Speaker, we’re in an affordability crisis, yet the fall economic statement doesn’t use the word “affordability” once.

During the 2018 election, Conservatives promised to cut income tax by 20% for the middle class. That promise was never kept. The Minister of Energy even claimed last month on affordability that “our province has done everything we can.” He’s forgotten past promises. It seems the promise they have remembered is the one donors reminded them about: opening the greenbelt and gifting $8.3 billion of public value.

Tax form ON428 still has the 9.15% tax rate—promise not kept. How can Ontarians trust this government to tackle affordability when they can’t even keep or remember a basic election promise?

Can this government be trusted to tackle affordability when they wouldn’t take the opportunities to provide families with immediate pocketbook relief in their fall economic statement?

Perhaps, Speaker, you could give me—I know it’s usually a minute to respond. I’d like about 10 minutes, because there’s so much I could talk about in terms of what we’ve done for affordability that the opposition Liberals and New Democrats have voted against.

In the fall economic statement, which we’ll be voting on today, we’ve extended the gas tax for another six months to lower costs for consumers and to lower costs for businesses. Will the opposition support us? Will you support us in lobbying the federal government to stop the punitive carbon tax? Have you done it in the past?

Our government has been focused on affordability, whether it’s the carbon tax, whether it’s cutting tuition for students who are in an affordability crisis themselves or whether it’s the LIFT tax credit, which lowers the tax rate for the lowest-income individuals in this province. We have stood on the side of families and individuals in this province. Where is the opposition?

Let me just go through some of the other things that we’ve done as a province. We’ve removed the licence plate stickers for all drivers across the province, helping businesses and consumers. As the Minister of Economic Development has referred to, we’ve taken away $8 billion in costs for businesses in this province. Where are those cost savings going to go? They’re going to go to the people of Ontario. We’ve also lowered the cost of transportation in this province. Whether you’re taking the GO train or public buses in the GTA, we’ve lowered that. Did the opposition support us on that front? Absolutely not.

So, again, we continue to move ahead, get investments in this province, bring affordability to the extent that we can, and we’ll continue doing that. I hope the opposition will support us with the fall economic statement.

So again, I will remind the member opposite that it is in fact under the age of 25. Forty per cent of the population is covered. Those two programs alone are already in place in the province of Ontario.

Can we look at other opportunities to improve the system? Absolutely. That is why we are doing so many of the health system pieces that we have in place. But I also want to highlight the excellent work that the Minister of Education has been able to do in securing $10-a-day daycare for the province of Ontario.

This is not an issue that we are looking at only in one ministry. We are making sure that women empowerment—individual access is critically important, but we’re doing it in a whole-of-government approach, not one-offs.

Back to the minister: Minister, if you believe that the current policy for publicly funded contraception up to the age of 24 is effective, should that rationale not extend to those beyond the age of 24? Women’s fertility spans approximately 30 years, not nine, necessitating broader access.

Research shows a net health system cost saving of $5 per resident, underscoring the efficiency of preventive over surgical health care. The selective approach of OHIP+ risks perpetuating inequities. Given the cost neutrality, gender equity implications and bipartisan potential, will you recognize the benefits of pursuing universal contraception access, following the example set out by other provinces in Canada?

Supplementary question.

Supplementary question.

The supplementary?

I’ll tell you what: Our American friends just celebrated Thanksgiving, and that hits home for us out in Kenora–Rainy River. Just across from Fort Frances is International Falls, Minnesota. As friends and families criss-crossed the border, here’s what they found: Gas is $3.24 a gallon in International Falls. That works out to about $1.14 a litre. Back in Fort Frances, about 150 metres away, gas is $1.70 a litre.

Now, let’s pivot to what’s on the table for dinner. Turkeys: In 2015, a turkey was $1.50 a pound. In 2023, it’s north of $2.50 a pound. That’s a 67% increase.

Mr. Speaker, when you tax a farmer who grows the food, when you tax a trucker who brings it all the way out to northwestern Ontario, a 22-hour drive from Toronto, and those who buy the—

Now, Mr. Speaker, it’s time, once and for all, for the NDP to join the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and send a clear message to the coalition in the federal government to scrap this tax, plain and simple. It’s as easy as slicing bread.

Our government is implementing a new Ontario Autism Program. In the new program, families will have access to an expanded set of core services including applied behaviour analysis, speech language pathology, occupational therapy and mental health services. This is the first time that families will be able to access mental health supports through the OAP.

Families also have access to a range of services like:

—the foundational family services, which we launched in 2020 to help families support their child’s learning and development at home;

—early intervention services to help young children access services at critical points in their development;

—an early entry to school program, which will help prepare children who are starting kindergarten or grade 1 for the first time; and

—urgent response services for children and youth who have immediate urgent needs.

Speaker, we’re meeting benchmarks and making progress every day as we continue to implement a needs-based OAP that supports children and youth with autism and their families.

Children and youth with autism may also be eligible for programs such as healthy child development programs, including the Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program; the Infant and Child Development Program; the Preschool Speech and Language Program; rehabilitation services delivered by children’s treatment centre; special needs resource teachers in child care settings; the Special Services at Home program; the Assistance for Children with Severe Disabilities Program; out of home respite; and the enhanced respite for medically fragile and/or technology dependent children program.

Families who received an initial interim one-time funding payment may also be eligible to receive a second payment of either $5,500 or $22,000 based on their child’s age as of April 1.

I must admit, it’s a little surprising hearing that question from that member from Kanata-Carleton, who, in this House in the last few weeks, has said the carbon tax is good for consumers.

The carbon tax puts the cost of everything up—everything: getting to the Legislature, driving your kids to soccer, food, businesses, public transportation.

This is a government that has been committed to working on affordability since we took office in 2018. I don’t even know where to start with all the programs we’ve put in place and the cost reductions we’ve done. Let me remind the member of just a few of those things that we’ve done—and I’ll certainly talk to more of them in the supplementary.

We put through the LIFT tax credit, which was the largest low-income tax credit in the history of Canada, helping those individuals in the lowest-income tax brackets reduce their taxes.

I’ll have more to say in the supplementary.

The member opposite mentioned ODSP. Just last year, we brought through legislation which moved it up by 5%, and then indexed it to inflation, to 6.5%. That’s the largest increase in ODSP’s history. Did the member opposite and the team over there support us on that legislation? No, they did not.

But that’s not all. We’ve done a lot for affordability. We increased the minimum wage this year—the largest-ever increase in recent history—to $16.55 per hour. We’ve also brought about and extended the tuition tax credit for university students. We put through a 10% cut in tuition a few years ago, and we’ve extended that freeze for four years, putting tuition among the lowest and the most affordable, in the province of Ontario.

I hope the members opposite will join us, get some sense and support the fall economic statement.

My question is for the Associate Minister of Small Business.

We’ve heard both within this chamber and, obviously, from our constituents that the carbon tax is causing an increase in expenses for all Ontarians. This is especially true for businesses in northern Ontario, which face significantly more challenges related to the higher cost of goods and travel because of this regressive tax. The sad reality is that these additional expenses are ultimately passed on to the consumers. It’s truly astonishing to witness northern members from the opposition parties defending this tax despite its detrimental effects.

Speaker, can the associate minister please elaborate on the carbon tax’s negative impact on businesses in northern Ontario?

We have an affordability crisis in Ontario.

Interjections.

Interjections.

We have an affordability crisis here in Ontario. When this government was elected, they promised a 20% tax cut for the middle class. This government has been dragging its feet for six years. So what’s their priority? It’s certainly not the middle class. It’s not our most vulnerable. It’s not Ontarians on ODSP or at food banks, or those on surgical or autism services wait-lists.

But what do we have? We have an $8.3-billion greenbelt giveaway, now subject to an RCMP criminal investigation. We have a $650-million Therme spa parking lot, now under Auditor General investigation. Somehow there’s always enough for handouts to developer friends, but for Ontario families, the cupboards are bare. We have grocery chains and the fossil fuel industry gouging Ontarians.

Speaker, a question for the Premier: Will he keep his campaign promise and cut middle-class taxes?

The provincial government does have the most applicable tools to help the people of Ontario. If they wanted to, they could bring back rent control; they could raise ODSP; they could raise the Ontario Child Benefit. It’s not good enough to write letters if one has the power to actually ease people’s distress. Mr. Speaker, Ontarians are still waiting. They’re lining up at food banks. They’re struggling.

Apparently, the voters were wrong to take this government at its word; we know it, the RCMP knows it, and now Ontario knows it.

Will the Premier and his provincial government actually use some of the tools that they have available to them to help the people of Ontario and cut middle-class taxes?

To the parliamentary assistant, the member for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

The parliamentary assistant.

Start the clock. The member for Kanata–Carleton.

November is Women Abuse Prevention Month, and today our galleries are filled with advocates from the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses. They’re raising the same question again and again as violence against women has reached epidemic levels. We’ve asked your government to declare intimate partner violence an epidemic, like almost 70 municipalities have done, but you refuse.

Last year in Hamilton, police received 13,000 calls for intimate partner violence and almost 5,000 women and their children were turned away from shelter beds because they weren’t available—again, an epidemic of violence against women and your government refuses to increase their core funding, which has been frozen for over 15 years.

So it’s nice to see all of the government wearing their purple scarves, but we need to see more than that performative action. We need to see this government declare intimate partner violence and gender-based violence as an epidemic, and we need to see core funding increase after 15 years of frozen core funding.

These women are doing important work to keep our women safe. Will we ever see your government truly support women in this province: yes or no?

No woman should ever be subjected to violence, and through legislation and investments, our priority will always be to provide support to those impacted by violence, to prevent it before it happens, while ensuring that perpetrators responsible for the horrible crime of intimate partner violence are held accountable through the justice system.

When it comes to violence against women and children, we are focused on actions that deliver concrete and tangible results. That’s why we passed laws like Keira’s Law, some of which were the first of their kind in Canada, to make it harder to victimize women. That’s why we invest significantly in both violence prevention and supports to victims of violence—support programs like emergency shelters, counselling, 24-hour crisis lines, safety planning and transitional housing supports to help women escape abusive situations.

We’ve been working with our federal government on the gender-based violence national action plan, and we welcome municipalities to join us and end this horrible crime. Every woman has the right to live—

The ayes are 66; the nays are 30.

Supplementary question?

Deferred vote on the motion that the question now be put on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 146, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 146, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

The division bells rang from 1153 to 1158.

Interjections.

On November 28, 2023, Mr. Bethlenfalvy moved third reading of Bill 146, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes.

On November 28, 2023, Mr. Dowie moved that the question be now put.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Mr. Bethlenfalvy has moved third reading of Bill 146, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes.

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.

Call in the members. This is another five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

On November 28, 2023, Mr. Bethlenfalvy moved third reading of Bill 146, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The House recessed from 1211 to 1300.

Report continues in volume B.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. I’m hearing more and more from my constituents in rural communities that their day-to-day expenses have become increasingly unaffordable since the carbon tax was introduced. The sad reality is, individuals, families and businesses in rural communities are feeling more pressure from the negative impacts of the carbon tax.

Unfortunately, the independent Liberals and opposition NDP continue to ignore the serious consequences the carbon tax is having on real people—people from communities like Comber, Merlin, Highgate, Wheatley, Ridgetown. Can the minister please explain how our government supports rural communities during these challenging economic times?

The previous Liberal government neglected rural communities for 15 years, and their disrespect for rural Ontario continues to this day. It’s astonishing that the independent Liberals and opposition NDP continue to support the federal carbon tax and make fun of it, even when they’re well aware that it’s causing financial hardship for our families and friends. With the cost of everything increasing because of the carbon tax, people are paying more for transportation, groceries, and home heating, of course.

Can the parliamentary assistant please elaborate on how our government is making life truly more affordable for people in rural Ontario?

I just wanted to take a quick second and introduce some friends that came straight from Billy Bishop airport today: Ripudaman Dhillon; Manu Dutta; Joseph Neil Boucher—he’s a former dean at the University of Moncton; and the former Minister of Transportation of New Brunswick, Claude Williams. Welcome to the Legislature today.

I will reiterate that Ontario does have the safest roads in North America, and our government intends to keep it that way, Mr. Speaker. In fact, any time we have brought any measures in this House—through the budget, through the fall economic statement—to invest in road safety, to invest in highways like Highway 11, Highway 17, expanding highways, that member has voted against those measures every single time. We are opening up new rest areas on these highways, and that member voted against increasing safety and building more rest areas across the north.

We will continue to work with law enforcement and advocates in road safety to ensure that we continue to have the safest roads in North America.

We will continue to work with law enforcement and police officers across this province, as we have been, as we continue to have the safest roads in North America, and we will continue to invest in road safety.

I ask the member opposite, when we are making these investments in Highway 11 and Highway 17, when we increase investments for road safety in this province, that he support this government in those measures every single time.

When we are investing in the north, when we are investing in making those highways safer, increasing capacity on those highways, the NDP and the Liberals have voted no to each and every one of those investments.

We are going to continue to keep Ontario’s roads and highways safe.

Au premier ministre: Yesterday, the Minister of Transportation said Ontario has the safest highways in Canada. Speaker, it’s hard to grasp the meaning of that sentence when a Facebook group called “Hwy 11/17 kills people” exists. Just visit that page: hundreds of daily photos of drifted trucks and accidents, and videos of drivers passing on double solid yellow lines—both commercial and personal vehicles.

My question to the Premier: Will the government bring forward Chad’s Law and make passing double yellow lines illegal and penalized in Ontario?

Speaker, Mark Andrews, a retired OPP traffic inspector, said himself that the current legislation related to unsafe passing is a reactionary offence.

If my proposal becomes law, the OPP’s ability to educate drivers and enforce unsafe passing will be greatly enhanced. Again, to the Premier: Can you commit to passing Chad’s Law now?