Thank you to the member for Nickel Belt for her comments. I was so pleased to hear, as the member from Brantford–Brant has already pointed out, how many things the member from Nickel Belt agrees with that are in the budget, especially a lot of the health care things that we’re doing. I know that she wants things to be done faster. We’d all like things to be done faster. But the northern Ontario medical school, for example, was something that the Conservative government came up with when Tony Clement was Minister of Health, based on the Australian model, and I’m pleased that she’s delighted with that. We’ve certainly added physician positions.

It does take time to make a new physician. What I’d like to ask the member is, if she cares about having more physician positions and is in a hurry, why did her government eliminate positions for training physicians when they were in power?

I’d like to thank the member from Nickel Belt for her excellent comments. She’s always been a strong advocate for nurse practitioner-led clinics.

The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs heard across the province that there needs to be additional roles for nurse practitioners within communities and what a great value they provide to our health system. But, also, in this budget, there’s only been the allocation of 150 nurse practitioner seats, and those won’t graduate until 2028.

I wonder if the member could talk about the quality of care, the innovative model that NPLCs provide, and also why this government is stopping allowing them to practise within Ontario.

Well, the Northern Ontario School of Medicine saw the light of day in 2007. In 2007, when they took their first students, it was a Liberal government that was in power, and since then, since 2018, we’ve had a Conservative government. I would very much like to be able to tell you I’m proud that we got elected a New Democratic government in 2007, but we didn’t.

The Northern Ontario School of Medicine is very important. It’s something that the people of the north had been advocating for for a long time. It is a success. It’s something that we are proud of, but it is something that is ready to expand. They could do way more than what they are doing now to help keep people in northern Ontario healthy, to give them equitable access to health care services. What they need is financial commitment from this government to do so, not just nice talk. But the money won’t start to flow for way too long.

The model is excellent. Many other communities would like to have a nurse practitioner-led clinic. Coniston, in my riding, would like one. Capreol would like an extra nurse. Southwestern Ontario needs an extra nurse because there are physicians retiring and they’re ready to help them. None of that is in the—

We are being gouged. The government could stop this right now by making sure that we regulate the price of gas, like they do in many other provinces. This will make sure that the people who I represent—

I don’t think the member actually listened intently to my remarks. I gave the example of a 72-unit supportive housing building that had been constructed in London with a significant investment from the city of London, at a cost of $21 million. For one 72-unit supportive housing building—how on earth is the $202 million that’s allocated in this budget to meet the needs for supportive housing across the province going to address the serious crisis that we are seeing in communities across Ontario in homelessness? London deserves a piece of that $202 million, but so do so many other communities in this province.

Meegwetch. I know you spoke about the cost of living and how the cost of living has increased so much. Sometimes different areas of Ontario will talk about the cost of fuel, cost of gas, but I do remember this: I think everybody would complain if you were paying $3.50 per litre for gas. There’s no way Toronto would accept that and there’s no way that Toronto would accept paying $20 to $30 for four litres of milk. A flight from Big Trout Lake to Thunder Bay one way is $1,000. Is that acceptable? Is that the cost of living and what do you say to people that are investing in the north?

Thank you to my colleague for her comments. I listened intently.

I’d like to read a quote and I’ll obviously lead into my question. From the mayor of London, who tweeted this on budget day:

“Lots of positive news for #LdnOnt in today’s Ontario budget, especially significant investments in mental health and addictions, supportive housing and homelessness prevention.

“This is exactly what’s needed in #LdnOnt, especially as we build out our whole of community Health and Homelessness system....

“I thank them, along with Health Minister @SylviaJonesMPP, Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions @MichaelTibollo,” the labour minister and “MPP @RobFlackPC, for not only listening but prioritizing these types of investments.”

Question to the member from London West: Does she support her mayor?

Questions?

Further questions?

I’m pleased to rise today and talk about the budget. Maybe I’m getting old and maudlin, but I can remember looking back at what drove me to make the decision to run for office in this House. It was in 2017 where people approached me and said, “We need someone like you in Toronto.” I think that was true for so many of us in the class of 2018. You’ll remember the same thing, Speaker, that drove you to run here. Our class especially—I think so many of us left very good positions and took a step back in order to serve the people of Ontario in this place, because we knew what 15 years of waste and mismanagement, to use that old quote, had done to the province of Ontario.

I still think about that a lot. It seemed like it was just yesterday, and yet it seems like such a lifetime ago. I’ve been thinking about that especially during budget time because of the changes we have made, and I think sometimes of how different it would have been if the government had turned out differently than it did.

I can remember that 350,000 jobs were chased out of the province of Ontario, and I think, listening sometimes to the Liberal members, that if they could pack a few more people into their van, they would still be driving those jobs out of Ontario right now, if they had the opportunity. But we’re in a position now where we have a deficit of workers in the province of Ontario of, I think, 350,000. That makes me wonder how much change we have done in just four short years for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

When I think of a budget that has the largest spending in every single sector that’s ever happened before, I think it’s $200 billion or something like that—I’m not that kind of a numbers guy; I think more in the terms of prescriptions and eyeglasses than in those kinds of numbers—what a difference. We haven’t sacrificed anything to the most vulnerable in the province of Ontario, and yet we are on a path to balance, and that’s after having been through a global pandemic—it’s now endemic—that screwed up the lives of so many, that cost us 50,000 lives in the province of Ontario, and yet we can say with confidence that we are on a path to balance in this province.

I think of that conversation that I had that seems like a lifetime ago, conversations that many of us have had with people who said, “You know what? We need someone like you to stand for the people of Ontario, not just for the riding, but for the sake of the people of Ontario, so that we can turn things around.”

Because if there’s one thing that I’ve learned in the last four years, and especially in working with the Indigenous people in my riding, the nations that I represent here, it’s that we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, but we are all connected with those who have gone before and with those who will come after. One of the tag lines that I’ve adopted through my work here is that we have to leave things better than we found them. It’s so incredible to be part of a government that is committed to leaving things better than we found them.

Again, when I contemplate the fact that we’re looking at a budget that, if passed, will spend more than ever before—I apologize for those fiscal hawks who may be watching, but we are investing more into infrastructure, into roads, into bridges, into making good things happen for Ontario than ever before.

The member opposite stated—and I just want to remind you that we’re all facing uncertain economic times here and that Ontario is already growing because for the past two years we’ve all been working so hard. You hear about all the investors coming in, which is why we continue building Ontario, making it stronger. However, we have not left the vulnerable aside, especially seniors. Do you agree and support us when we do special support for seniors with GAINS and 100,000 more seniors will receive more support with this budget that we have proposed? Will you support that?

Thank you to the member for her address today. The NDP, I think they really wanted us to write their budget, but the only way that happens is if there’s an election and they get elected. But you know what? We’re building on last year’s budget in this year’s budget, and we took that budget to the people and the people gave it a resounding yes. The people gave it a resounding yes. I shudder to think what the cost, and when we might ever balance a budget, if the NDP actually got their way.

What I’m saying to the NDP: We did it last year, just about 10 months ago. I know that people on this side of the House and our colleagues on the other side would be more than willing to take this budget to the people right now if it was necessitated.

I ask the member of the NDP: Can you tell us what your budget proposals would cost and would you actually be willing to take that to the people?

I’ve heard from the government side an apparent interest in looking after human trafficking, about doing something about human trafficking. I was very shocked this morning to hear that the Elizabeth Fry Society of Hamilton lost its funding.

I’m going to create some context: When women are released from prison, they’re taken to a bus stop and they’re given a bus ticket, and that’s it. They’re immediately targets for human trafficking. The Elizabeth Fry Society provides programming to help women become ready to resume civilian life, and also to make sure that they get home safely and that they have safe places to live.

To see that cut is really horrifying to me. My question to the member from London West is, do you have concerns about how vulnerable women are being treated in this budget?

I am pleased to rise to continue the debate on Bill 79, Working for Workers 3 from this government. When I was last speaking to this bill, I was giving some examples of the pervasiveness of wage theft in the province of Ontario, which is something that this government could have taken action on, this bill would have been an opportunity to take action on, but they have not. I use the example of wage theft as a case study of how increasing fines for violations of labour laws will do nothing unless there are those strong, proactive inspections in place, unless there is strong, proactive enforcement in place and unless this government closes the loopholes that we see far too often in our labour legislation that have allowed employers to get away with wage theft for so many years.

One of the tools that this government could have used to deal with the issue of wage theft is, of course, around worker misclassification. That is how so many workers do not get the wages and benefits that are owed to them under the Employment Standards Act, because their employer illegally classifies them as an independent contractor rather than an employee who has full rights and entitlements under the Employment Standards Act. That is particularly the case for the farm workers, the migrant temporary foreign workers that the first schedule of this government’s bill is supposed to protect, because those temporary foreign workers are completely exempt from the Employment Standards Act. So it is one thing for this government to say they’re cracking down on scumbag employers, but it is quite another thing to actually protect the temporary foreign workers who are at greatest risk of being taken advantage of and being exploited by unethical employers.

We know that the number of inspections that the Ministry of Labour has conducted dropped significantly; there were 3,500 in 2017 and just over 200 in 2022. So while we welcome the increase in fines, we’re waiting to see other changes that the ministry has to make in order to actually help protect migrant workers.

It’s interesting that since we were last debating this legislation, the government introduced a new measure that is significantly going to harm migrant workers, and that is to remove OHIP coverage for uninsured people. Certainly, we know that migrant workers are among the largest group of uninsured people in this province who do not have access to OHIP, and we have heard the OMA, we have heard doctors in Ontario describe this government decision to remove that OHIP coverage as inhumane, as despicable, as barbaric—as all kinds of words that have been hurled at this government for the action that it is taking that is going to directly and significantly harm migrant workers.

The other thing that we saw since this bill was last debated in the Legislature was the introduction of the budget that put in black and white, in print form, the government’s decision to eliminate paid sick days. That is a benefit that would significantly help temporary foreign workers, migrant workers—workers in this province who need access to paid sick days so that they can stay home if they are sick, which is the number one lesson that we should have learned from this pandemic: how important it is to enable workers to stay home if they are sick so they don’t have to go to crowded workplaces while they are ill, compromise their own ability to recover from illness and also risk spreading infection to co-workers and customers.

This government was shamed into finally implementing an inadequate paid sick day scheme. It took some time to get them there. The scheme was flawed, but at least it was something to help workers be able to stay home if they are sick. Some 60% of workers in this province do not have access to paid sick days, and that number goes up to 75%, 80%, 90% in some sectors, for some of the most vulnerable workers in this province: racialized workers in this province; workers who are at greatest risk of contracting illness in the workplace, who work in crowded warehouses or other places where they are at risk of either bringing illness into the workplace and infecting others or getting infected.

We heard during the pandemic—no one will forget that study from Peel Public Health at the very beginning of the pandemic where one in four workers admitted that they went to work sick because they didn’t have a choice, not because, of course, they wanted to put their co-workers at risk, but because they didn’t want to put their family at risk by not being able to pay the rent at the end of the month, not being able to buy the groceries. So that is the kind of legislation that would show that this government really is working for workers.

The final piece that I want to highlight is around Bill 124. We have heard for months—actually, since that legislation was introduced back in 2019, we have heard calls, strong calls, from health care workers across the province to drop that bill because it is an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of workers to bargain collectively with the government.

At a time when inflation has been as high as 12%, capping wage increases at 1% is nothing but a wage cut, and a significant wage cut, when we need health care workers more than ever. Health care workers are leaving the province in droves because of Bill 124. We know that from the data that’s collected on our health human resources workforce. We know that from—in London, when I go to speak to the London Health Sciences Centre or St. Joseph’s hospital about the health care worker shortage that they’re having, Bill 124 has a direct impact on that.

Dropping the appeal of the court decision that Bill 124 was unconstitutional would go a long way to working for workers in this province. But this government decided not to do that; instead, they have brought forward a package of measures that will make a little bit of a difference, a symbolic difference. The increased fine on employers who withhold passports will make a difference. But if this government really wanted to work for workers, there’s a lot more they could be doing.

Building Ontario.

We are building Ontario. We are indeed building Ontario, because we have a duty to our children. I think of the member from Kitchener–Conestoga: five children who are younger than mine. We have a duty to those youth to leave things better than we found them, and that’s why it gives me great pleasure to speak about the budget today.

We have five simple pillars. We need to build Ontario’s economy for today and for tomorrow. We have to build our highways. We have to build transit. We have to build infrastructure.

The first lesson that I learned on county council was that there’s good debt and there’s bad debt. When you’re spending money on operations, when you’re loaning money for operations, you’re in trouble. You’re in trouble in your household; you’re in trouble as a province of Ontario. But when you’re spending money for the future, for subways, for highways, for hospitals, for courthouses, you’re building for the future. That investment will always come back to you, and that’s good debt. That’s why I’m proud that we’re doing that.

We are working for workers. We’re working for workers so hard that we have over 300,000 unfilled jobs in the province of Ontario right now. Our call-out to the world: If you want to make Ontario your home, if you want to work hard, you are welcome here. We want you. We need you. Please come here.

We are keeping costs down. We are doing our bit. We are calling on the federal government to do their bit too, but we are saving people money on gas. I think, if I remember the numbers right, we’re saving businesses over a half billion dollars a year in red tape costs to be able to do their work more efficiently. These are all things that we are doing in the budget.

Probably the most exciting piece for me, Madam Speaker, is that I can’t hear anything negative from the opposition, other than they say, “Just do a little more.” Well, we will, because we’re going to have another fall economic statement this fall. We’re going to have another budget next year. We will continue to build a strong Ontario.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move that the question now be put.

Mr. Bouma has moved that the question be now put. We have had over nine hours of debate with 25 debates on this bill, and I am satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those who are in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Vote deferred.

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

Bill 79, An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi, le travail et d’autres questions.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that in my view perhaps unfairly shuts skilled workers out of the workforce in Ontario is the requirement that they have Canadian experience in order to fulfill their workplace qualifications rather than just relevant experience. They might have relevant experience but not Canadian experience, so I think one of the absolutely brilliant things that this bill does, in schedule 3, is it says that a regulated profession may accept Canadian experience in satisfaction of a qualification if it also accepts alternatives to Canadian experience. That means people who got experience in some alternative way may use that experience, whether it’s Canadian or otherwise, to fulfill this qualification. Does the member agree with that proposal?

I appreciate the question from the member, and I know he’s expecting an answer from me. However, I would like him to show me the schedule in the bill where that measure is set out, because there is no schedule in the bill that talks about presumptive coverage for those cancers for firefighters.

Now, I understand that in the media releases around the bill, when the minister has been speaking to the bill, that is what he says the bill will enable. But this legislation actually makes no reference to presumptive coverage for cancers for firefighters. That is in the regulations. Let’s see the regulations, let’s talk about the regulations, and then we can discuss further.

Absolutely, Speaker, anti-scab legislation would be an important step that this government could take to show that they are actually working for workers. We know that when workers band together to withdraw their labour, that is the only tool that they really have. So scab labour undercuts the ability of workers to obtain their rights, and it undermines the financial security of the workers’ families and the viability of the employer’s firm itself.

I’d like to thank the member for London West for her excellent comments and her analysis of the current plights of working people, whether it’s gig workers or temporary foreign workers, and also the importance of equal pay for equal work. In this government’s legislation, they talk about “scumbag” employers, and in some ways it’s almost as through this government doth protest too much.

I would like to ask the member, is it a scumbag move to block collective bargaining? Is it a scumbag move to waste money in a losing court battle, and is it a scumbag move to engage in a costly appeal and withhold what’s fair for nurses?