla. But here in Ontario, things do seem to be turning around. There have been announcements with Stellantis in Windsor, the Project Arrow. Demo EV is another powerful demonstration of the strength of Ontario’s auto sector in the EV era. I would like to say, from the side of the official opposition, we welcome this increase in manufacturing. We welcome these great new jobs.

As I said, Bill 63 bypasses that normal annexation process in the Municipal Act; I believe it’s part 5. The government is jamming this through as fast as possible. We just would like to know why. That’s all we would like is just some clarity. We would like to know who the industry players are and what we can do to support it, because on this side of the House, we’re happy to support the creation of good, new jobs and long-term union jobs.

As well, I wanted to take a look toward—Sean Dyke, the chief executive of the St. Thomas Economic Development Corp. said, “If you look across Ontario, there is a general shortage of quality industrial land and we have to say, ‘We are open to business. We are ready.’” He has said that he is “definitely looking to pursue an investment in the EV sector. It is grown at such a rapid pace....’”

If we look back, earlier this year, Stellantis and South Korean battery manufacturer LG Energy Solution announced it is building Canada’s first large-scale vehicle electric battery plant in Windsor. It’s a $5-billion investment. As I said earlier, it’s going to employ about 2,500, and it’s going to be on more than 80 hectares of land.

These are really interesting, important investments for the province. These are important investments for the St. Thomas region. It’s wonderful to see that a place that was so hard hit by the collapse of manufacturing will again have a manufacturing renaissance.

However, to this government, have they looked towards the necessary investments for housing? We’ve had many discussions in this chamber about investments in housing that have been absent from the province. We’ve seen much of it being left up to the private, for-profit industry. We’ve seen the removal of rent controls. Young families or people hoping to save money to eventually buy that first home are being subject to—within the absence of rent control, their rent is going up, after they complete their lease, at a terrible rate.

You know, you plan. When you decide to move into a new location, a new home, you do those financial calculations. You decide, “Okay, I have this much money I can spend on housing, this much on food, this much on entertainment,” and that’s all part of that equation.

But many people weren’t following what this government did back in 2018. With the removal of rent control—I believe it was Bill 147 where rent control was removed on all new builds that were first occupied after November 2018. What that meant was that these people, after completing a lease, then received the information that their rent would be increasing at a terrible rate, not subject to the year-over-year guideline. That is something that people can’t factor in. They can’t plan for that kind of dramatic increase. There are stories of people’s rents going up by 10%, 20%. It could go up by any number.

Frequently within this chamber, we also hear about the dramatic increase in the number of rental starts since this government has taken power. And while that may be true, that is probably largely due to the fact that the industry now sees that there’s an opportunity. In the absence of rent control, the creation of this new rental housing will allow people to exploit folks, quite frankly, because rent control protects people. The absence of it is exploitive. That’s something that is deeply frightening.

As I said, you used to be able to save up money when renting. It didn’t cost as much as a mortgage. Some people actually just choose it so they have that freedom. They might like to take vacations. They might like to spend money on other things. They might want to make investments in other parts of their lives, so they want to keep their housing budget rather low. That would be possible if rent prices were reasonable.

At this time, we’ve seen rents increasing at such a terrible rate that they’re often larger than the cost of a mortgage, and that’s unsustainable. In the London area, as I mentioned in a question earlier this morning during question period, the rent stability bank, a program that is to help folks who are in rental arrears or at risk of losing their housing, has seen a dramatic increase in its use. That’s something that should be a concern to this government.

Further, we also remain concerned that the creation of new and affordable housing is not something that is being done by this government. On the official opposition side, we believe that there should be a public builder, one that is tasked with the creation of truly affordable housing that is also protected by legislation.

There have been measures such as Bill 23, which has been touted by this government as something that will create new affordable housing, but there’s no provision for what that affordable housing will look like, what the rates will be and how that will be protected with legislation. Unfortunately, it’s affordable housing in scare quotes. It’s affordable housing that might not be affordable at all. It’s shocking to think that the greenbelt land swap that has been talked about with this government, that is supposedly going to be one that’s going to create affordable housing, is in fact—it makes no sense.

I had the opportunity to travel with the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs—I believe I saw you there, Speaker—and we heard from many municipalities who are concerned about the removal of development charges paid by those private developers, that were paid to municipalities, those development charges that help with the creation of infrastructure, the creation of sewers, the creation of so many other things that are necessary for a housing development. The removal of those, which has been put forward by this government, is a measure that is supposedly something where private developers are going to pass down savings to the consumer. But there’s no guarantee. That’s the thing. Developers might not have to pay these development charges, but there’s no protection in the legislation to ensure that that money that they are not having to spend to municipalities is going to then be passed through as a cost savings to consumers. That remains concerning.

In bills like these, with Bill 63, I think about all of those young families who will be thrilled and excited to get a good job, hopefully with an excellent employer who is paying them well, has union representation, has benefits, has a pension, has all the things that we know are vitally necessary for any young family. But what happens, Speaker, if they’re not able to find that place that is truly affordable? Or even if they do, what if they find a place that’s affordable, and then in one year their rent goes through the roof and they run the risk of losing their housing? What if they find a place that’s affordable and then, with the market creeping up such as it is, they end up not being able to start a family? A young couple might find themselves in a one-bedroom place, never able to expand, never able to start that family, to have or adopt a child. That remains deeply concerning.

With this bill, I do hope that we in the official opposition hear very shortly from the government about when they intend to provide us with a briefing, when they intend to explain the need for this, the need for expedience. It’s not to say that we don’t want to say yes, because we are very much in support of good jobs. We are very much in support of investments—especially myself, being from the London North Centre area—in southwestern Ontario.

But another key attribute to this that I think is vital to discuss is when we think about young people who are entering this workforce, ostensibly created by this hopefully new EV plant: What about transit? Are we going to have regional transit available for these young folks? Just because somebody might first get a good job doesn’t mean that they have a vehicle. There are some people who might be exiting post-secondary education. They might be re-entering the workforce from time off, for goodness knows what reason. But I know that right now is an economically difficult time, so with this plan, has the government considered transit links between the city of London and St. Thomas? Have they considered what infrastructure improvements are going to be necessary on the area highways? Have they made sure that they have consulted with folks in the region about what’s necessary, what’s going to help and what needs to happen in this plan?

Speaker, I think that this is a great idea on paper. I don’t see anything that is a major concern. As I said, we have only just started to delve deep into it, because it was only dropped upon us at the very last minute, but it’s something that I think the official opposition is very interested in. We are very much in favour of large-scale investments in Ontario, in the region, when we think about the economic prosperity that that will bring to many families and a rejuvenation within the area, because not only with this investment, which is one part of a much larger, complex machine—there will be other off-site jobs which will help support.

We think about auto manufacturing—and yes, there are the places and the factories that assemble the auto vehicles, but then there are also the parts manufacturers. There are many smaller different locations that might make all the components that are necessary to go in the cars. And so I think this is very intriguing, because this could be part of a much broader and much larger investment within the region. It shows that clearly there is confidence in the area.

However, I must also state that in order for multinational corporations and other large players to have confidence in Ontario, we also need to buttress and to support our publicly funded and publicly delivered health care system, because when international eyes look at our area, they want the see a workforce that is healthy. And part of that health, firstly, is housing, as we’ve discussed, but the second is public health care—publicly funded and publicly delivered health care. They want to make sure that their workforce is not only able to come to a job, but is able to stay on that job, is able to work hard and contribute to the economic prosperity that each business in our province needs.

If we have emergency rooms that have been closing, if we have people who are unable to have a primary care physician, if we have people who are endlessly waiting for surgeries because of the lack of funding that has been provided to our publicly delivered health care system, then I remain concerned. This investment may be good, but what about our long-term prospects? With the bill that we discussed earlier, Bill 60, the privatization and the profitization of our health care system is one that I think international players might be concerned about. They may look towards other jurisdictions that have better long-term economic prospects.

When we look at education—employers not only look at the health, the housing, but they also look towards education. The FAO report recently that the Financial Accountability Officer delivered was damning, quite frankly. It showed that in the next three years, Ontario would be underfunding and cutting from health care by $5 billion. The officer also showed that there would be underfunding of education by $1.1 billion, and from justice by $0.8 million.

At the same time, if that weren’t bad enough, this isn’t just money that was going somewhere else. It wasn’t being moved to other program spending. It was being moved into a contingency fund. It was being moved into a place where there is no scrutiny, no oversight. There is no accountability for that money. It’s really the antithesis of transparency. That $20 billion—almost $20 billion over three years—is money that has been called a slush fund. It’s money that can be spent in any way the government sees fit. That makes no sense at the same time when there are these drastic, dramatic cuts from programs that we rely upon, like health and education and justice. It really makes absolutely no sense. So that remains a tremendous, tremendous concern.

And I would say for the record that I think that employers or people who are looking towards making investments in Ontario might see that and also become concerned. These investors and these multinational corporations would be looking for a willing partner, a trustworthy partner—a partner that they can rely upon and can depend upon. When the FAO exposes things like that, I’m not sure that they would feel that way.

It also remains a deep concern of ours that this government has not treated workers fairly and with respect. I would love to see, with this boundary adjustment, the creation of jobs but also the protection and the promotion of good union jobs.

I think this is potentially a very wonderful thing, but there are just some key parts missing. On the one hand, I am very thankful that it’s not an omnibus piece of legislation, that there are no poison pills hidden in it, and that it seems to be relatively straightforward. But there are so many questions behind it. In the absence of a briefing, in the absence of clarity from this government, we remain interested but somewhat concerned just for the lack of detail, if I may.

As we take a look at this, Speaker, I’m very much looking forward to the government providing us with some clarity, with some assurances, and just letting us know what their plan is. There are many opportunities which are possible here, but Speaker, unfortunately those have not yet been provided to us.

I look forward to the questions from the members across, but I can guarantee you that as they’re asking questions, I will probably be asking them my very own questions because there’s just so much that is missing from Bill 63.

I think I’ll leave my comments there, Speaker.

3956 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 2:10:00 p.m.

Really, I’m grateful to hear the comments from London North Centre. I know London and Windsor always have a good rivalry going, but we’re both well-acquainted with the manufacturing sector.

One of the most common concerns that my constituents share with me is that they’re worried about the future. They’re worried about future opportunities, future jobs, future careers. Inflation, cost of living and layoffs are dominating the headlines today. The people of Ontario are worried about their jobs, even despite the shortage of applicants [inaudible] the jobs—but they’re not always distributed properly throughout the province.

That uncertainty about the economic future of Ontario exists, so I’m hoping the member can expand on his perception of the legislation and how it can actually help support the economy and secure the jobs for workers.

140 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 2:10:00 p.m.

I’d like to thank the member for Windsor–Tecumseh for his questions. You quite rightly cited the deep concerns that many people have right now, which are about inflation and cost of living. There are two key areas which could be addressed with greater protections for folks, such as reinstating rent control and making sure that people have a safe place to call home. In the absence of it, we’ve seen terrible circumstances for a lot of people who are frightened about losing their homes.

With Bill 23, we’ve seen also that rental buildings can be purchased by some of these international key players, redeveloped into luxury condos—and what happens to those people who are in those units, Speaker? What happens to buildings full of seniors who have lived there their whole lives and lived there in a good way, in a comfortable way, in an affordable way, who are now at risk of losing their home? Those are key ways.

There are investments like these, but they also have to be backed up with union protections, good wages, benefits and a pension.

I think about so many different industries that closed. We look at what happened to the folks at Sears, who worked there for many years, and when it came time for them to close, the business looked after shareholders before it looked after workers. The loss of pensions was something that was deeply concerning.

We need legislation in this province that makes sure to protect workers—workers first. Business will look after itself, but a business is nothing without the people who comprise it.

271 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 2:10:00 p.m.

It’s always a pleasure to hear my colleague speak with no notes, no briefing notes, and get up and to be able to speak on a bill here that nobody really knows the depth of how important this could be to the communities.

We’re talking about an EV battery plant, and my question to you would be—and I don’t even know if you can answer it because I’m not sure you have any briefing notes in front of you with a bill that was just dropped this morning. But may I say, St. Catharines was just awarded a wonderful contract at our St. Catharines GM plant for EV cars. I was just wondering, do you think that they might have looked into giving this EV battery plant and more jobs to the St. Catharines area?

140 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 2:20:00 p.m.

I thank the member from London North Centre. Thank you for your presentation.

Madam Speaker, the bill we are debating today has a very specific cause: to ensure we have a site that is shovel-ready to attract a generational job-creating investment in Ontario. Our two ministers were talking highly about our achievements in attracting a lot of investment to Ontario.

My question to the member opposite is simple: Do they want to attract investment and create jobs in Ontario? Yes or no?

84 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 2:20:00 p.m.

Thank you to the member for his remarks. I’m always impressed with his presentations at the financial committee meetings, where we were all over Ontario in these last five weeks—quite literally, starting in Kenora on January 9. I appreciate it.

I also appreciate his remarks about the need for the industrial growth here in our province, and economic development. He knows it has been a priority of this government, and so I appreciate that. We know things were introduced quickly, but I appreciate his flexibility in that regard.

My question is in relation to the economic development and looking at the opportunity throughout there. We’ve seen what is happening with EV plants around, and here is an opportunity to directly have one of those in our province, in our region—in your region directly—that has the high-paying jobs that we all talk about, to have those delivered. My question is: Is that opportunity not enough to have you support this bill and have that come to reality in your community?

175 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 2:20:00 p.m.

I’d like to thank the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound for his comments. It was wonderful travelling with you on the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, getting to hear from folks all across the province who wanted to see investments from the province, who wanted to make sure that we shored up our health care system and made sure that there were those investments in education, ones that really contribute to the economic development across our province.

What we are arrested with as a province right now economically is that we don’t see that wages are keeping up with inflation. We don’t see that people are being paid very well. It is the era of the gig job, the gig economy, people not having those long-term and viable jobs. That’s concerning for young people. I speak with many constituents in my riding who are concerned about their adult children who are never going to be able to afford a place to call home. They’re never going to be able to afford that mortgage, because they’re spending so much in rent right now that they’re not able to save anything up. Heaven forbid that they’re in a place that has no rent control when they’re already paying those really incredibly punishing rates that might go up yet further.

People are concerned across this province, and I think what we need to make sure is that we have a province that is looking after people through health care, education and making sure people are being paid what they’re worth.

I think, as well, that we are looking forward to working with this government to make sure that we have the greatest, most prosperous province in the entirety of Canada. But part of that, as well, is making sure that our expenditures match those other provinces. We are dead last when it comes to public spending on services such as health care, education, post-secondary education—you name it—and Ontario needs to really get it together.

It’s really unfortunate that we have seen the proliferation of this for-profit model within our province when we should all be able to share in the economic prosperity. That means that these big employers have to pay fairly.

388 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 2:20:00 p.m.

It’s always a pleasure to see my friend from London North Centre hold forth in this place. As our economic development critic, I’m wondering if my friend could share a little bit of insight with the government. If I’m not mistaken, this is the same party that ordered the ripping-out of EV charging stations at GO Transit areas years ago—if I’m not mistaken. And if I’m not mistaken, this is a game-changing possibility for us to develop battery capacity in the EV industry.

Are you concerned that we learned about this piece of legislation this morning? People watching this at home don’t realize that this government will drop a piece of legislation on us the morning of and ask us to comment on it. Would you like a seat at the table so you could help these folks figure out how it’s important to build EV capacity, not rip it out of GO charging stations?

165 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/23/23 2:20:00 p.m.

It’s a great pleasure to get up today and talk about a very important bill that is obviously going to be of great benefit to my riding and to the ridings around. In particular, I look across the floor and I see my three colleagues here from London—London West, London North Centre and London–Fanshawe—and me, with Elgin–Middlesex–London. It is indeed great legislation that we’re putting forward, with the potential of greatness in southwestern Ontario.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak before this Legislature to Bill 63, which, if passed—and hopefully passed—will not only strengthen Ontario’s competitiveness by consolidating a new investment-ready mega-site in St. Thomas, part of Central Elgin now, but will also attract large-scale manufacturing investments that will ultimately create thousands of jobs in southwestern Ontario—hundreds, yes, perhaps thousands of jobs in our region.

When I announced my candidacy last year for Elgin–Middlesex–London, part of my pitch, I would say, is that economic growth, number one, is the engine that will ensure our region creates good-paying—and I want to keep emphasizing “good-paying”; not gig-paying, good-paying—and sustainable jobs. A job is still the best social program there is in the world.

With economic growth comes more investment in our health care system, in our schools and in infrastructure. I want to point out—and it’s what I truly believe and I said that then—yes, we need to cut red tape and make government more efficient. Yes, we need to lower the cost of government. But ultimately, you can’t cut your way to prosperity. You have to grow the economy. By growing the economy, we will have the needed funds in this province to invest back in health care, schools, hospitals, doctors, nurses, teachers and support workers alike.

Number two: Creating the best possible environment for major investment is crucial—very crucial—for our province to attract potential investors financially capable to compete on a global scale right here in southwestern Ontario. That’s the key, folks: global scale. You need critical mass to compete today. Without it, you’re not competitive. You’re going to hear me talk a fair bit about competitiveness and the fierce competition we are facing for investment in Ontario.

Finally, to succeed, we need the collaboration, I think all would agree, between industry, who are going to invest, and the provincial and federal governments, as well as our municipal partners, which I will talk about today.

Speaker, Bill 63, the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act, builds on the province’s efforts that came through the Job Site Challenge, which has proven to be a great initiative which was designed to attract impactful critical mass pertaining to investment, new job creation and spinoff, or tertiary, economic development. As Minister Fedeli stated, “Creating more shovel-ready mega-sites will help Ontario remain competitive as the province competes for major global investments.” Again, the word “competition” comes to mind. We have to compete if we’re going to be able to grow our economy.

With Bill 63, if passed, we will have created a world-class competitive advantage for southwestern Ontario and, indeed, our entire province. You could call it an unfair advantage. We are very blessed in this province, very blessed in southwestern Ontario, and I truly believe we have an unfair advantage compared to many jurisdictions throughout North America. We have to take advantage of those advantages right here in my riding and in southwestern Ontario, London in particular.

What Bill 63, the St. Thomas-Central Elgin Boundary Adjustment Act, ultimately accomplishes is a genuine opportunity proving Ontario is open for business on a global scale. Again, we come back to critical mass. By creating an industrial site in Elgin county, our region, our province and our country are creating the economic conditions for sustainable job creation—again, long-term, good-paying jobs—and economic growth, using the magnificent resources we’ve been given, all here in Ontario.

To attract major investors or an investor, we as a government need to ensure we reduce unneeded red tape. We need to reduce our costs. We need to make sure that any and all potential suitors only have to deal with one municipality. That’s what we’re up against throughout North America in this competition. Again, competition is fierce—I’ll use the word “fierce”—which is good; it makes us better. Competition is fierce throughout North America for mega-investments, such as we are preparing to attract.

All residents of Elgin county will share in the future prosperity of this glorious opportunity, as will people in Middlesex and London and surrounding communities. I want to make sure that everyone understands that, and I will repeat it.

The proposed site requires municipal boundary adjustments. Why? Simply put, efficiency and speed. If we’re going to attract a mega-investor to a mega-site, we can’t have red tape and multiple government red tape initiatives getting in the way or hampering progress in bringing them to town. The key is many of our competitors throughout the States are shovel-ready now. We need to get ready and be ready when this investment opportunity presents itself.

There are three municipalities affected by this bill: the city of St. Thomas, the largest city in the county of Elgin; Central Elgin, which borders to the east, north and south of St. Thomas; and, indeed, the county of Elgin itself. A potential investor needs assurance we can move with more stealth and speed to compete with other states south of border who are, frankly, already targeting the same investors we are here in Ontario.

County infrastructure investments —and we’ll talk about that today—will be required: power, roads, site preparation, waste water, storm water. Transportation hubs need to be developed as we go forward. We need to create a potential investor’s choice easier, accommodating and welcome.

Speaker, allow me to make one point abundantly clear: Again, all of Elgin county and surrounding communities will benefit from any and all future mega-site investment. Whether it’s West Elgin, Dutton Dunwich, Southwold, St. Thomas, Central Elgin, Aylmer, Malahide, Bayham, Thames Centre, South Middlesex or, indeed, all of London, all are going to benefit from this wonderful potential investment once we get the mega-site in place.

The city of London—and I talked with Mayor Josh Morgan yesterday—is also very excited about this investment, as are all the mayors in Elgin county, and all have worked closely with the province to make this happen.

Again, all communities will experience job growth, and again, great, sustainable, long-term jobs and tertiary spinoffs—that we all know will happen whenever an investment such as we are speaking of, and can attract to secure, will bring to all of southwestern Ontario.

I think back to the Ford plant in Talbotville, outside of St. Thomas and outside of London. I remember that it closed, and it caused great economic hardship and pain in our region. We are replacing that and more as we go forward in this promise. I’m sure whoever ends up on this site is going to bring hundreds of thousands of jobs that we can all appreciate and all enjoy and benefit from, whatever walk of life we enjoy.

A few points: There’s no time to waste when it comes to securing major industrial investments that will employ generations of Ontarians working in good-paying jobs.

Again, Speaker, Ontario is in a fierce competition with other jurisdictions. When you talk to Minister Fedeli, you hear that loudly and clearly. He has travelled the world. He sees what we’re up against. When companies consider making large investments such as this in manufacturing and industrial operations, including multi-billion-dollar transformational projects, we have to make sure we are ready and ready to win.

Throughout my career, I can say—not on this scale—having invested in businesses and plants and people in industry, it’s not easy. Competition is tough, and if you’re going to compete on a global basis, or even on a local basis, you better have the right assets, including your plant, your equipment, your infrastructure. But most importantly, you have to be able to attract the brightest and the best people. I think preparing a mega-site such as this creates an opportunity for success, an opportunity to attract the brightest and the best, because this isn’t small potatoes. This is a really, really big and significant investment, and I think everyone is going to enjoy the advantages of that.

We’ve got clean energy in southwestern Ontario. We’re close to markets—think about it. We’re close to two American borders pretty quickly. We’re close to major hubs in terms of airports and rail, transportation and truck. We are close to millions and millions of people in southwestern Ontario that we enjoy because of being in the Golden Horseshoe. So whether it’s clean energy, close to markets, our people, educational institutions—we are open for business. And we cannot take for granted—I mean this sincerely—we cannot take for granted the wonderful advantages we have in Ontario, especially southwestern Ontario. Government needs to create the environment for these advantages to help our economy grow and to perform and succeed, and that is again what we are going to do.

Ontario is currently in contention for several major manufacturing investments that require large sites with specific sets of requirements. Again, partly why we tabled this legislation is to set the table for a great investment. A critical factor for securing new investment or expansion opportunities is having a suitable place to go, an industrial site where timing and associated costs are already known and streamlined to meet project timelines. With close to 40 jurisdictions—and, again, I think if you were here this morning, you’ll have heard Minister Fedeli say there’s close to 40 jurisdictions in the US offering some type of certified or mega-site program, and it’s become an expectation among potential investors that sites are shovel-ready for development. That’s big competition. A lot of states are vying for these types of investments, and we are right in the mix trying to compete.

Again, I think we have some natural advantages in Ontario that we need to take advantage of when talking to suitors or potential clients to invest, and our municipalities need to think that way. They are thinking that way, and that’s why we have to end up with one municipality holding the mega-site to attract the investment, so site-preparation and infrastructure can be put in place.

Unfortunately, there’s a critical shortage of shovel-ready industrial mega-sites in Ontario needed to house these projects that the province is pursuing. St. Thomas, frankly, folks, right now as we sit, is the best of the best we have in Ontario. I’m biased, I know, but it is the best of the best, and we need to take advantage of it.

Without immediate action, we risk losing the opportunity to compete for and win these transformative investments, along with the hundreds of thousands of jobs that come with them, to other jurisdictions that have a more fulsome inventory of fully serviced industrial parks, lands and shovel-ready sites. We need to get ready and get ready fast. Speed, speed, speed is imperative—again, a very competitive process.

That is why, through this proposed legislation, we are taking steps to ensure that Ontario can continue to compete with other jurisdictions, both in Canada but mostly in the United States, to secure these investments with shovel-ready mega-sites that allow businesses to set up shop quickly and easily and in a welcoming way. With a general shortage of quality industrial land, Ontario has to show we are not just open for business. We have to demonstrate we’re ready for business with an investment-ready site, and the St. Thomas and Elgin county mega-site proposal, again, is the very best we have to offer today in the entire province of Ontario.

Ontario is the ideal destination for prospective investors, thanks to our world-class automotive and manufacturing sectors, reliable clean energy, critical mineral resources and, of course, the availability of a world-class workforce and an R&D ecosystem.

Our focus on securing these large-scale anchor projects is indeed paying off. As a result of recent success in landing multi-million-dollar investments like LGES, Stellantis and Umicore, there is significant demand for shovel-ready sites. Investors are confident in the future of Ontario—we are seeing this—and they want to be part of it. That’s our collective responsibility, to ensure that it does indeed happen.

As we’ve all talked about in this House, there are two million to three million more people coming to Ontario in the next number of years. We’ve passed a bill, Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster—1.5 million homes built in 10 years, and a lot of it is talked about being built in the GTHA and Ottawa, being the biggest sites where people will move. I would also suggest that now, with this bill passing and a potential investor coming in, southwestern Ontario—in particular London and Elgin county—is going to have people attracted to come to our region. For that reason, we need to be ready to build homes, and build homes fast as well.

Investments in housing, hospitals and schools are going to take place. Infrastructure is not just buying and putting lands together and bringing an investor in; you have to support it with infrastructure. Whether it’s hospitals, schools, roads, waste water, storm water or transit links, we all need this investment. I know this government and this province is going to support that infrastructure every step of the way.

Speaker, I am so proud of the job our Premier, our Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, Vic Fedeli, and our Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Steve Clark, have done to create the environment. Again, they planted the garden to successfully bring back the manufacturing sector to Ontario. It has been failing. It has been waning. It has been hurt. It has been painful. But we are well on the road to recovery.

It is also important to recognize the Ontario labour unions who are at the table with the province and auto-motive manufacturers to pave the way for the success we are all enjoying today. It’s a team effort; it always has been and it always will be.

The creation of the Ring of Fire—our Minister of Mines here has done a great job. Think of that opportunity in EV.

2497 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border