Thank you very much, Speaker. I’m pleased to stand, as always, and rise in my place. I don’t know that folks were expecting me back, but still I rise and congratulate you on your re-election.

We’re debating a point of order that has all of us quite worked up today, and for good reason. We throw around the word “democracy” in this space and leave it subject to our own personal interpretation, but it isn’t. It is a binding idea that our whole society has historically defended and should continue to defend. We talk about a lot of things that happen in this room to be in the weeds; that folks outside who are worried about our collapsing health care system, or public education on the brink, or other real issues—folks outside of this space may not be following along, or think, “What are they talking about? They’re elected to serve their communities. All of this is gravy, all of this is extra, all of this—how does this affect me?” And I recognize that and appreciate it.

But I want to speak and say that the last four years before this—if we’re talking about proud traditions, the last four years were not a part of those proud traditions. I would say much of the last four years—not all of them; wonderful moments from the last four years, but some really controlling and toxic take-aways from the last four years.

And I would say this is an inauspicious start. Here we are, on the first day, talking about how we, as members, can best serve this House.

To this point of order with the committee makeup—and we can dance around with all of the words and whatnot, but I appreciated the conversations that I had with our interim leader and with my colleagues, frankly, about the role that I would serve, the role that they were hopeful to serve.

I had a fantastic conversation, actually, with the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s about the chair in which you sit. We talked about the traditions of this space and place.

And for some of the new members I haven’t had a chance to work with or meet—I had the esteemed privilege to serve as a presiding officer for the last four years with a great team in that chair. I’m a rule person and I like my structure and I like my rules, and I come to this House by way of the classroom, and I also like colour-coordinated, alphabetized—that’s how I roll, Speaker. Oddly enough, I didn’t want the job, initially, when our former leader talked to me about it and I took it. I’m awfully glad I did, because, man, I loved it. That’s personal, but what I loved about it was that I sat in that chair, as you do, as others have—very few others have sat in that chair. And as the new members who have been—some appointed by surprise, maybe the others knew; but for those who will serve in this chair, the motto of this Legislature is to hear the other side, and you have to in that chair. You can’t be on your phone. You can’t send that burning email. You don’t even know what’s happening outside this space. But you listen. I learned a lot, and I was hopeful to do it again.

This isn’t the Jennifer story, but it is something to bear in mind as a point of reference. Whether it’s a committee Chair or a committee appointment—which I just found out today—surprise—my name is on the motion and I’ve been randomly allocated to some committee that, if I have the pleasure to serve, I will be glad to—but, surprise. And we, as a caucus, had discussed our strengths, our interests, what we wanted to do, what we had a burning desire for which committee to serve on, or who would, potentially, be appointed to that chair.

The member for Toronto–St. Paul’s: I think you would have been fantastic in that chair. The member from Parkdale–High Park and myself were names put forward to the government. For whatever reason, in their ultimate wisdom, we are not allowed—and it’s disappointing on a personal level, but, more importantly, I stand in this House today as a pawn of the government, unwillingly. I’m a bold and strong woman with a heck of a voice and I’m going to use it. Now that I’ve been taken out of Chair circulation, my voice has been put back into this space for another day each week, so I’ll use it—because, of course, when you’re in the chair, you have to be impartial.

I’m disappointed that the Chair is being used in such a partisan way. The games have been really disappointing, but, more important than that, I think it’s dangerous and we should support the traditions. I heard some of the new members—old habits die hard. I was sitting here giving them my full attention this morning. It was great. We get to learn from each other in our inaugural speeches, but talking about parliamentary traditions and precedent, and the Clerks can correct me—I have no idea—I don’t think there has ever been a precedent for the opposition to put forward their choices and the government to say, “Nope.” But to be picked up as a pawn, and many of the other—especially for the Speakers, the game of pawns here, it’s all women who have been just picked up and maneuvered, I would say, without involvement. I’m forced to accept it today, but it is not the precedent I believe we should set in this House.

So the committee work is a separate part of the Chair, but all of it is the same because we talk about Deputy Speakers, but really they’re Chairs—Chairs of the Committee of the Whole House. It’s all just moving things around without member engagement. When we talk about the core principle of democracy and member involvement, member voice, I’d say that we’re violating that.

I don’t know whether I’ve spoken tersely to the point of order, but I will relinquish my time now. I do encourage all members to listen to what I’ve said. Pretty words come from your own benches, from our benches, but listen to them. We are all here fundamentally to serve our communities. So anything extra we get to do is just that, but we should do it well. We should do it respectfully, respecting this place as well as each other.

It is my pleasure, but it’s unfortunate that I feel compelled to have to get up to speak to this motion and to the point of order. I’m going to follow along the lines of my colleague from Oshawa, as having been a woman who was the first Vice-Chair of the Committee of the Whole House who had the honour and the opportunity—one of few women to ever sit in that chair and listen to all sides of the House—to impartially listen to all sides of the House, to get to understand procedure. And I have to give credit where credit is due, to the Clerks, because they do the lion’s share of the work, keeping the Speakers on track and knowing the rules.

Speaker, this morning during question period and during some of the inaugural speeches of the member from Durham and the member from Ajax and the government House leader—who talked about the history and tradition in honouring that in democracy. What we are seeing today is a government House leader—and, I have no doubt, the Premier, as well—who is exacting revenge and using the rules to their advantage in the most egregious manner in order to get back at this side of the House for following our democratic right to vote by secret ballot for our choice of Speaker, and that is all this is. The government House leader stood here earlier to defend and deflect—because there was a lot of spin and a lot of deflecting, and at my house we call that a whole lot of horse hockey—

Interjections.

So to you, sir, and everyone else on this side of the House, through the Speaker, I say this: As my colleague mentioned, it feels like the government is making pawns of not just the members on this side of the House, but the women on this side of the House. What I think should happen is that the government House leader should not only rethink the fact that he just wants to control and stick it to this side of the House, but actually look at what he has been doing when it comes to the advancement of women running for elected office, to be in this place in the first place.

I heard something there that clearly, to me, impugns the motive of not only the House leader but the Premier. When the member for Windsor West says “exacting revenge”—that is not parliamentary to me. I shouldn’t even be repeating it, but because no one else brought it to your attention, and I know some time has passed—I was not in my seat when I heard it—I’m saying it now.

Speaker, I just want to thank you for your ruling. With that, I do not have any further debate. I think this motion stands for itself.

The member for Windsor West.

We’re debating a point of order.

The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

We have to conclude this soon, and then I’ll have to have a chance to deliberate.

Interjections.

Interjections.

Interjections.

Having heard both sides of this discussion, I now require a few minutes to deliberate. I will recess the House and return when I am ready to rule.

This House stands in recess.

The House recessed from 1357 to 1414.

I want to begin by saying there is nothing procedurally out of order with government notice of motion number 1, and to suggest that pursuant to standing order 1(c) this is a contingency not provided for in the standing orders is simply not the case. The motion is, in fact, compliant with the standing orders and is properly before the House.

I want to thank the members again for their contributions to this important matter.

The member for Barrie–Innisfil has moved government notice of motion number 1. Would she care to begin the debate?

Thank you very much, Speaker, for listening intently to the point of order which I raised and considering the concerns that I put on the record, and for providing your ruling. I recognize that you have determined that the motion is procedurally correct within the language of the standing orders, but I do want to echo some of the comments that were made by my colleagues during the debate on the point of order.

In particular, I want to start with reference to what we heard yesterday in this place at the opening ceremonies of the first session of the 43rd Parliament of Ontario. You, Speaker, provided a very powerful reminder to all of us as to why we serve in this place. The words you used: “Give to each member of this Legislature a strong and abiding sense of the great responsibilities laid upon us. Guide us here in our deliberations. Give us a deep and thorough understanding of the needs of the people we serve. Help us to use power wisely and well.”

I would contend that this government’s decision to completely ignore three decades of parliamentary precedent and tradition in terms of the membership-of-committee recommendations that are brought forward by recognized parties, and to unilaterally determine which members of the official opposition are going to sit on the committees of this place—I would contend that that is not using power wisely and well. To me, that is an abuse of power and it offends the very fundamental purpose of the standing orders that govern our conduct in this place.

Standing order 1(b): “The purpose of these standing orders is to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a manner that respects the democratic rights of members.” This government’s dictatorial approach to pick and choose which—

This government’s approach to pick and choose which members of the official opposition are going to sit on which committees, without any regard to the recommendations that the government House leader received in a communication from me earlier in July as to the membership of the committees that had been determined by the interim leader in extensive consultation with members of our caucus, so that members of our caucus could utilize their skills and interests and passions in a way that best help them serve the people of their communities—which is why we are here. Instead, this government has gone ahead and brought forward a motion that, as I said, disregards the advice, the recommendations that were provided.

We cannot support this motion. It sets a very dangerous precedent in this place when the government House leader is permitted to make these kinds of unilateral decisions. It is anti-democratic because it does not respect the rights of members to participate in this chamber as they would like to do so.

I did want to comment on something that was said by the government House leader, who was outraged that the official opposition would provide the government with information about the members we intended to nominate as Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the committees on which our members were prepared to serve. And I wanted to point out that there was a media report on July 4, well before the infamous meeting which was held with the government House leader in which we had a conversation about the election of the Speaker and about what would happen to the Vice-Chair and Chair positions on all of the committees in this Legislature if we did not support the government’s preferred candidate. But anyway, prior to that meeting, there was a media report in which it stated all of the government members who are going to be chairing each of the standing committees that are to be chaired by government members.

I heard the government House leader say that this was disgraceful, that the official opposition was somehow trying to usurp the democratic rights of committee members to determine who was going to serve as Chair and Vice-Chair, and yet on July 4, they had already determined each of the Chairs of the standing committees that the standing orders specify are to be chaired by government members. Speaker, we were being transparent. We were providing the government with information about the MPPs, the caucus members we were prepared to nominate as Vice-Chairs, and we would have hoped for that party’s support.

Speaker, I did want to refer to the letter that the government House leader also mentioned in his remarks. I sent this letter to him because he had invited me to a meeting and had put on the table this proposal that the NDP unite with the government and unanimously vote for their preferred candidate in the election for Speaker of the assembly.

I want to quote from this letter. I said to the government House leader, “You requested that the official opposition urge all NDP caucus members to vote in favour of Ms. Tangri as Speaker, and to join you in issuing a joint public statement in support of Tangri before the vote is held. If those conditions were not met, you threatened to ignore 30 years of tradition and disregard the advice of the official opposition House leader on the appointment of three Deputy Speakers. Further, you referenced the government’s ability to use its majority on committees to ignore caucus recommendations for the two committee Chair and six Vice-Chair positions as outlined in the standing orders, and appoint independent members as Vice-Chairs instead. You stated that if the NDP complies with your request, you will not block official opposition recommendations for these 11 positions.”

Speaker, far be it from me to impute motive. I would not ever do that. But I do find it somewhat striking that the names of the members that the official opposition put forward for all of the standing committees have been completely mixed up by this government House leader. He has made decisions, picked and chosen which members are going to sit on which committees. In some cases, he has removed the member that—we had actually said, “That is the member we’re going to nominate as Vice-Chair or Chair of that committee,” and this government House leader has removed that member’s name from the motion that is before us.

We are on a very slippery slope right now, I would argue. The government in the last four years made more changes to the standing orders than we have seen in the 15 years prior to that, and each one of those changes did more and more to centralize power in the hands of the government.

And now, here, today, we don’t see a standing orders change brought before us, but we see a completely unprecedented interpretation and application of the standing orders which, once again, helps to centralize power in the hands of the government. For that reason alone, Speaker, we cannot support this motion, because of the very dangerous precedent that it sets.

As I pointed out in my remarks on the point of order, taken to its logical end here, the government House leader could appoint the same two members from the official opposition to every committee if they have the power to pick and choose who’s going to sit. The government House leader pointed out that in some cases they wanted to appoint three, but whether it’s two members or three members, the fact is that this government House leader wants to consolidate, to keep all of the power to himself as to who those members should be. The functioning of this House and the deep traditions of democracy upon which this Legislative Assembly was established require that there be respect for the democratic rights of members to participate in this House as they see fit.

The other thing we heard yesterday in the throne speech that is reflected in the words of that very powerful prayer that I mentioned at the beginning is about the need to co-operate, to collaborate. We’re dealing with huge issues. Our health care system is unravelling as we speak. The people of this province are expecting us to work together to solve some of these huge issues, and that requires collaboration. It requires some kind of process of give and take. This government decided they couldn’t even do the minimum amount of collaboration that would be necessary to just, as every previous government has done, take the names of the members that the official opposition wants to appoint to committees and write them into the motion. That would have been the very, very minimum sign of respect and demonstration of engagement with the official opposition, to try to move forward together, to start to deal with these very big issues that we are facing in Ontario.

Speaker, with that, I conclude my remarks.

The ayes are 78; the nays are 26.

Speaker, point of order.

The government House leader.

Pursuant to standing order 32(b), the time allotted for the afternoon routine has expired. I am now required to put the question on government notice of motion number 1.

Ms. Khanjin has moved government notice of motion number 1. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1431 to 1501.

Ms. Khanjin has moved government notice of motion number 1. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be acknowledged by the table.

Motion agreed to.

Resuming the debate adjourned on August 10, 2022, on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

The member for Oshawa has a point of order.

The member for Waterloo has the floor.

As I said this morning, I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Toronto–Danforth.

Earlier this morning, I raised the two major issues that were contained within some of the language of the throne speech. One of those issues was the small, insulting increase to the ODSP levels, tied to inflation. This is a total of $245 million from the government. The other issue was this $225 million contained within the tutorial promise by this government, which, interestingly enough, will be money that is not being put—

Interjections.

As I was saying: The $225 million is this promise to offer cash for tutorial programming. It’s interesting, because when you do the math on this promise, it could come up to maybe $90, which is one tutorial session in the private sector, for instance. It could have been so much more of value to the people who are committed to public education in Ontario than one private session of tutorials. Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, this is not a plan to help students recover from a very devastating interruption in their learning through the public education system and through the pandemic; this is simply a gimmick.

Yesterday at the press conference, I found it incredibly interesting when Colin D’Mello asked the finance minister a question around the deficit reduction. You’ll know, of course, that the deficit reduction is going to be $1.1 billion this year. There was an increase in some taxes. I beg the government to have another look at this $1.1 billion, because this is cold comfort to the people who are waiting over 19 hours in an emergency room. This is cold comfort to the 911 operator from Dundas who was, at one point, not able to send and dispatch an ambulance to a crisis. She was on the line with a woman whose baby was choking, and she was also on the same line trying to help a family deliver CPR over the phone. Those are the choices that are being made right now in our health care sector.

When we say that these are life-changing decisions, there’s truth to that. And I want the government members to hear this because both the Ontario Nurses’ Association, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, SEIU and the Ontario health sector helped put forward very good recommendations around investment. The $1.1 billion in an increase in tax revenues going down to a deficit when the health care system is in crisis is a choice that this government is making, and it is not centred on the people we serve. The 19.1 hours that folks are waiting in emergency rooms is an issue that is affecting all of our ridings across the entire province. No one is exempt from this kind of pain, Mr. Speaker.

The finance minister said that the entirety of the new net revenue would be put against the deficit and no new funding so far to overcome the ongoing hospital closure crisis. This is a quote from yesterday.

I also want to point out, because I am the finance critic, that the proposed increase around health care funding according to the Q1 quarter was 5.92%, when inflation is at 8.1%. That is a cut to the health care sector. So you cannot say to the people of the province, as the Premier did earlier today, that we are investing historical amounts of money into the health care sector when you proposed a budget that did not recognize the inflationary pressures, and at 5.92% when the inflationary level is at 8.1%, you are actually admitting that you are cutting health care.

This is why the morale and the energy in the health care sector is so challenged right now, and it’s so stressed. This goes from midwives to the paramedics—interestingly enough, paramedics, you’ve given them a greater scope of practice. You’ve said, “Oh, you can do more, paramedics.” Paramedics are waiting in emergency room drop-offs in the hospital bays waiting to drop off people they’ve gone to pick up, and there’s no nurse for the pass-off to go to.

In fact, when the Liberals had this problem which I do want to point out—when the Liberals froze hospital funding for five years, that was a cut, a cut, a cut, a cut, a cut, and those cuts were never addressed. But at the very least they actually created a new position in the health care system called the “hallway nurse.” You have created a position called “batching” where you can actually drop off multiple people with one person, which is completely unsafe. Paramedics across the province have said, “Yes, great. You want us to do wellness checks? We’re stuck in hospital drop-off bays because there are no nurses to be had.”

The children’s and social services sector is also seeing a 1.8% cut. When you look at the most vulnerable—and as I said this morning, that is why we are all here. We are here to fill that gap and to make sure that when we invest tax dollars in the health and well-being of the people of the province, the return on the investment is for the province as a whole. After this pandemic, all of us should have a clear understanding that the health and well-being of the people we serve is directly connected to the economy. If you think that a company is going to relocate to the province of Ontario when the health care system is in shambles, I have news for you: This is a direct disincentive for companies to come to Ontario.

The other point that I wanted to make is that—especially after question period this morning, Mr. Speaker, because the disconnect of what we are hearing from the government side of the House around what is actually happening in our health care system is truly alarming. As my colleague here has said, in order to address a problem, you have to admit that the problem exists. A GTA emergency physician is inviting the Premier and the health minister for a tour of her emergency department, so that they can witness first-hand the staffing shortages and crises facing the province’s health care system. I’d like to urge the Premier and the Minister of Health to actually take this extra step.

There has been some language used in the hallway right outside here where the Minister of Health has said that she takes exception or she rejects the premise that there is a crisis. We have so many examples from our ridings—so many examples—that indicate that the crisis is real. Perhaps you are using a different definition of “crisis,” but this doctor has said, “This is a true open invitation. I’m a professional, respectful person. There will be no hate, nothing but professional. I just want you to see what we are seeing.”

This is what they’re saying: “Emergency departments normally equipped with three doctors are sometimes down to two, and with nurses also in critically low supply, patients are not getting the attention or care they deserve.”

She goes on to say, “The waiting room is packed. There are people waiting on the floor. There’s blood on the floor from patients who are bleeding. There’s a long triage line, meaning there’s a lineup of people we don’t even know how serious their illness is.”

This is Dr. Nour Khatib. Dr. Khatib said that even after ER patients wait hours to be admitted to the hospital, she’ll watch them wait up to two or three days for a bed. I, and we on this side of the House, would describe this as a crisis.

And then, to add insult to injury, this is the truth around wage suppression: Your policy on wage suppression in the public sector is undermining the strength of our health care system, since, in the last year, 5,400 health care workers have left that profession. We cannot retain health care workers when the government has a bill on the books that limits those wages to 1%, especially when we have an inflationary rate of 8.1%. As Doris Grinspun from RNAO said yesterday, this is a 7% cut to nursing.

So those nurses are going elsewhere. Many are going across the border to the States. They’ll still live in Windsor, but they’ll go across the bridge and get a really good job in the United States. They’re getting incentives, they are getting perks and they are getting working conditions that provides them integrity and dignity, not only to those patients, but to their colleagues.

Interjection.

It’s interesting that a nurse on that side of the House is heckling me, because I believe you take an oath—

Interjections.

I do want to say one final thing on that, because until you actually acknowledge that this is the reality in our health care system, I worry. The mental health piece was mentioned in the throne speech yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to finish on this point. I started the first day of the election attending a visitation of a young woman who died by suicide. That was day one. She waited for two years for mental health supports. Her name was Kaitlyn Roth. She was a friend of my daughter’s.

The mental health funding that was in the budget that you tabled—and then you ran away to an election—is insufficient. It is insufficient, because this young woman came into contact with 27 police officers. Think of the cost to the Halton police services and the Waterloo police services, and the cost to her family, and the lost productivity, and the fact that she was stuck in a hospital that was not prepared for or equipped to deal with mental health.

So when I say that budgets are moral documents, I mean it. This budget and the throne speech and the language within that throne speech, which only addressed in a very insulting and demeaning way the ODSP rates, which are legislated poverty for the people of this province, and the fact that you are continuing to undermine public education—this does not instill confidence in us as legislators or in the finances of the province of Ontario. When you do that, you hurt our democracy and you hurt the people of this province. I would urge you to course-correct. You have time to do it, and we want to help you do it.

Order.

Before I start, I want to note as well that I’m sharing the time remaining with my colleague from Scarborough Southwest.

I also have to say that it is a privilege, it’s an honour, to rise to speak today, as the interim leader of the NDP, to talk to the speech from the throne, to talk to the budget.

But before I get into that substance—Speaker, first of all, welcome back and congratulations, and to all of you in this chamber who have come back or arrived here new. I disagree with a lot of people, and I’m sure a lot of you will disagree with me. But you don’t get here by sitting on a couch; you get here by doing work, and whatever your opinion or your perspective, you deserve respect for that. So to all of you, congratulations.

That said, back to business.

Interjection.

I am privileged to stand here, as the leader of the official occupation, with my colleagues. We’re here, each of us, because we think that this province has extraordinary promise. It has the potential to make for extraordinary lives for people across this whole territory. It’s a place of opportunity and, frankly, it is a province of plenty. It’s extraordinarily rich—rich soil, rich minerals and richness in the people who live here. People come here because they understand the quality of life and the opportunities that are presented. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect—far from it. But the potential and the promise are extraordinary, and we have a responsibility, I think, to live up to that potential, to make use of that promise.

Since this government first tabled its budget in April, things have changed, things have moved on. We’re seeing inflation at over 8%. My colleague from Kitchener-Waterloo has spoken to this quite eloquently, quite movingly, if I may say. That’s having a huge impact on people’s lives, and it needs to be taken into account in the planning that this government engages in, going forward.

I think most of you in this chamber will have constituents who are having a very hard time. I would say it’s not just low-income constituents; I’ve talked to my middle-income constituents who feel that they’re treading water, that they can’t get ahead, that they’re constantly being knocked back by higher prices and more difficult situations. It means—that more-than-8% inflation—that their purchasing power has been reduced by almost a tenth. That’s an extraordinary impact on people’s ability to live, to provide for themselves and their families, to have hope for the future. It means a number of people are using their credit cards to balance out their finances. That, as you’re well aware, Speaker, is not a sustainable way to go forward. It doesn’t work. It means that people are making really tough choices about whether or not kids will go to summer camp or even go to the CNE. People in my riding are facing a very tough time about paying rent or buying groceries.

As I’ve seen on Cosburn, as I’ve seen on Gerrard, outside the food banks and the churches on those streets, the lineups get longer and longer. People are pressed to their limit.

Frankly, in a number of places—I’m talking about rent—people are having to bring in roommates to make things work.

Again, as my colleague from Kitchener-Waterloo was saying, our neighbours on Ontario Works or the Ontario Disability Support Program were already living in legislated poverty. They were having a very tough time.

It was interesting to me, even just going to public events, wherever there was any barbecue set up by a politician, the rate at which food would be consumed. It is not a theoretical, distant or rhetorical thing to talk about; it is a very real need and very real desperation. This government absolutely has the power to change that.

As my colleague was saying, the Minister of Finance, who is an intelligent guy, by the way—people have talked with him; he’s no slouch—was asked repeatedly if he could live on $1,200 a month in Toronto. He’s an intelligent guy. He knew that there was no answer to that that wasn’t no, so he dodged the question. But that’s the reality—1,200 bucks a month. That’s barely a room, let alone groceries, let alone medication, let alone transportation. When you talk to people who are trying to live on those sorts of amounts, there is a desperation that is very real that has not been addressed by this budget. The 5% increase does not address that. Connecting the rates to inflation is not going to correct that.

There is no good reason, in this extraordinarily rich, extraordinarily powerful province, that people should regularly be going hungry—no reason at all. It is within our power to correct that. This government can correct that. This government should correct that. But for the moment, Speaker, that is not in their budget, and I have to say that is something that they have to correct.

I also have to note that since April, the strains and the stresses on the health care system have become so much more paramount, so much deeper. We had three representatives from the Ontario Nurses’ Association here today listening to questions about health care, shocked and staggered by the answers they were getting.

I used to work for the Ontario Nurses’ Association back in the 1990s, and I had a chance at that time to talk to nurses. Nurses have a very dark sense of humour, and I think you need it to get through some of what they see. Unfortunately, that very dark sense of humour is still there, because when you say to people that they have to try to make an emergency department work or an intensive care unit work and there are not enough people to do it—and the ones who are there got the message clear, they got it loud, that they don’t matter. Sweet words are one thing, but actually clearing out the obstacles to giving them proper income is not something this government will do. I hear it all the time: “We’re doing everything we can.” What about getting rid of Bill 124? Silence.

I think if you want to send a message out to health care workers, education workers, public sector workers across Ontario that, in the end, they don’t matter, Bill 124 is one of the most effective tools I’m aware of.

If you actually want to have retention of nurses, if you want to have retention of health care workers, if you want to end the demoralization, abolishing that bill—and we would be willing to sit through the weekend; we would be willing to sit through the night. If you wanted to do that, we would do that. That would send a tremendous signal.

Speaker, there are 5,400 fewer health care and social service workers in Ontario today compared to just one year ago.

I asked a question today about all those places where emergency rooms have been closed. They have been forced to close in Red Lake, Perth, Clinton, Listowel, Seaforth, Wingham and other communities. Hospitals in Toronto have been on the brink of ER closures and have issued bed alerts for their ICUs. Hotel Dieu urgent care centre in Kingston has been forced to cap the number of patients it can see and turn everyone else away. Twenty-five hospitals were impacted by August long weekend closures.

Our health care system has not seen this kind of crisis in generations, and it’s not just because of COVID, although COVID is a factor. It’s not because of a lack of beds, because, physically, beds are easy to make and put in a room. It’s because of beds without nurses, beds where we don’t have doctors. It’s because of a lack of staff.

It’s quite correct to say that we can’t get 10,000 new nurses tomorrow, but I’ll tell you, if we continue to discourage and demoralize the nurses who are there, the health care workers who are there, then the crisis we see today could be far worse in the near future. Frankly, that demoralization and that driving people out of the health care system that we’re seeing in Ontario right now is something the government could work on immediately and is not. It is not addressed in the speech from the throne. It’s not addressed in the budget. It’s not addressed in response to questions that we’ve asked, and it’s not addressed in response to questions that are posed by reporters.

What I do hear is, “We’re going to build more hospitals.” Putting up a shiny, well-stocked new building that’s empty is not going to solve the health care crisis in any community in Ontario. This government needs to both recognize that and act. It’s scary to think that if you needed an emergency room, you would go there and it would be closed, locked, lights off—absolutely not something that we want to see.

Since the government tabled its budget in April, inflation has gone up and health care has gone down the tubes. People want a sense that there is hope. They want to see even a flicker of light at the end of that tunnel. As long as the government is not acting on those twin crises of health care and inflation, they aren’t seeing that hope. They deserve to see it. They need to see it.

Speaker, just last month, there were 3,400 more workers in health care and social services—just a month ago. These are big losses. They need to be addressed. The government can address them. It must address them.

Health care experts and experts such as Cathryn Hoy of the Ontario Nurses’ Association say Ontario is 30,000 nurses short of what it needs to actually function—30,000. That is a lot of nurses. That didn’t happen overnight, but I have to say, in the last four years, it got a lot worse. Government needs to take steps now to correct that.

We’ve been seeing cuts in education. My colleague from Davenport can speak about that extensively and in depth. That makes a huge difference in terms of what happens to our children. They have gone through one of the most brutal two-year periods of their lives. Many have fallen far behind in school. I talk to teachers who recognize that, for a lot of kids, they lost two years, and I talk to parents who are worried about those children. We’re not seeing the investment in schools; we’re not seeing the investment in smaller classes that are needed to actually make that right, to help those children get the education they need. That is a dereliction of duty, because we have a responsibility to that next generation. We have a responsibility to give them the best possible start so that this society will actually be able to function. You cannot function in this society without a well-educated population. You can’t function as an individual without a good education.

One of the things that’s frustrating about inflation is the failure on the part of the government to take on gougers. When we talk about inflation, we have to recognize that there are companies that are surfing on top of inflation and taking maximum advantage. My colleagues from northern Ontario can talk about how much it costs them to get around, because they get around in vehicles that burn gasoline.

I just want to note, some companies—ExxonMobil earned US$18 billion in the second quarter of this year; Chevron: C$15 billion; Shell: $22 billion. BP oil just saw its biggest profits in 14 years. All of those companies more than tripled their profit from a year ago. And when we say, “You should be regulating gasoline and fuel oil the way we regulate natural gas or regulate electricity,” the performance of these companies says—and it screams it—“They’re making a fortune, you’re getting beat up, you’re getting your wallet emptied, and these companies need to be brought to heel.” This government has the legal power to do that if it wants to do it, and if it doesn’t have all the legal power it needs, it can enact legislation. It needs to act.

People need the support from this government to protect them against gouging and to help ensure that they can live their lives without being in want.

Does this budget, does this throne speech actually stand up to profiteers and gougers? No. I remember during one of the periods in the pandemic that the Premier said that he wouldn’t stand for gouging. I look forward to being corrected, but I don’t remember there actually being any action that followed those words. No, I suspect there was no action that followed those words. Well, you’ve got a second chance. You’ve got a budget before us. You can amend that budget so that there’s a focus on dealing with gouging and a focus on protecting people. The Premier should be standing with the people of Ontario; he’s not.

Speaker, I also want to talk about the impact that this budget has on our action to deal with the climate crisis. I know many people talk about the future for our children and our grandchildren, and we should, because I’d say that things are looking pretty rough. But the crisis is not distant. The crisis is here. The member from Ottawa West–Nepean, the member from Ottawa Centre—they can talk about the lights out in Ottawa after the line of thunderstorms that went through in May. The head of Ottawa hydro said that they—well, I think the figure was that storm snapped off hydro poles at an unprecedented level. They had never before had to deal with this. Well, I think that’s the reality we’re facing.

Every day, we’re seeing extreme weather events that put us in a situation where we get to spend our time in the dark, where people’s lives are threatened by floods, are threatened by heat waves, are threatened by wildfires, and frankly, their food sources are threatened by droughts. And yet, this government is not taking the action to actually reduce our emissions—is not happening. If we want to protect ourselves from flooding, from blackouts, from heat waves, it needs to act, and I’m not seeing it in this budget.

We are paying a very high price for the climate crisis today; we are going to pay a staggeringly higher price in the future. The government has to act. It should have been in the speech from the throne. It should be in the budget. You don’t call it a climate crisis because it’s a minor item; it is, in fact, a crisis. It’s affecting food prices, and it’s causing people to have to move away from their homes because they are no longer viable places to live.

The budget that came forward in April was not acceptable. The budget that’s before us now just replicates the problems that we had before and fails to deal with the larger crises of affordability in health care today. So, Speaker, we want this budget to take action, to help end the hospitals crisis. And there are a few things that could be done—I’ve said it before: scrapping Bill 124; lifting up wages; making sure that nurses and health care workers know the investments are going to be made; fixing working conditions. The idea that you go into work and you fear violence from the patients who come in and there is no program to actually deal with that—that’s crazy. No wonder people leave. Why would you put up with that?

Obviously, the accreditation of internationally trained professionals in the health care field needs to be accelerated—there’s no getting around it—but you’re going to have to put the money into it. You’re going to have to make the openings for people. We’re not seeing that in this. We need a blitz to retain people. We need a blitz to pull them back into health care. We need a blitz to bring new people in, but I’m not seeing it. I’m hearing a lot of talk. But I’m not seeing it in terms of budgets or the throne speech, and that is a profound failing.

Speaker, I also want to talk briefly about COVID, because we’ve had a very tough time, and the Ontario science table has expressed concern about what’s coming in the fall. I’m not seeing the push to expand vaccination. I don’t know about other people—maybe I missed something—but I’m not seeing the push that’s needed. I’m not seeing the push to bring in ventilation in schools, hospitals and public buildings.

We know what it costs when the COVID pandemic gets running really strong, and we don’t want to go through that, so we need the action now, and we need the statement clearly in the speech from the throne. We need it clearly in terms of the allocation of resources to up vaccinations dramatically, to change the ventilation systems, to have smaller classes so that kids can be distanced.

Speaker, I’m going to give my remaining time to my colleague, but I want to say this now: This government is in power at a very difficult and risky point in the history of the province. It could, with proper action, make a huge improvement in people’s lives, but if it doesn’t do that, the consequences will be disastrous for everyone.

Further debate?

Oh, are you sharing your time? I apologize. I didn’t hear that.

The Leader of the Opposition.

Speaker, before I begin, I want to say congratulations to you. Welcome back. It’s good to have you in this chair.

I also want to congratulate all the new members. We’ve got some incredible members on our side here, who I’m so proud of.

To the rest of us coming back—it’s an honour.

Regardless of political stripes—I listened this morning to the member from Ajax’s stories about her parents. It reminds me of myself and the campaigns that we ran, which are sometimes filled with your parents, your family members, your friends, and new friends and allies that you make over the weeks and months and years. It’s really incredible for us to be here, because a lot of people put their heart and soul in the work that they do to bring us here. A lot of people in our ridings put their faith in us to come back here and serve them, to serve our communities, to serve the ridings that we represent and to serve this amazing province that has given us the opportunities.

When I was listening to the throne speech—first, I want to say that I appreciated the way it started, because it talked about the people of this land, the Indigenous people, and the work that we need to do to reconcile. I am so privileged and honoured to sit next to my colleague from Kiiwetinoong, who teaches all of us and teaches me about not just the history but the realities that people continue to face in some of the regions in Ontario, in our province, in many of the communities; we don’t have to go far.

I have a healing lodge that’s going to be built in my riding of Scarborough Southwest, so I understand a little bit, working with the community, in terms of the work that we need to do to really look at truth and reconciliation. I don’t think the word “reconciliation” itself has been defined in the way that a lot of Indigenous leaders and community members want it to be defined, to see the action that’s necessary.

I was impressed to see that there was a good start, because it understood or at least reflected on the realities and acknowledged the hurt and pain that have been felt by many of the parents and grandparents of the Indigenous community members. However, when I talked to my colleague and we listened to the rest of the throne speech, we were, I think, shocked—maybe not fully shocked, fully surprised. Because when we heard about the Ring of Fire and the way that we need to talk to, we need to consult with, we need to take the leadership of Indigenous community members—that still needs to be done by this government. There is a lot of work that’s missing when we do any sort of work.

Something that we have fought for and we continuously fight for is the work that needs to be done to provide clean drinking water, to provide housing, to provide mental health support. I could not find a lot of those words that were necessary in the throne speech. That is so urgent, that is so critical, to make sure that—talking about reconciliation, talking about truth. You have to have that. You have to make sure that you are providing the day-to-day things that are the basic human rights. I mean, clean drinking water—come on.

Those are the commitments that we should have made not just in the previous terms, but before that. So I expect some of that in this government, and I hope that we can work together to make sure that we take the leadership from those who are in those spaces and do the necessary work that everyone across this province has entrusted us to do, has sent us here to do.

In the throne speech, there are also quite a few other topics that I think sometimes have a really good—it’s sort of buttered, in a way. It sounds beautiful. This government is really good at that. We saw this in the previous government as well, where you see the name of a bill and you think, “Well, there might be something that’s working for workers.” But then you look at the real meat of that and—surprise, surprise—it does the exact opposite of what the title even says to do.

I hope I have enough time to talk about this, because I have to begin with the health care system. It’s the crisis that we’re facing right now. Some time ago, I was reading a book about the health care systems across the world and some of the countries that see Canada as to be envied. They envy the system, this pride that we have. Just this afternoon, I believe, or after question period, one of the things the health minister said was that all options are on the table when she was asked about privatization, when she was asked about what kind of options are available in terms of what you would do to address the health care crisis. I have to say it is very concerning to hear the Minister of Health even hint towards privatization, because what we really need right now—we have the solutions available to us. We have the ideas. We have the leaders in our health care system telling us exactly what we need to do. And here we are. We have a Minister of Health and we have a government that’s looking at—I don’t know why.

I don’t want to anticipate anything, but in the way it’s going, the way that this government looks at this crisis, or denies that there is a crisis, and then hints towards privatization—there is something inherently wrong with the way of our thinking, our psyche. There is something really wrong about that, because so many people across the world see our health care system as a model, and here we are with ER closures. We had, I think, 24 or 25 hospitals that had closures over the long weekend—we had SickKids hospital, a kids’ hospital. The fact that children have to not just wait for hours—we were already bad. And trust me, I know someone is going to heckle and say, “Well, it was the Liberals’ fault.” We had an emergency that was already in long wait times, but the fact that right now we’re facing ER closures is problematic. We’re talking about children.

My colleague from Waterloo talked about the fact that there was someone on the phone trying to figure out whether they were going to provide support to someone giving birth, or CPR for a choking baby. Those are the choices you’re asking a health care worker to make, and those are the options that you’re giving the people of this province, who have entrusted you to represent them. When you look at that and you think that there isn’t a crisis, there is something inherently wrong about that.

I was at the OFL rally just the other day—and I know that CUPE Ontario has given over, I believe, 30,000 letters. There were so many workers from across the health care sector and other sectors. Every single one I have talked to has asked for a few things, and one of them is to repeal Bill 124. It is fundamentally wrong to call these people essential workers—health care workers who have been working day and night, who have sacrificed their lives to protect us—and here we have a government that’s telling them, “Even though we call you heroes, you’re not good enough to have a raise. You’re not good enough to benefit from the basic things that you need: health care benefits, good benefits so that you can have a good life and a good wage for your family. You’re not good enough. You’re heroes when it comes to providing the care, but we’re not going to pay you enough.” That is fundamentally what this government is telling them.

When we talk about paid sick days, I have heard from members opposite who talk about solutions. We are giving you solutions right here. These are specific things this government can do right now. They can do them today. Repeal Bill 124. Give them paid sick days. We’ve been calling for it over and over. I believe the member from London West has now proposed it a third time. Many of us on this side proposed it in the last term, and I know there are so many people across this province who have called for it. So many health care workers, so many doctors and nurses, on national media, have called for it. And here we are—“Nope, you can’t have paid sick days.”

Another solution I can give you is making sure that you actually give them good working conditions. It’s just mind-boggling; I can’t even believe that’s actually something I have in my notes, because it should be common sense.

I have proposed a bill in this House—Bill 98, which this government passed on second reading and then just stalled—to recognize internationally trained workers who have come here with a dream and hope, who have been given that hope by the federal government and been recognized by the federal government through the point system, but then when they come to the province, the province tells them no. “That recognition that you got from the federal government—those points? They don’t count. Your skills and your credentials are not good enough.” Not only that, but they have many barriers that they have to go through in order to be recognized, in order to get the credentials necessary. Some of those barriers include the fact that they have a huge financial cost. You’re telling a new immigrant who is trying to survive on a wage, trying to put food on the table, trying to pay rent, trying to provide for their family—on top of that, you’re telling them to get re-educated and get the certificates, and the experience, by the way, in order to get a job in a field that they have worked in for, let’s say, five, 10, 15 years. That is the cycle that we go through. We tell these people that they have to get experience, but then when they try to get that experience, they’re told to get experience.

Do you see, Speaker, where this doesn’t make any sense? I know many of the members opposite will also hear from community members who go through this. I know you’re sitting on the chair right now, Speaker. You have community members who have gone through this, who come with the hopes and dreams of practising.

There are a lot of health care workers who are nurses, who are doctors, who have the skills that we need right now. We have a shortage in our communities right now.

In 2020, this government promised that they were going to recognize internationally educated nurses. Let me tell you, Speaker, what happened. Of these IENs who were promised that they would go through it, only 2,000 actually became registered nurses, from the 14,633 who tried. That is the gap we face when we give these people this hope.And the continuous announcements, by the way—this government is great for radio commercials. They’re great for propping themselves up. But when it comes to the reality, this is what actually happens. These are the real numbers of people who actually get through the actual roadblocks. You’re not recognizing them fast enough.

The other day, the Minister of Health decided, “Do you know what? I’m going to just leave it on the colleges and say, ‘Well, recognize them’”—how do you say this word?

Further debate?

“‘Expeditiously.’” Pardon my English.

You’re telling them, “You have two weeks to come up with a plan,” when we on this side—I know that the member from Nickel Belt and I have worked together on this. We have worked together with stakeholders. We have worked together with nurses, with the internationally trained professionals’ network, with so many different stakeholders and colleges, and have asked them, “What do you need? How do we do this together?”

That’s exactly what Bill 98 asked for, as well, Speaker. It said, “Here are the types of people who are included, who are involved in this. Let’s come up with a solution and make sure that we can provide the exact steps that they need. Let’s give them practice-ready assessments. Let’s make sure that they’re able to get some real training and experience that they need in order to work. Let’s make sure that we get rid of the financial barriers they have.”

Instead of providing any of those, here you are, making announcements and telling the colleges to come up with something overnight, when again and again you’re hearing about ER closures across this province. In Toronto, there’s Michael Garron Hospital and SickKids hospital. We have heard from the University Health Network. We have heard from other parts of the province who have gone through this. We heard it in Ottawa. It is just continuously happening, and here we are, not even recognizing that it’s a crisis, let alone coming up with the solutions or implementing any of the solutions we have proposed.

Unfortunately, I don’t have enough time, but I wanted to talk more about the fact that this throne speech didn’t even touch on the climate crisis, the fact that it didn’t even have the words “climate crisis,” and the reality that we’re facing across this province. There are countries that have flooded, there are provinces that have flooded, and the reality that we are facing—

Expeditiously.

Further debate?