Thank you to the member for that question.

We are already seeing the impact of this. We did a look at the projected property tax increases for municipalities all across the GTHA, and they’re seeing an increase of upwards of 7%, 8% in property tax increases at the same time as we’re seeing service cuts and infrastructure cuts.

AMO estimates that, overall, municipalities will lose about $5 billion in infrastructure revenue over the next nine years because of Bill 23, and it’s already impacting housing development and housing starts. Waterloo has a development that they have had to delay because they don’t have the funding to provide the necessary infrastructure to hook that subdivision up to the broader community. So it’s affecting your own goals.

The biggest expense that people have today is housing. When I look at the cost of housing in Ontario, when I look at the cost of rent, the legacy of this government is, it has made it extremely difficult for people to get by. Over the last five years, housing prices have gone up, the price of a mortgage has gone up, the cost of rent has gone up, and that is exactly what is making it difficult for people to find a home, live a good life, pay the bills, raise their children. That legacy is on you.

The government’s response to addressing the housing crisis has been abysmal.

In order to address the housing affordability and housing supply crisis that we have, we certainly need to build 1.5 million new homes in areas zoned for development.

We need to end exclusionary zoning—so going further than the government went in Bill 23.

We need to stabilize rent prices, because 30% of Ontarians’ rent—and they’re paying more on average now, in some cities, than people are paying in a mortgage. They can’t save up enough money for a down payment because rent is so expensive.

We need to clamp down on investor-led speculation—so we build homes for people who intend to live in them.

And we need to establish a public builder to construct affordable housing on public land at cost.

We have long called for a public builder to construct affordable housing on public land at cost. When you look at—

Interjection.

Interjection.

That is a very different approach than what this government is doing, where they’re selling off land in secret contracts to for-profit builders to build luxury condos. That is not the—

I’d like to thank the member from University–Rosedale for her comments and for pointing out the $1-billion cut that AMO pointed out that this government has enacted through Bill 23, one that—they also promised that they would make municipalities whole and then failed to do so within the budget.

Right now, housing starts are stagnant—and I believe the member from University–Rosedale has called on the need for a public builder.

I want to ask the member, what kind of protections for renters would be responsive to the current moment that Ontarians face right now? What should have been done within this budget?

Further questions?

It’s now time for questions.

Thank you to the minister from Kenora–Rainy River. I listened intently to his presentation.

My question is with regard to this budget: It’s a budget that has failed to meet the moment because across Ontario, students have struggled as a result of the closure of schools, the COVID pandemic, and school violence is something that is not addressed. It’s not even mentioned within the budget, yet we know the numbers are staggering and the numbers are on the rise.

My question to the member is, why is this government sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to the safety of students in our schools?

I want to thank the minister for his great, great speech on the budget. I’m aware he was at the food summit on Monday, a huge economic forum bringing people from all walks of life there.

I want to ask him if he could update this Legislature on some of the things that he presented in terms of the economic and food security issues in the north.

I just want to talk a little bit about transit, as the member mentioned that in his debate as well.

In southwestern Ontario—in London, specifically—our Via Rail service was cut tremendously. Greyhound, the bus line, has stopped running. The government did have a pilot project for GO Transit in London, but it’s just not adequate enough.

I looked through the budget, and there are so many infrastructure and transit projects here.

I want to ask the member why London was left out of the transit projects that need to happen so that the southwestern corridor is part of the economic hub that you’re trying to build.

Further questions?

Of course, I think back to a couple of chapters in my political career when we turned issues into opportunities. The member might benefit from listening to the experience that I had.

When Greyhound pulled off the Trans-Canada Highway, a lot of people felt like that was terrible. The reality was that there were more and more people coming back and forth between Alberta and the east coast, and you couldn’t actually get on the Greyhound in Kenora to get to Thunder Bay, or in the opposite direction. That’s why our government invested, through the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, to ensure that bus service—and I’m talking about bus service here, to my member, to a vast region. No offence, but my riding is the size of a small European country. Now that bus goes all the way from Toronto to Winnipeg and every part in between, to many small communities across northern Ontario. Most—

Of course, it goes without saying that things like the Ring of Fire and critical mineral projects have to go ahead in order to live up to the opportunity of the single biggest environmental policy by a sub-sovereign government the world over, but also to ensure two things: one, that the activities we’re doing in the resource sector have the cleanest form of energy—we now have mines completely operating by electricity—but also to have a cost and a tax credit system that makes them—

I’m a guy who builds consensus. That is really what this is all about. If the member opposite is going to stand in her place and say that the consent of one specific community proximal to other Indigenous communities who want it is the way to go, she’s going to have a really hard time helping this province move forward on some of the most responsible, environmentally sound projects the province over. That is a substantive reality. It was echoed by none other than Jody Wilson-Raybould, a friend of mine who spoke in the House of Commons on these very kinds of matters.

I’m all for building consensus. I think it’s high time that Indigenous communities and municipalities in northern Ontario join together for—

It just reminds us that when we work with Indigenous leaderships, we’re not just talking about “the” relationship, which is often imbued with crown relationships, which are important, but “a” relationship—working effectively with them.

Having the now national chief sit down and say, “Let’s create a prosperity table. Let’s see what kind of ideas we can generate,” culminated and manifested itself in a $25-million announcement we made in the fall economic statement to move forward on Indigenous-led economic opportunities, mapping in the supply chain in key sectors. This has never been done before, and it’s pre-positioning these communities and Indigenous youth to have a better economic opportunity—

Thank you, Minister, for your speech. I like how you highlighted energy and the investments and being competitive. Those are critical things for our province.

I would like to ask the member if he could speak to the voluntary Clean Energy Credit Registry work. And what are the environmental and economic benefits of this registry?

I want to commend the minister for his years here, as well as his years on Parliament Hill. I had the privilege of serving in Her Majesty’s cabinet for four years with him, and I can say—and having seen him last night working with Indigenous leaders from throughout Ontario and, in particular, the north—that he has been able to bring in an engagement we have never seen in this place during my time here.

I’d like him to elaborate on some of the relationships he has worked on, particularly with our national chief, RoseAnne Archibald, as well as her brother, who were here talking about Indigenous rights and the responsibilities we all have.

There are over 80 First Nations members coming today, including five chiefs, and their message is very clear. They are sending a message to this government that they do not want mining on their land without full, free, prior and informed consent beforehand. Can you commit to that promise?

It’s an honour for me to rise today and provide the voices of the great people of London North Centre, as well as offer to debate many of the submissions to our pre-budget consultations that this government has chosen to ignore. I had the opportunity to travel the province with the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, hearing many of the stories that affect Ontarians the most, and what we see, unfortunately, with this budget is a budget that has missed the moment. It’s a budget that could have been truly progressive. It could have been forward-thinking. It could have shown that this government has listened to stakeholders across the province. And yet, we see a budget that shows this government is only listening to certain groups.

People are feeling the crunch at this time, and the government has done scarce little to address the affordability crisis and the stresses on families, seniors, people living with disabilities and students.

We often hear words in this chamber such as “transparency” and “accountability,” yet this budget really seems to lack those aspects.

Transparency is a matter of being open. It’s a matter of being frank. It’s a matter of being clear and being less subject to interpretation. This government would like to use folksy, homespun language, and yet that does not mean their actions are transparent.

In terms of accountability—it should show that one can easily understand and explain what is happening within this budget. This government instead engages in pretense. They engage in a very complicated shell game in order to hide where they are cutting as opposed to where they’re pretending to invest.

Within municipal affairs and housing, they have cut $124 million, yet on the other hand, they talk about the money that they are investing in supportive housing. When we had the opportunity to travel to Kingston, the mayor of Kingston explained how the municipality had a very forward-thinking approach to the model of supportive housing that they provided within their city. That city spent $18 million in one year to provide that continuum, that wraparound model of supports. And yet, this government would pat themselves on the back for investing scarce little across the province in supportive housing.

I’d also like to turn my comments to education.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to question the Minister of Education about why this budget did not mention violence in schools. Curiously—with this lack of transparency and lack of accountability—my question was not addressed in a really logical or fulsome way. Instead, the minister decided to talk about federal responsibilities on bail reform. Again, even in his answer, he never mentioned school violence and never mentioned why it was absent from the budget.

In my area, the ETFO Thames Valley Teacher Local reported that in June 2022, there were 463 reported acts of violence; in September 2022, 687; in October 2022, 982; in November 2022, 693; in December 2022, 490; and in January 2023, 502. And this government has chosen to ignore it.

It’s shocking to think of the lack of investment that we have seen within schools. Again, with this very complicated shell game that this government would play, they’re claiming to invest in schools while they’re hiding the fact that what they are calling their investments is actually federal money in terms of child care.

I wanted to add the voices in the pre-budget submission of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association. They recommended that there would be an update to the Grants for Student Needs, that there would be funding that reflects the specialized needs of students who receive special education services. We know that the funding model has been broken for a number of years. We know that it is a mathematical model based on enrolment, not based on student needs. The government had the opportunity to stand up for families, to stand up for students living with disabilities, and they chose not to. Instead, in terms of the funding model—as I said, it is a statistical model whereby the government provides an arbitrary amount of money to school boards with the hope that they spend it on students who need it, yet there are no guarantees within this. There is no guarantee that school boards will (1) spend the money on students who need it, and (2), even if they do spend it on students who need it, there’s no guarantee that it will be spent in a way that is developmentally appropriate or addresses their needs properly. They’ve chosen not to do it.

What we also see in this budget is an increasing focus on privatization. We see the funneling of public money for publicly delivered services into the hands of private, for-profit health care providers.

I wanted to add the voices of OPSEU, who recommended ending privatization: “Public services and privatization simply don’t mix. That’s because public services are based on the core principles of equality, accessibility, transparency, and fairness. These principles stand in stark contrast to the goals of privatization—namely the ability to reward shareholders with profits by selling services only to those who can pay. Not only are quality and accessibility harmed, privatization costs more—especially in terms of the greater cost of borrowing and corporate profits.”

And yet, this government has ideologically tied their star to the concept of privatization, and it is going to erode our services across the province.

No one was in support of this government’s wage-suppression, humiliating legislation, Bill 124, yet this government is still engaged in the costly appeal. They had the opportunity within the budget of 2023 to step back, to admit they were wrong, to follow the courts and admit that they are going to continue to lose. I think it’s up to 14 or 15 cases that this government has lost in court now, and yet they are blindly and blissfully spending public money to appeal their losing court case.

Within the budget, we also saw submissions from community support services, who indicate—they do wonderful work. They are to be understood as also separate from home and community care. They cite that in 2020, the province estimated that it would cost $103 per day to provide care for a long-term-care equivalent client at home with home and community care. This contrasts with $201 per day to provide comparable service in long-term care and $730 per day to support ALC patients in hospitals. I don’t see the investment.

We heard from folks from Meals on Wheels, from the Alzheimer’s Society, and from folks with hospices.

We don’t see any funding where it needs to be to keep people in their homes, where they’re happiest, where they’re healthiest, and where it is the best place for them to be. Instead, we see funneling into private, for-profit enterprises.

As well, we see this government which has really neglected and rejected seniors. We see that they are going to provide $1,000 more per year per senior, which is nowhere near enough. If you divide that out over 12 months, that is not nearly enough money that seniors need in order to address the cost-of-living escalation.

They’re also withdrawing money from the unhoused, claiming that they are no longer going to provide them with health care services and a funding program that the government says is no longer necessary. It’s as though the unhoused and their health care needs and people who are new to Canada only counted because of COVID, and now the government is prepared to simply ignore them.

What about seniors, who are going to have to wait 18 months in order to get an eye exam? It’s reprehensible.

This government talks a lot about respecting seniors, about respecting students—and yet this budget fails to do so.

I wanted to add the voice of professor emeritus of public management at the University of Toronto, Sandford Borins. Sandford was talking about the budget consultation survey that was available online. He wrote:

“What is Missing.

“What is most remarkable about the choices” within that public survey “is that they never include the following words or phrases: climate change, environment, renewable, sustainable, conservation, green, or greenbelt. The environment is not the only priority that isn’t mentioned. The word culture also doesn’t appear, not even in the question about making Ontario an attractive destination. Higher education appears only in that question, but not in questions about improving health care, filling labour shortages, or improving community services.”

Sandford went on to talk about plausible deniability. He said, “The Ford government has often been secretive, for example”—

I’d like to thank the member from Kitchener–Conestoga for his question. I also have a great deal of respect for that member.

I would like to remind the member that in my discussion, I was talking about the pre-budget consultations. In the pre-budget consultations, we heard from numerous delegations, all of whom were deeply, deeply disturbed by Bill 124. They cited the labour shortages that it created, how it was humiliating, and how it also caused a great deal of disparity in certain hospital departments. This government has thrown good money after bad. They are really disinvesting in our public system by allowing this focus on temp agency nurses. Within the same department, there will be a nurse who is paid twice as much as a nurse who has been there for many years.

We also had the opportunity within this budget to address wage parity between home care, long-term care and acute care, and it’s something that this government has ignored, because they don’t care about nurses.

We also know that, in London, one in four children live in poverty. With so many people waiting on an endless list for supportive housing, it is unconscionable. The government has it within their power to address this by making sure that there is a public builder, by actually creating these units and not leaving it up to private industry to create them themselves. There are many great people who are doing wonderful work within the space of providing those supports, but this government has chosen not to fund it properly.

We also heard from CMHA across the province, who are calling for an 8% increase to their services. This government blinked and gave them 5%.

While I do have a great deal of respect for the member opposite, when he talks about Bill 124 and people not supporting it, colleagues—I believe we brought Bill 124 in before the last election. On June 2 of last year, the people elected the Ontario PC government to a massive, 83-seat majority.

I propose a question to the member opposite: If people didn’t like Bill 124, as he claims, why did they return us to government and them, again, back to opposition?

Unfortunately, we have run out of time for debate, but we do have time for questions.

I’d like to commend my colleague the member for London North Centre on his remarks. We come from a community where there are currently at least 2,000 homeless people who are on the by-name list. There are many other people who are precariously housed. We have 6,000 applications for social housing, representing 11,000 parents and children in our community.

London has identified a need for a minimum of 600 net new supportive housing units. We know from a recent supportive housing complex, Embassy Commons, which has only 72 units, that the cost is significant. That was $22 million for one 72-unit building.

Will this budget enable London or any other municipality to meet the need for supportive housing?

I would like to thank the member from London North Centre for his in-depth debate on the budget.

In Hamilton, we definitely have a huge homeless problem. We’ve seen, in the last half of last year, 22 people die while homeless; the average age, I believe, was 43, and men highly grouped—a lot of criminal activity, drug abuse, mental health issues.

We’ve definitely seen this budget miss the mark when it comes to our vulnerable population.

Can the member talk a little bit more about what he sees in his community when it comes to homelessness and whether the $202 million will even touch the mark when addressing supportive housing in our communities?

It’s great to hear the member from London North Centre.

Speaking of construction—I think there’s definitely a consensus in the House that we have a shortage of housing, and we want to take action. We’ve got a bold action plan in order to get homes and rental units built, and we’ve got proposals with the federal government.

One part of this budget bill is supporting training centres, to the tune of over $200 million to organizations and unions such as LIUNA and the operating engineers, which are in my riding of Oakville. They’re the crane operators. We’ve got to thank them, because they do all the great work to build high-rises across this province. They need money to build their training facilities. I looked at their website. I’ve talked to them. These unions are ecstatic with the budget. You may not agree with all that’s in the budget—I understand that—but can you support this component?