It’s an honour to rise today to participate in the debate on budget Bill 2.

Speaker, budgets are about priorities. They define who we are and who we want to be. And yes, I want to build in Ontario, but we have to build in a way that is strategic, sustainable and responsible, and this budget fails to meet the moment that we’re in, in achieving those criteria.

I’m going to focus in my limited time on three critical areas. The first is health care. The government talks a lot about building hospitals and long-term-care homes. Yes, I want those. Yes, we need a new hospital in Guelph and in many other communities. The bottom line is: If you don’t invest in the people who are going to run those hospitals and care for the patients who access those hospitals, they will not provide the care we need.

I wanted to see a budget—I believe the people of Ontario wanted to see a budget—that repealed Bill 124 and said nurses and front-line health care heroes can negotiate fair wages, fair benefits and better working conditions, that we could have fast-tracked internationally trained health care providers to address the chronic health human resource crisis we’re facing across our health care system. We could have invested in the 28,000 young people who are on a mental health wait-list right now that averages 18 months. Imagine: Imagine not being able to access care for your child for 18 months.

Secondly, investing in people is also about addressing poverty and housing in ways that take pressure off our health care system. We are forcing people in this province to live in legislated poverty if they’re on social assistance. Doubling social assistance rates would be the right thing to do, to bring them up at least to the poverty line, and it would help save Ontario $33 billion a year, which is what poverty costs this province.

Finally, Speaker, the biggest crisis of our generation is the climate emergency, and I don’t understand how a government, in the face of the fires we see, the flooding we see—the fact that just in the month of May, when we had an election campaign, we had people in northwestern Ontario being evacuated from their communities because of flooding. We had a storm that hit eastern Ontario which forced people to go two weeks without power, and we were already having extreme heat days.

As a matter of fact, a report just came out two days ago saying that the climate crisis is going to cost us, from an infrastructure standpoint, $139 billion over the next two decades. And yet, this budget proposes to spend $25 billion paving over the farmland that feeds us, the wetlands that protect us from flooding—protect us from flooding at no cost. We simply cannot afford in this province to continue to pave over the farmland that feeds us and the nature that protects us, if we have any hope of mitigating the costs of the climate crisis and leaving a livable, sustainable future for our children and grandchildren. That’s why I will be voting against this budget.

Further debate?

I would like to focus my time today on talking about the failure to seriously address climate change and the lack of environmental protections in this bill.

During the previous Parliament, this government made significant changes to the province’s environmental policies: for example, a 70% funding cut to the Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre, a 30% cut to the Canadian Environmental Law Association and a 100% cut to the Ontario Biodiversity Council. The budget of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks was slashed, and in 2019, without any consultation, the Ford government gutted the province’s 36 conservation authorities, removing their ability to protect crucial waterways and wetlands.

In November 2021, the Auditor General accused the government of deliberately undermining its own rules by not following the province’s Environmental Bill of Rights, by passing changes to environmental assessment procedures without consulting the public. These cuts were not about saving dollars. In 2018, the Ford government killed the Green Ontario Fund, which included 227 clean energy programs. Okay, they didn’t agree with anything designated as clean energy, but it cost the people of Ontario more than $230 million in fines and legal fees to shut down these projects, and then there was the enormous cost of taking cases to the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, only to be found guilty of acting illegally by cancelling programs without public consultation. Note the pattern here of refusing to have public consultations whenever the government doesn’t want scrutiny of its plans.

Now, regarding Highway 413: The people of Thunder Bay–Superior North do not support the government spending billions of dollars on an unnecessary highway that will, not incidentally, pave over 2,000 acres of farmland, cut through 85 waterways, damage 220 wetlands and disrupt the habitats of 10 species at risk. Claiming that new highways will reduce emissions because there will be fewer idling cars is a case of magical thinking. Decades of research show that new roads do not resolve traffic problems in the long run; rather, they attract even more drivers with even more cars.

The government has also not been able to answer the question of how the food production lost through this significant loss of farmland will be replaced. The last environmental review of these highway projects actually took place in 1997, and it found that they posed significant risks to groundwater, surface water and air quality and were not worth pursuing. However, this government has exempted both highways from undergoing another full review before construction begins.

My concern is thus that while there are many projects to expand the development of natural resources, environmental protections have been gutted, leaving nothing in place to protect the land, trees, air and water that are also under our care.

Growth that doesn’t have environmental stewardship at its centre risks burdening present and future generations with the long-term poisoning that we have seen in Grassy Narrows and Indigenous communities in the Sarnia area. In southwestern Ontario, we had the devastating explosion in Wheatley that has drawn attention to the thousands of abandoned oil wells in the province, an issue the province is currently ignoring.

Climate change mitigation, environmental protections and respect for Indigenous rights needs to be baked into every single government project from the outset. Between this government’s silence on climate change, their record of abandoning injured workers while repurposing the WSIB as a cash cow for employers, and their record of dismantling environmental protections, I cannot support this bill.

Thank you very much, Speaker. This is my first opportunity to see you in that chair, so I want to offer you my congratulations. It’s great to see you there.

I’m pleased to rise to offer a few minutes of comments on this bill, this budget that is before us today, on behalf of the people I represent in London West.

This week and last week I have been raising stories of people from my riding who are experiencing first-hand what the crumbling of our health care system means for them. Our home care system is broken.

I raised the story of Robin Floyd; her son was discharged from surgery with a drainage tube. He had to wait nine days before he had a home care appointment.

I raised the story of Kim Fowler, who is exhausted trying to care for her mother, who is at home with dementia and COPD—cannot get admitted into long-term care, PSWs regularly don’t show up. Kim is frantic with worry about what will happen if she herself gets sick and cannot get the care that she needs and her mother deserves.

Today I raised the story of Jane Berges; her husband Don was discharged from hospital and admitted to a private sector long-term-care home that did not have the capacity to care for him properly. He fell out of the bed in the long-term-care home, was readmitted to hospital and tragically died.

I hear regularly from constituents who do not have access to a family physician, whose only recourse if they or a family member are sick is to use our overcrowded and stretched-thin emergency services.

And yet this budget that is before us today does nothing to address these pressing problems in our health care system. It does nothing to repeal Bill 124 and make sure that our front-line health care workers are compensated fairly, they get the wages that they deserve and the benefits that they surely have earned. It does nothing to deal with violence in health care workplace settings. It does nothing to fast-track internationally educated health professionals at the rate that they need to be fast-tracked.

I hear the government talk about their plan to stay open, as if that plan is to ensure that the health care system is going to be there when people need it. But one of the most important things that this government could do if they want to stay open, if they want our health care system to be there for Ontarians, is to legislate paid sick days. We heard today from Dr. Moore that Ontarians are supposed to stay home until their fever clears, until their symptoms have improved—60% of Ontarians don’t have access to paid sick days. They can’t stay home if it means losing a paycheque, if it means not being able to pay the rent or put groceries on the table. And we know that for racialized workers, for Indigenous workers—they are highly more likely not to have access to paid sick days.

The other issue that is of grave concern to people in London West with this budget is the absence of any appropriate measures to lift people out of poverty. The minister talks about the LIFT tax credit, but more than 200 advocacy organizations have told this government that what we need is to double social assistance rates. Instead, we see a paltry 5% increase for ODSP and nothing for Ontario Works. That ODSP increase will mean $58 more a month, which locks people into legislated poverty.

There’s no mention of rent control for the many London West constituents who don’t know that when they move into an apartment that was built after November 2018, there’s no rent control whatsoever. They are being hit with double-digit rent increases, unable to know how they’re going to afford to continue to live there.

There’s no mention of the climate crisis and the need for strong climate action. There are many, many gaps in this budget that make it impossible for me to support it if I am doing my job on behalf of the people of London West.

Further debate?

Thank you, Speaker. I, too, want to congratulate you on being in that Chair. It seems like you know exactly what to say and how to identify the members. I tell you, that must really impress the Clerks’ table. That’s a talent that speaks for itself.

There’s no surprise in where I stand on the position of this proposed budget bill that this government has put forward, which I will not be supporting. There’s no surprise. What I want to do is bring a sense of what people in Algoma–Manitoulin were telling me when I was knocking on the doors, and what they’ve been saying for quite a long time. When I was knocking on doors, Speaker, it was health care. Then it was health care. Then it was health care. And then it was health care. They’re not seeing that—we’re not seeing that—in this bill.

Health care comes in a variety of ways. Where are the travel grant increases or the review that we’ve been waiting for? Where are the increased PSWs? Where are the doctor recruitment and retention programs that we need to get doctors? Primary care is absent in northern Ontario.

Also, on the doorsteps, there was nothing as far as the discussion, even when we were talking about the opposition—because there were other candidates who were going to the doors, I was hearing what they were bringing to the doors as well. There was nothing about Bill 7 when we were going to the doors, in regard to removing consent from seniors and being travelled from one long-term care home to another. There was nothing about that.

There’s a variety of things that should have been there. Health care in northern Ontario is imperative, because we have to travel long distances to get to specialists. So primary care is very important to our communities—communities like Wawa, Manitouwadge, Thessalon, Blind River, Manitoulin. Doctor recruitment is a challenge for us. It has been huge. The East Algoma Primary Care Work Team—we’ve been working with this government. I’ve walked over and provided them with a complete proposal on a path toward getting doctors in northern Ontario, or at least to the north shore in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin, but it has been crickets. I have not heard anything from this government.

We look at this bill, and for the life of me, there are so many things that are in there, but there are so many things that are missing. Speaker, tell me how repealing the requirement that WSIB headquarters in Toronto, under schedule 6—how is that going to help an individual who is being penalized? Deeming is happening, upon them. They are losing their shirt off their back. How is that going to help? Why didn’t we put anything on eliminating the practice of deeming under WSIB within this bill? We didn’t do that. It’s not there.

Price-gouging: Gas prices have been ludicrous in northern Ontario. People have been paying high prices. This is what I was hearing quite often at the doors, where everybody was upset. Did we see anything in legislation that was contained in here? I remember, just before we went to the doors—we had a very nice exercise here this afternoon where we demonstrated a lot of the words that the Premier was using when he was first elected in 2018, on how he was going to bring in legislation and monitor certain individuals to make sure that price-gouging stopped. That didn’t happen.

Health care was also affected in another way in northern Ontario, because people are wondering, “How am I going to get to and from my appointments?” We have to use our roads, right? So the investment that this government has touted, putting $10 billion-plus into roads like the Bradford Bypass and the 413—well, heck, there’s 68 kilometres of Highway 69 that could be finished that this government didn’t put a dollar or a cent towards in this budget. We didn’t see that.

In my specific riding of Algoma–Manitoulin: 542 and 551. Those are roads on Manitoulin Island, the largest freshwater island in this world. You would think it would be a strategy for this government to develop a tourism practice which would attract individuals to northern Ontario, whether it be cycling or just sightseeing, and provide good roads. Well, they did some resurfacing just a couple of weeks ago. Guess what I was informed of this morning? Those roads are already full of potholes—the deterioration. So the five-year cycle is already starting. I can see why the people are so frustrated on Manitoulin Island that this is wasted money, when they could have properly paved those roads, which would have lasted the test of time.

Highway 637 into Killarney: It is a disaster. For crying out loud, that’s one of the best tourism areas we have in this province.

Highway 548 on St. Joseph Island—again I’m very fortunate in my riding. I have two beautiful islands, gems on their own. But again, if we’re going to attract individuals to come to our community, let’s make sure that the infrastructure that is there is properly cared for.

There are many other things that are not in the budget. Why did they not legislate the 10 paid sick days for people across this province? Why wasn’t that done? The experts have been telling this government to do so.

Why wasn’t there anything in this budget on climate change, real action on climate change? There was nothing in this budget. We see what is happening. We see more forest fires. We see more floods. We see the impact that it’s having on our municipal infrastructure. Bigger drains, larger culverts are needed, but we didn’t see anything about that.

Donna Behnke out of Elliot Lake has been writing to me: “Mike, please get them to do something on ODSP.” I told her, “Listen, I hear there’s something coming in the budget.” A 5% increase, $58—my goodness, that is a slap in her face. Those were her exact words that she provided to me. That is an embarrassment. She says, “What am I supposed to do with that $58? Do they not know my rent went up $110? Do they not know the price of food has gone up? Do they not know how much money it costs me in order to get to the grocery store?”

There are many things that are missing out of this budget that should have been in here, and this government again has shown how disconnected they are with those who are not singing their song. If I’m not singing the song, then I’m not going to be part of the band, and a lot of people are feeling like that in Ontario.

I know I’m going to hear from this government, “The member from Algoma–Manitoulin did not support the budget,” and they’re going to quote the area that I didn’t support. You know what? That’s fine. My communities know well enough and they are informed of the game this government is playing. I look forward to the next four years because I will stand in my place each and every day and bring the voices of people across Algoma–Manitoulin to this Legislature.

Further debate? The member for Algoma–Manitoulin

Mr. Bethlenfalvy has moved third reading of Bill 2, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed?

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Third reading vote deferred.

The House adjourned at 1724.

Thank you, Speaker. I, too, would have liked to see things in the budget that are not there. The first thing is in my riding. In Foleyet, they are at risk of losing their ambulance services because the district services board doesn’t have enough money to maintain an ambulance service to a community that is an hour away from the next town, whether it be Chapleau or Timmins. How could you fathom that in Ontario there would be a community an hour away from the nearest hospital without ambulance service there? This is what’s about to happen in Foleyet if the district services board does not get an increase to their budget. But it’s not in the budget.

How could it be that in Gogama, tomorrow, on September 1, there’s a chance that their—well, there’s not “a chance;” Their nursing station won’t have a full-time nurse practitioner, won’t have a collaborative physician. The good people of Gogama won’t have a nursing station anymore. They have had a nursing station for decades. This is how they access the health care system.

Do we see in the budget money to improve people getting access to health care through nursing stations? Absolutely not. But what we do see are things to help the for-profits, whether it be for-profit home care or for-profit long-term care.

I just had the courage to read the Sienna Senior Living report—their second quarter for 2022. I am happy—no, I’m not happy to report at all that they made $354 million in the first six months. That’s $180 million in the last three months out of their long-term-care portfolio alone. That’s $2 million in profit. That would be 110,000 hours of care more if that money had gone to care rather than going to their shareholders. But no, they’re happy to report that their revenue increased by 10.7% to $180.2 million for Q2.

Also interesting is that they issued this on August 11, and they already knew that the bill to force people into the long-term-care home that they didn’t want was going to come. Not only did they know this, but they used it in their financial statement to say, “Don’t worry, although we are only at 88.5% average total occupancy in our long-term-care homes, we know that we will be at full occupancy to get the full amount of money, because we were made whole during the pandemic.” Although they’re supposed to have 97% occupancy to get full dollars, they were made whole. Now that the government is stopping this on October 1, they told their shareholders, “Do not worry, we will continue to be full; although we’re only at 88.5%, we will be at 97%,” because they already knew that the government was going to pass a bill that would force people to go into a long-term-care home that is not of their choosing. So that they could maintain, or even increase—rather than making $60 million a month, maybe they could make $65 million a month on the back of frail, elderly people who do not get the care they need in those long-term-care homes.

I could go on and on, Speaker. But the fact is that we will be voting against this budget because we want care to be based on needs. We want the taxpayers’ money to go towards the care, not the shareholders who make hundreds of millions of dollars, who are willing—it’s on the website, so anybody can go and see it. Sienna Living: Type it up and you will see they’re very proud of the $354 million that they made in the first six months. The $180 million—$151 million that they made in the last three months out of our long-term-care homes. I am not proud of that, Speaker. Not at all. And forcing people to go into those long-term-care homes so that they can continue to make millions of dollars is wrong.

I’ll be voting down that budget.