Thank you to the member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

You raise a good point about what kind of return you get on infrastructure. The previous Liberal government spent a lot of money, as we all know; I don’t think we saw much for that. We didn’t see efficient transit. We didn’t see schools being built; in fact, they were being closed—over 600, I believe, in the province at that time. Hospitals were in dire shape.

Investing in infrastructure is a long-term payoff. It helps people on a personal level when you have the hospitals and the facilities to be able to support them through their difficult times. It’s also an investment.

As you’ve mentioned, the roads that we are building and widening in the Windsor–Tecumseh area—that’s a critical border point, and having trucks be able to move more efficiently across the border will get goods to their market quicker, more efficiently and safely. It will also help families who are commuting and driving their kids to soccer practice or going back and forth to school or work. It’s going to let them get there safely. So it has a dual effect of being positive from a financial point of view but also on a personal and a family issue, as well.

I think it’s so symbolic that I get to start my one-hour lead on this particular budget for 2024 just as a solar eclipse will be hitting southwestern Ontario.

Interjection: Dark times.

Bill 180 obviously will have an impact on the people of this province.

I’m listening to the government members as they talk about the highways and the infrastructure; they leave out people a lot.

You can talk about opening a bed, but you certainly can’t open that bed without a nurse or without a health care worker.

So complicated is this relationship now between the people who serve the public and the Ford government that they’re actually moving further and further apart.

If you really want to build a strong province that’s inclusive, that’s reaching its potential, that’s meeting its climate change targets and that’s actually building on the spirit of the people of this province, you have to talk about people. And those people are still feeling the impacts of your unconstitutional piece of legislation, Bill 124. In fact, I would say that this province is going to be feeling the negative impacts of that wage theft—really, wage theft, and also wage control—in Bill 124.

It has been quite a day. I just want to start off by saying it was really powerful this morning—I was really pleased to welcome the Roth family to Queen’s Park. It has been emotional, because we all care so deeply about mental health. It’s one thing to care about an issue, but that caring and that compassion need to also translate into direct investments, into resources. As I’ve said many times in this House, when people have the courage to come forward and to ask for help, the system has to be there for them. We’ve done a lot of work on the stigma around mental health and mental illness, and so now people do feel like they can actually talk about their feelings, whether they’re farmers or construction workers or young people like Kaitlyn Roth. And those resources need to be there.

I want to thank the minister responsible for mental health. He did meet with the family after today’s question period. This is the third time we’ve met with that minister. I will tell you, as the Waterloo rep, the MPP, and also the finance and Treasury Board critic, I want that minister to have access to the funding that the government is promising, I want that funding to flow, and I want it to be a smart investment.

That’s why we’re so committed to the alternative destination for those who are suffering from mental health issues and a crisis. The emergency room is not the best place. From a basic, common sense perspective, I would hope that we could all agree that if you are in crisis, going to the emergency room and waiting 18 hours, with police there, with people in pain, with people in crisis—it’s not the best place. Let’s work together on this and redirect people to these alternative destination clinics, where people are trained, where they’re going to be met with compassion, where there’s going to be some empathy, where there are going to be some special strategies so that people feel supported—like Kaitlyn. When people fall through those cracks, we lose our potential as a province. I think that’s probably one of the most painful things about suicide. Kaitlyn was so talented and so smart. She wanted to work with special-needs children. Lord knows, we have a wait-list of 60,000 people who are on the autism spectrum who need that resource and need that compassion.

So I want to thank the members who were supportive this morning, and I want to thank the Roth family.

I also want to say a special happy birthday to my daughter. She’s 23 today. She’s navigating the world of retail. She’s a business leader with an American company here in Canada. And let me tell you, it’s not the best place to land as a young worker, but she’s learning some good lessons, and I’m very proud of her.

As I mentioned, the eclipse is set to happen very soon. I hope that everybody is being safe with regard to that. I want to thank the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo for sending me some guidelines and sending me some fancy glasses that you literally cannot see anything out of, which I think is the idea. We’re lucky to have the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo region as an anchor company that is doing some amazing work.

I do want to say, as we talk about this budget—and some members have heard me talk about this. Budgets really are moral documents. They really, truly tell the story of the priorities of the government of the day. They tell the story of where the money is going and/or where the money is not going. There are a lot of places, with this particular government, where the money is not going, where it needs to be going, which would actually save the province money down the line, and I’ll get to that in a second.

The need for government transparency is akin to the darkness before a solar eclipse, so you’re going to see how I’m going to tie this all together. What we have here in Ontario is a solar eclipse of common sense. And when I say common sense, there are good places to—

Interjection.

If I start singing Bonnie Tyler, we’re all in trouble here—which will not happen. A total eclipse of the sun. The hair in those days was really special.

The need for government transparency is akin to the darkness before a solar eclipse, highlighting the importance of shedding light on the government’s actions, for public scrutiny.

Boy, I’ve never seen a government that is so resistant to sharing what’s actually happening in Ontario—aside from the commercials that we’re all paying for that tell us this fairy tale where people can afford housing, where people can find jobs, where people can find a doctor, or ensure that you can go and get the appropriate mental health resources that you need.

This decline in transparency, particularly with this government, based on what I’m hearing from people in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, is a loss of trust. That loss of trust really started right from 2018, when the government who said, “We’re never going to interfere with municipal governments,” cut city council in half—during an election, at midnight, no less.

This was a government that said, “We’re tough on law and order,” and yet, we have a justice system that is failing to meet the needs of both victims and the accused, I would say, where a record number of court cases have been stayed. I’m particularly concerned about those sexual assault cases.

Last week, our critic to the Attorney General hosted a press conference here and had two victims of sexual assault come to this place and talk about how they were denied justice in Ontario.

When you deny justice, it’s really hard to be talking about being tough on crime, as this government likes to espouse.

And so, just as the solar eclipse reveals the hidden layers of the sun, this budget reveals that the government is failing to meet the needs of the most vulnerable in Ontario. I believe that to be true. I believe that when I tell people in Waterloo and demonstrate how this government is failing so—I would say they’re overachieving on the failing perspective. The people in Waterloo hear it. They see it. They feel it. They’re experiencing it. And I’m going to talk about some of those people.

Just as a little joke—how does the man in the moon cut his hair? Some people say, “How?” Eclipse it; they eclipse it—

Interjections.

I know it’s bad. It’s bad, and it’s in history now.

I see my colleague from Kitchener–Conestoga is get-ting ready for the total eclipse of the sun—and hopefully he doesn’t break out into song.

There are a couple of areas that I really want to highlight, just to pull us all back.

There is a tendency of this government to side on behalf of the private sector, which is ironic, because as parlia-mentarians we take an oath to serve the public with integrity and we put the public first.

One of the issues that has really resonated—and this kind of reminds me of back when the former Liberal Premier was saying, “We’re never going to sell off parts of hydro,” but then they did. Then, the hydro costs continue to go up because of the cost escalation.

My friend and colleague from Toronto–Danforth, who is our energy critic, has been following what has been happening with Enbridge and the decisions that this government is making on the energy file.

It would surprise most people in the province of Ontario to learn that the government is subsidizing energy costs to the tune of $7.8 billion. It’s steadily going up. It’s across the board. Everybody gets the subsidy. If you are a super rich person or if you’re a super poor person, you are getting the same energy subsidy. I’m pretty sure Galen Weston can pay his own energy bills. The government has never considered even a sliding scale to address true affordability measures.

What they are doing—and I’m just going to read directly from one of the op-eds that my colleague wrote—is that they’re busy breaking their own promise on energy and housing affordability. In the latest twist, this government “plans to pass legislation in February”—which is now before the House, before the committee, even today—“that will raise energy bills across the province and make life more expensive for new homebuyers.” Does this sound like a common sense thing to be doing in a cost-of-living crisis? Of course, it does not. Two of the highest drivers, really, for people in Ontario are the cost of housing, and then, of course, the day-to-day costs, like groceries, and I’m going to talk about that.

So this government is reversing an excellent decision by Ontario’s independent energy regulator, and I talked about this on the budget motion, because it defies all sense. Why would you not listen to the independent energy regulator when they’re saying this is in the best interests of the province of Ontario, which you should be interested in as well? It all goes back to a subsidy that most gas customers do not even know that they’re funding.

Right now, your gas bill is funding a huge subsidy worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year to cover the cost of expanding gas pipelines into new developments. Most people in Ontario don’t know this. On December 21, the Ontario independent energy regulator decided to put a stop to the subsidy because it raises energy bills for existing customers and new homebuyers, while also increasing financial risk for the whole gas system. In fact, the independent regulator highlighted stranded assets—because we’re building an energy sector in a way that they used to in the 1950s, not in 2024.

Ending the subsidy would save gas customers over $1 billion over four years in avoided pipeline subsidy costs, which comes to almost $300 per customer, plus interest profit payments paid by customers to Enbridge Gas on those amounts. Is this what the government is doing? No, they’re not doing that. They’re not going to try to save you $300 a year.

“Ending the subsidy will also encourage developers to install heat pumps”—which we heard at pre-budget committee would actually speed up housing starts. Is this government having great difficulty meeting your own housing start targets? Yes, you are. Do you need some help? You definitely need some help—“in new homes, which provide much cheaper heating and cooling, instead of gas,” for new homebuyers. So not only would these heat pump installations actually fast-track housing starts, which is a good thing; it would also provide cheaper heating and cooling for new homebuyers. Is this an affordability issue? Of course, it’s an affordability issue.

“Ending the subsidy would be a win-win-win-win,” said my friend and colleague from Toronto–Danforth. It would lower energy bills for existing customers. It would lower energy bills for new homebuyers. It would lower carbon emissions, and avoid even more cost down the road to convert away from fossil fuel heating in the houses built with heat pumps from the start.

This is a good plan that the independent regulator came forward with for Ontario.

There is, however, one loser in this whole issue, and that is Enbridge Gas. It would lose millions of dollars in profits, and shareholders might not make as much money as they wanted to. But Ontarians would save money. Who are we elected to serve? Ontarians, right?

So here we are. Enbridge Gas is right here. They were here this morning. They’re lobbying hard against the decision and have launched two challenges, so this government is going to be back in court, I guess. Its court challenge boldly complains that the decision will mean that, “Enbridge Gas has no right or ability to invest and earn a return on capital for new customer connections.” In other words, it will reduce their profits. So they are a company that is fighting for their profits.

I ask you, who is fighting to keep costs down for Ontarians? Not this government, because they have clearly sided with Enbridge Gas. In fact, the minister, MPP Smith, has announced that they will pass legislation to overturn this decision. The Ontario government seems to have been convinced that the change will reduce housing supply and affordability, but developers can just forgo gas and install heat pumps instead for little or no additional cost and sometimes even a savings. This could actually be good for developers as well, if developers are dedicated to actually building housing. But the question remains: Why should every other gas customer in Ontario be forced to pay to subsidize them to install this fossil fuel infrastructure and then be forced to pay Enbridge profits on top of that? Is this a fair situation for Ontario voters, for Ontario citizens? Absolutely not. Is the government truly showing their hand by siding with Enbridge? Absolutely.

This is what we also know—you can’t really get a clear answer from the government on this, but this is where we are right now: Gas is no longer the cheapest heating source. Investing in gas pipelines for heating is financially foolish because they will become obsolete as we decarbonize buildings. It is 2024; we should be talking about this. The government’s own expert electrification panel noted “growing indications that it is unlikely that the natural gas grid can be decarbonized and continue to deliver cost-effective building heat.”

Our neighbours—we hear a lot from the Premier about Texas, which always makes me want to break out into a Beyoncé song—like New York state and Montreal are prohibiting gas in new construction. I want to re-emphasize that: New York state is prohibiting gas in new construction.

Passing legislation to reinstate a subsidy is completely out of step and risks financial disaster down the road.

The Minister of Energy has clearly shown that he is on the side of Enbridge and not on the side of Ontarians who will face higher gas bills, instead of providing an opportunity of $300 in savings. Unfortunately, there are obviously major misconceptions about the broader issues, in part due to a great deal of misinformation. Right now, this is happening in committee, where this debate is happening.

Enbridge is fighting for their profits. We need the government to fight for the people, to keep those costs down.

We definitely think that the Ontario Energy Board made the right decision, based on evidence, to lower your energy bills. And we’re going to continue to raise these issues in this House.

What a perfect example, though, to clearly demonstrate who this government is working for.

We’ve seen some other escalations, if you will, in other ministries—particularly on health care. My God, we cannot afford to privatize health care any further. We’ve got to hold the line and we’ve got to walk it back; there’s no doubt about it. When this government spent $1 billion last year on agency nurses instead of hiring nurses in our acute-care and community care centres—this is not only fiscally irresponsible, but it is actually failing to meet the needs of communities.

I’ve talked about my future daughter-in-law. She’s a nurse—excellent, top of her class—working in the NICU, working with those little babies. Grand River Hospital is not hiring nurses. How can it be?

Clearly, choices are being made here around where the money is going to be spent or where the money is not going to be spent, but it certainly isn’t being invested in our health care human resources crisis.

The minister can talk about all the numbers she wants. Three emergency rooms were closed this weekend in southwestern Ontario. If you’re in a community and you need to go to the emergency room, you need that emergency room to be open. Surely we can agree on this. But in order for that emergency room to be open, you need to have nurses and medical professionals there.

What we have seen in Ontario is a mass migration of these very talented people, some of whom studied here, some of whom received support to study here, some of whom are very invested in medical research and the life sciences file. They’re leaving Ontario because Ontario is such a hostile place right now, in the health care sector.

When you talk to people who are in the health care system and they have an agency nurse working right alongside them and they can’t get a full-time job, but this nurse beside them is making twice or three times as much money—can you imagine what that does to morale? It is counterproductive. It’s counterintuitive. It’s fiscally irresponsible. I said this to the Minister of Finance—that we cannot afford $1 billion in agency nurses.

Let’s invest in human health resources in this province. Let’s demonstrate that we’re committed to retaining these people in the system, but also recruiting into the system. In order for that to be successful, the system can’t be broken; the system has to be a healthy place. That’s how you recruit back into the health care system.

These are very conscious, very committed decisions that the government is making. They refuse to close the loopholes on these private health care agencies that see the market here in Ontario because 2.3 million Ontarians don’t have a doctor. They see the loophole. The government sees the loophole. And now they’re charging anywhere between $450 a year to have access to a doctor, all the way up to $4,900.

In the public session in the public accounts earlier today, our health critic brought forward a motion and she said, “Let’s have the auditor look into this. Let’s follow the money.”

These agencies, let’s also remember, are being subsidized by OHIP, as well. So the taxpayers are funding the profit margins in these health care agencies. This is happening in Ontario. In fact, these health care agencies are popping up just as much as cannabis store clusters—Waterloo has about nine in a three-block radius; I don’t know what’s going on, exactly, with that. These businesses see a market share here in Ontario that has been intentionally created by this government.

When you purposefully create a crisis by not funding health care, you are, in turn, creating a whole new market share for for-profit health care. So that is happening.

In fact, we even have for-profit plasma centres opening up in one of the poorest areas in Hamilton. A European company has said, “Do you know what? They’ve done such a terrible job of promoting and supporting blood services in Ontario and in Canada that we’re going to go there and we’re going to offer to pay for plasma and pay for blood in the poorest neighbourhood, where people are the most desperate.” They’re the most desperate. They’re looking for some revenue because they’re poor. They’re easily—the argument can be made to them that they’re doing something good, but this is the new culture of Ontario, where we’ll buy anything. Anything is for sale in Ontario,, and it’s quite a development, I have to say.

The other thing is, here you have a government defending Enbridge and trying to hold their profit margins at a certain level through legislation, which even undermines the government’s own initiatives. And then Enbridge goes and cuts off rebates, leaving some homeowners on the hook for thousands in green renovation costs. This is bold. This is so bold, I would have to say, that Enbridge has said, “Do you know what? We’re not going to honour those rebates.”

This was just in the paper last week—that “most Ontarians’ carbon footprint is dominated by natural gas heating.” One lady decided to swap out her furnace for a heat pump. She applied for the government rebates. “Knowing there were $10,000 in government rebates available from the federal government and Enbridge Gas”—this was a partnership; it was a collaboration—they “went further with their renovation” to reduce their carbon footprint. They changed out their furnace for a heat pump; they upgraded some windows. And then what did Enbridge do? “We applied and we got confirmation to go ahead”—great, but then, when things were done and they had made commitments to contractors and thus, Enbridge said, “No, we’re not going to honour that commitment.”

So is this the new normal, where the government is not even protecting consumers on policies and programs that the government has negotiated?

One homeowner said, “This is a significant upfront cost to the homeowner. We’re not talking hundreds of dollars here”—we’re talking thousands. “Times are tough. Inflation is insane. Everyone’s mortgage is up for renewal and they’ve just put thousands of Ontarians in a really tough position to be able to manage these costs that they were not anticipating.”

So the energy minister is defending Enbridge, and then Enbridge is saying to people that they have agreed to have a contract around reducing their gas costs, that they’re not going to honour that commitment anymore. But who is the Minister of Energy going to bat for? He’s going to bat for Enbridge. You can’t even make it up.

This is an ongoing issue for Ontarians, who really feel abandoned by the government. The government is making very poor choices on the energy file, which is a huge cost to the province of Ontario. This speaks to priorities—and I feel like it’s getting darker. I think that it’s actually happening, and it does feel very symbolic to me, I have to tell you.

I’m going to talk a little bit about—and this is along the same theme of how the government is making decisions. We have all agreed in this House now, for years, that at 319 acres a day—the fact that we are losing these acres every single day in Ontario is not sustainable, nor is it a practice that any government should be endorsing or condoning.

In Wilmot township, farmers in that township just outside of Waterloo—not in my riding—in January, were approached by some developers who heard that 770 acres of prime agricultural land would be rezoned. It wasn’t in the official plan. If this sounds familiar—I’m already calling it greenbelt 2.0. The fact of the matter is that these farmers knew that they weren’t part of the official plan for development. The region has traditionally had a very balanced and positive relationship with farmers. We are an agricultural community. We believe that farmers feed cities. The citizens love the fact that we had a countryside line around the region which would focus our attention on building up, building smart, investing in the needed infrastructure, but not being wasteful with sprawl—more and more and more sprawl. So when this government rolled back their Bill 23 and the urban boundaries, and said, “Do you know what? We’re really, really sorry”—I just want to tell you, Madam Speaker, they weren’t that sorry, because they’re still carving out parcels of land and they’re making it available, bypassing the provincial environmental strategy, bypassing municipal plans, quite honestly. So this government has been very complicit and a willing participant, even though they were very sorry. They were sorry about the $8.3 billion in land acquisitions that some developers were going to benefit from. And we also know that this was never really about housing; right?

In Waterloo region now, we have farmers who are being forced off their land. They received lowball offers, somewhere around $35,000 per acre. But as soon as that one acre turns into an industrial proposition, it goes to $1 million? This is exactly what happened in the greenbelt—someone told someone who happens to be a developer that this land was now going to be industrial land, so it’s for economic development.

We also strongly believe that rural communities can be a strong partner in economic development, but, boy, it shouldn’t come at the cost of 770 acres of some of the best farmland in Ontario. These six farmers on this 770 acres—one of those families has been there since 1861. Out of nowhere, not part of any official plan, not part of any public consultation—no transparency whatsoever—farmers got a fellow, a third party from the States to come to them and say, “I’ll give you $35,000 for each acre, or you’re going to be expropriated by the region.”

Imagine being a contributor to the very fabric of our country and of our province and of our community, the very people we all espouse to say we respect and honour—this time-honoured tradition and profession of being stewards of the land and feeders of the city, and it’s $35,000 or you’re off, you’re expropriated. Forget that these are also six really productive family businesses.

Farming is a hard life; we can agree on this. There are not too many farmers in here, although I have worked with a couple over the years. They have to be tough, because it’s a tough profession.

The region has looked at the Get It Done piece of legislation, and schedule 1, which eases the onerous red tape—I guess, if you will, or blue tape—of expropriating land without an environmental assessment that meets the needs of the conservation authorities. They usually are consulted. Of course, the conservation authorities in Ontario have really been cut off at the knees, if you will. They’re not even consulted on key environmental decisions that are happening. Nobody even asked them, “What about the flood plain? What about the aquifer?”

I just want to say at the very top of this that economic development does not have to come at the cost of prime agricultural farmland. This is a false choice, and it’s a choice that this government doesn’t want to even talk about. Most of regional council have signed nondisclosure agreements, so these farmers don’t even have anybody to ask a question like, “What’s going to be developed on there? How thorough was the environmental assessment?”

While this 770 acres is not directly over the aquifer, it’s 200 metres away from it. And I don’t know if you know this, Madam Speaker, but water doesn’t just go down; water moves. We know this.

We have the knowledge, we have the power to make the right decisions, and yet this government brings forward legislation that is so open to the overriding of basic rights.

I’ve said this: Something is fundamentally unjust about what’s happening to farmers in Wilmot right now. I don’t know how you would feel if someone came to your farm and said, “Do you know what? An undisclosed industrial project is needed, and therefore you must leave your land.” It would be cartoonish if it wasn’t so very serious—because 80% of the drinking water that Waterloo region accesses is from the moraine; it is from the ground. So we are very protective of our source water protection; we have to be. We cannot afford to have a pipeline to Lake Erie or Lake Huron. Nobody wants that. The smart investment is to ensure that we become true stewards of the land.

In 2024, the fact that this government is so complicit in the paving of 770 acres of prime farmland, knowing the history of what has happened around water in the PC Party is astounding to me. It is so—it’s not even the 1950s; it’s like the 1850s here. Do you know what I mean?

I’ve written to the Premier. I know the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has asked the province to intervene, to pause and take a sober second thought, because once this land is gone, it is gone forever.

No consultation; no transparency; strong-arming farmers; no environmental assessment that we can see, that we can build some confidence in; and also a lack of process. Like, where else could this rumoured electric vehicle battery plant go? Do you know what I know for sure? You can’t eat an electric vehicle battery.

We definitely need to be focused on food security. If we’ve learned anything from the pandemic and having to be dependent on other jurisdictions, we need to be self-sufficient as a province. We need people to understand that the province is supportive of farming and of farms. We need new generations to look at that profession and that trade with some confidence that this is going to be something that the province of Ontario actually supports. We’re moving in the opposite direction—and it is getting darker, just on cue, for sure.

Total eclipse of the sun.

LCBO paper bags.

Is there a siren?

The Premier, though, has really taken a very principled stand on a very important issue. When you go to the LCBO tomorrow, you’ll be able to get a brown paper bag. This is where his focus has been. He has asked the LCBO to reverse the fact that they weren’t giving you brown paper bags. This is—

Interjections.

When I tell people and sometimes show people what’s actually happening in this place, honestly, it doesn’t instill a lot of confidence.

Never fear, though; we’ve got some really good commercials—and it’s all happening here. You’re footing the bill for it, Ontarians.

I’m sure when you are one of the people who is waiting an average of 12 hours in an emergency room and that TV up in the corner is just on replay and you see this commercial where people are buying their first house or even moving into a rental place or—

I don’t know what is actually going on over there around priorities, but this province has never spent so much money and given so little to the people of Ontario.

The cost of where you are, the cost of these poor decisions on the people of this province—particular y in education, I want to say, just for a second—is having a huge impact. Our critic on the post-secondary education file, this morning, asked a really excellent question of the Premier because his comments last week, when they were opening another medical school, were—sure, this is great. We do have qualified people in Ontario that have come from other countries that can’t be working in the medical field.

I’m thinking of the head of security at my building here in Ontario; his name is Mohammed. He’s a renal specialist from Pakistan. When I first met him—six years ago now—that’s exactly when the government froze the minimum wage. We calculated how much he lost by that freezing of the minimum wage: $7,000. He has five children and he’s a doctor, okay? He’s a doctor working as a security officer, and he wants to go back to medical. He wants to get his qualifications here in Ontario.

Do you know how hard it is in Ontario if you’re a foreign-trained medical professional to access your potential? Is this a place where the government is focusing some energy and some resources and some funding? Of course not, no, but a shiny new medical school with a ribbon cutting is going to be great.

But at that ribbon cutting, the Premier had some very strong words when he was mentioning international students that are training. I can’t remember the exact quote, but he was like, “I just want kids from Ontario to go to these schools.”

It’s important to remember that all of us are immigrants in Ontario, except with First Nations Indigenous people—and cue my colleague from Kiiwetinoong walking by as I say that. They’re the first peoples; the rest of us are immigrants.

And there’s a siren too.

Settlers.

We’ll go to questions.

I just picked up on the last sentence of the member’s one-hour presentation on the budget, and she talked about a government that has no transparency. I would like to ask the member opposite why is it, then, that the Auditor General, who was here under both the previous Liberal administration and ours, who served for 10 years under different administrations, where every single Liberal budget, every single Liberal legislation that went through with respect to energy costs was condemned by the Auditor General—this government has had six clean audits. Let me repeat that: six clean audits. So, I beg to differ. I don’t know what the member opposite’s talking about. To me, that’s transparency.

Whatever.

The cap-and-trade program, honestly, was very focused on the highest industrial polluters and then that funding would go back to the greening—investing back in those businesses, in that manufacturing. I mean, based on how few times we’ve seen climate change in the budget, it’s almost like you’ve got your head in the sand on this one, because the smart money is on conservation, the smart money is on strategic investment.

And the lack of transparency around the funding in this place—really, I’m just going to circle back to this—is very key to the undermining of our democracy, which I see and I feel we are seeing in real-time at Queen’s Park; way worse than the Liberals I have to say—way worse. When you have a Minister of Energy overriding public good to benefit a corporation like Enbridge, you have lost the plot and this budget does not meet the moment. If you were looking for support from this government around affordability, it is not in Bill 180, I give you that much.

Let’s remember that the Auditor General has one job, and that is to follow the money that has been spent, right. The female or the male auditor does not have purview of looking at where the money was spent well or where it was spent where it was needed. The mandate of the Auditor General has been challenged many times by this government. In fact, I would ask the member why has this Conservative government doubled down on the watered-down advertising policy that you criticized the Liberals for?

The Auditor General can only work within their mandate; I will tell you that much. Why is it that the Financial Accountability Officer and their expenditure monitor say that when you say you’re going to invest $5 million to the Alzheimer’s Society and that money doesn’t flow for 2021, 2022, 2023, that number is an atrocious record of this government? You say you’re going to invest and then you don’t get the money out the door. I mean, that is a failure of leadership, if I’ve ever seen it.

If a government has a choice before them to do the right thing for the people who we’re elected to serve, to make sure that the public as a whole is getting good value for money, that the money from a return on investment is ensuring that we have healthier people in the province, why would they then look to agency nurses, agencies who—many are publicly traded. Why would that be okay with the government to pay that nurse three times what a hospital nurse or acute-care nurse is making on the floor? In what Conservative fiscal world does that make any sense, paying three times as much for not having consistent care?

I mentioned my future daughter-in-law works alongside agency nurses. The agency nurse comes in as a temp, right? There’s no team. There’s no coordination of care. And she’s dealing with the smallest, most vulnerable babies in Waterloo region. It makes no sense, and it’s fiscally irresponsible, I would argue.

There is no doubt that you are moving completely in the wrong direction, and at the end of the day, this budget does not meet the needs of Ontarians. In fact, you’re doubling down on natural gas, which the independent regulator has said will leave us with stranded assets. You are setting this province up to fail on the energy file, and it should come back to bite you.

Thank you to the member for Waterloo on her debate. I always enjoy listening to her debate on the budget.

One of the things that stood out to me in this budget is the $1 billion that has been spent on agency nurses. That is a balloon of a massive increase of spending for agency nurses. There is a role for agency nurses, but it is exploding. How it has exploded is that instead of having nurses with a regular income and a 40-hour week, they’re hiring agency nurses that charge about double, and a lot of that money goes to the profit of these private companies. It’s a way for public money—your OHIP card—to be spent on private agencies and to fatten their pockets.

Could the member explain why in the world the Conservative government, if they were for the little guy, wouldn’t put a stop to this and curtail this back down so it wasn’t a balloon of $1 billion?

My question to the member opposite. I’ve heard her comments being very dismissive of this government’s environmental record, and I’d draw her attention to the AG’s report of May last year, in which the Auditor General said that we are 90% of our way to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030.

We also know that this government is partnering to green our steel industry, which is some of our largest emitters. In this budget, we’re committing $20 million to the Greenlands Conservation Partnership, which since 2019 has amassed 168,000 hectares of green space. That’s 20% of the size of the greenbelt. We’re committing $24 million to the innovative Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy, and we’re committing $6.4 million to protect and restore the Great Lakes shorelines, which is very important to my community.

So my question to the member opposite is, will she admit that this government and Ontario are leading Canada in greenhouse gas emissions targets, and based on this budget we’ll continue to do that and we’ll exceed our targets?

I’d like to thank my seatmate from Waterloo for her presentation, especially the remark that this is a total eclipse of common sense. We’ve seen so many policy reversals from this government that they’re stuck in reverse. It’s almost as though, with Bill 180, I’m wondering what they’re also going to do a one-eighty on when it comes to these decisions. We do see, however, great help towards Enbridge and sprawl developers.

Now, the government recently created a $300,000 state-controlled media studio, complete with teleprompters so Conservative staffers could think for the ministers, you know, to put in and type their answers up onscreen. Was this investment a priority for Ontarians at this time?

I did get asked in a scrum about a week ago about this, and yes, the government decided that they needed another media studio. It’s a cost of $300,000 to $350,000. It’s a very controlled environment, where the media can only ask one question and one follow-up question. The media as a whole feel like this is just another way for the government to avoid accountability and transparency—which, this government is now fully embracing the lack of accountability and transparency. And so, no, the people of this province did not put out a call-out for a bunker media studio over in the finance building, where the media have to go in order to hear what the government is doing. That is not how an open and transparent government works. One would even say you’re not even open for business on the media part.

I will say that what we heard is that municipalities, through Bill 23, identified a $1-billion loss every year for infrastructure. So the fact that the government is coming back with $1.3 billion is really a bit of a shell game, right? You’re taking that $1 billion a year away from municipalities through the loss of development fees. Developers are happy about that. But then you’re subsidizing that infrastructure cost with taxpayer dollars, so people in Ontario get to pay twice, really, for these infrastructure promises.

What I will say is that there’s so much room for improvement with municipalities right now. They are hungry for some leadership. But they are also, as I indicated with Wilmot, moving—the lack of transparency around housing developments right now is a real problem, and in Wilmot, paving over 770 acres of prime agricultural land is very problematic for us.

I want to thank the member opposite for her comments. Actually, 60 minutes—well done.

Coming back from my previous role as a Tecumseh town councillor, the barrier for us to build more housing was access to infrastructure. This budget has $1 billion to the Municipal Housing Infrastructure Program allocated. That’s going to be a game-changer in communities like mine, where housing is in short supply, the municipality is not wealthy enough to finance it on their own, and developers really are small-town, smallish developers that can’t up-front the money. So do you see this as being a worthwhile investment to get shovels in the ground on new housing?

I move adjournment of the debate.

This is a strategy to invest in the economy, to create good jobs and to build a better Ontario. This plan invests in the future of Ontario—our children—and for them, we will spare no effort to get it done. This budget is an honest appraisal of the challenges facing Ontario, assessing the current political landscape and charting an optimistic course forward for the people, the businesses and the communities of our great province.

Like the rest of the world, Ontario continues to face economic uncertainty due to circumstances beyond our control. These include high interest rates and global instability. We know how these challenges affect Ontario families and Ontario businesses. High inflation and high Bank of Canada interest rates have pushed costs up. Families have struggled with mortgage rates, rents and grocery prices. With increased costs, families feel immense pressure and face difficult choices in their day-to-day lives. Our small businesses, the backbone of our economy and the creators of well-paying jobs, have trouble coping with inflationary pressures and high interest rates. We know this all too well.

These factors also have a profound effect on the province’s finances. The province does project deficits in 2024-25 and 2025-26, but our plan includes a path to balance the budget in 2026-27. And, Speaker, this government, under the leadership of the Premier, is resilient. We look to the future with confidence as we continue to work hand in hand with Ontarians to build the Ontario of tomorrow.

We are investing in the future, in growth, infrastructure, economic development and local communities across Ontario, and our government takes pride in the fact that this will be done without raising taxes or without raising fees.

This budget is a commitment to the people of Ontario that this government has their backs and will continue to make principled decisions to help our province moving forward. This instills confidence in our markets and tells the world that Ontario is strong and Ontario is a leader and that this government is making the smart investments we need to become better than ever. Our budget is a plan to build by investing to attract better jobs, to build roads, highways and public transit while keeping costs down for families and businesses.

Speaker, the province of Ontario created almost 900,000 net new jobs over the past three years—the fastest growth on record. Our strengthened economy is estimated to be on track to boost employment growth over the next three years.

As the Minister of Finance indicated, inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, is projected to remain under 3% this year and then reduce to 2% over the following two years.

Our government, under the leadership of the Premier, is leading the charge in ensuring that Ontario’s economy is prosperous. We are making sensible choices and we are sticking to our plan to get it done for all Ontarians. We are keeping taxes low, cutting red tape and investing in our workers. It is this government that is taking on the responsibility of building Ontario.

Speaker, we do frequently debate about infrastructure in this House. We do so because of our government’s unwavering commitment to build the vital infrastructure that Ontario needs—an infrastructure that serves as the backbone of a thriving society and the foundation upon which economic growth, job creation and community development are built.

Our government understands the pivotal role that robust infrastructure plays in connecting communities, fostering innovation and enhancing the overall quality of life for our residents and citizens.

Let me review some of the ways that we are doing that, as set out in this budget for 2024: By 2046, the population in the greater Golden Horseshoe is expected to reach 15 million—close to the population of the entire province today. This will result in growth by approximately one million new residents every five years. We must act now to build the roads, the highways, the bridges and the public transit that our growing province needs. That means tackling gridlock and saving commuters time by advancing critical highway projects like the new Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass. It means expanding existing, in-demand highways like Highway 401 and Highway 7, supporting the construction of new interchanges and improving roads, highways and bridges in communities all across Ontario.

My ministry, Speaker, is also playing a vital role in the building of new infrastructure through Bill 153, the Building Infrastructure Safely Act, which passed this House unanimously earlier this year and received royal assent on March 6. This will create a catalyst for the positive change that our province needs, one that ensures that our infrastructure projects are pillars of strength for future generations to come.

Our government has also taken the steps in keeping costs low for drivers by proposing to ban any new tolls on new and existing provincial highways. This ban would also apply to the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner Expressway, once uploaded to the province. This government, of course, already removed of the tolls on Highways 412 and 418 in April 2022, during the term of the 42nd Parliament.

It has also been two years since our government’s removal of licence plate renewal fees and stickers for passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, motorcycles and mopeds. This change has resulted in annual savings of $120 for vehicle owners in southern Ontario and $60 each year for vehicle owners in northern Ontario. And with Bill 162, the Get It Done Act, we are reaffirming our pledge to ensure affordability and to reduce costs and burdens by enshrining into law the freeze on Ontario driver licence and photo card fees.

We are also making the entire licence renewal process automatic, providing convenience and saving precious time for all citizens and residents of the province. It is important to note, Speaker, that until automatic renewal is enabled vehicle owners still do need to renew their licence plates, but, obviously, at no cost. They can do so online or in person at one of our ServiceOntario centres. Renewing licence plates is one of over 55 of our government services now available to Ontarians online 24/7 through ServiceOntario. It is one of the many ways we have improved ServiceOntario’s service delivery, along with an appointment-booking system to book multiple services in a single appointment or even a single appointment for the whole family. My ministry and ServiceOntario are committed to continuing to make strides to make it more convenient for citizens to access vital government services, and we will continue to evolve these services to best support Ontarians in our ever-changing and increasingly digital landscape.

Our budget is also supporting the largest transit expansion in North America. This includes bringing back two daily weekday train trips on the Milton GO line and moving forward with our plan to provide two-way all-day GO service to Milton.

Closer to home, this budget has provided funding to improve and expand GO train service to Bowmanville in my riding of Durham. With Durham’s population growing, especially for commuters to Toronto, this service would help them get where they need to be faster, while at the same time saving precious time to focus on what matters to our fellow citizens and residents and their families.

We are also bringing fast and reliable transit to downtown Mississauga and Brampton by expanding the Hazel McCallion light rail transit line, including a two-kilometre extension and a loop through to Confederation Parkway.

Four major subway projects in the GTA are under way. These include the Ontario Line, the three-stop Scarborough subway extension, the Yonge North subway extension into York region and the Eglinton Crosstown West extension, with a planned connection to Pearson international airport, one of the largest employment areas in Canada.

We are funding construction of station and track improvements to restore the Northlander. To restore the Northlander is a key part of our government’s plan. This passenger rail service between Toronto and northern Ontario was ended by the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, and we are bringing it back.

We are keeping costs down and saving daily public transit riders on participating systems an average of $1,600 a year. That is an accurate figure of $1,600 a year—tremendous savings for individual commuters. This savings of $1,600 per year is through our government’s newly enacted One Fare program, and I congratulate both our Minister of Transportation and our Associate Minister of Transportation for rolling that out.

Our students and seniors, as well as all transit riders, will only have to pay once to transfer between GO Transit, the TTC and other participating transit systems in the GTA. Cross-boundary travel in our province has never been more affordable and has never been just as convenient as this.

Speaker, I have mentioned previously how fast Ontario’s population is growing: More than five million more people will be living in the province over the next 20 years, and that’s a conservative estimate. It may well be more. We welcome all the newcomers, and we have to be ready for them because Ontario’s strength is newcomers.

Not only do we need more road and transit capacity; we need more homes, and we need more infrastructure to support new home developments. Beyond highways and transit, beyond housing and hospitals, investments in infrastructure affect every aspect of our province’s future growth. It is why we are aggressively working to attract more investment in all of the province’s infrastructure needs.

The Building Ontario Fund will help build more projects in areas like clean energy generation, long-term care and student housing. At the Darlington nuclear plant in my riding of Durham, we are moving forward with adding three additional small modular reactors. This will help our government move forward with the mandate of clean energy and keeping costs low for the citizens and residents of Ontario. We’re starting with an allocation of $3 billion, Speaker, and the fund will create opportunities for pension funds to put their members’ investments to work right here in Ontario.

We are also supporting Ontario’s mining sector by investing an additional $15 million over three years in the Critical Minerals Innovation Fund to help the sector undertake research and development and commercialize innovations. The economic potential of the critical minerals in the Ring of Fire is enormous, and our government has made it a goal to take advantage of Ontario’s natural resources for positive purposes.

We want to help power Ontario’s electric vehicle battery supply chains. By unlocking minerals mined in Ontario, we will power electric vehicles. These vehicles will be built in new Ontario factories by Ontario workers, purchased in Ontario and around the world. Our government has made massive investments into EV battery production, including a $7-billion investment for a new Volkswagen plant in St. Thomas to manufacture cars with clean and renewable energy.

We are also increasing the Northern Energy Advantage Program to a total of $167 million in 2024-25 and $206 million annually in 2025-26 and 2026-27. We are helping eligible large industrial operators manage electricity costs and create good jobs in northern Ontario. Ontario needs this sector to prosper, Speaker, as new jobs are created and skilled workers in this province are needed to fill these new jobs.

Speaker, this government is investing in our skilled workers with an additional $100 million in 2024-25 alone in the Skills Development Fund training stream. There are rewarding careers in the skilled trades, and this government is investing in the young people ready to take on this challenge, this new vocation, this new path to prosperity.

Speaking of education, the budget supports the growth of young minds with an investment of close to $172 million for the 2024-25 school year. This is for targeted math and reading supports and an updated kindergarten curriculum, starting in just a year and a half, in September 2025. An investment of $23 billion over 10 years, including about $16 billion in capital grants, will help build, expand and renew schools and child care spaces right across Ontario.

This includes $1.3 billion for the current school year to support the construction, repair and renewal needs of schools. This investment helps our citizens and residents across the province, including in my riding of Durham. We have provided funding for a brand new public elementary school in Bowmanville, and we’ve also added a brand new edition to St. Anne Catholic Elementary School in North Oshawa. As previously mentioned, this budget is working toward the future; that is why this government is investing in our youth.

We are also supporting families and students across Ontario by extending the tuition freeze at Ontario’s publicly assisted colleges and universities for at least three more years. And to help Ontario communities grow and thrive, we introduced a $200-million investment in an application-based Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund to strengthen communities across Ontario.

Speaker, our government is supporting the health and well being of children, families and seniors. That means continuing our substantial investments in our health care system. The 2024 budget affirms our support for hospital expansion, the largest in the province’s history; $50 billion over the next 10 years, and that includes close to $36 billion in capital grants.

We are investing an additional $965 million this year alone, including a 4% increase in total base hospital funding, committing $620 million over 10 years to allow health care system partners to address urgent infrastructure renewal needs.

We know also how important it is to have a primary care provider, and we are investing in more family doctors, including the investment in a new medical school at York University with a primary focus on training family doctors; and $128 million over the next three years to support enrolment increases of 2,000 registered nurses and 1,000 registered practical nurses.

One of our mandates is improving mental health and addiction services, and so an additional $396 million investment over three years is at hand. As noted in the budget, we are providing support to about 100,000 low-income seniors by expanding the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income System Program. And we are increasing public safety, investing in fighting auto theft with an investment of $49 million and $46 million over three years to purchase four police helicopters.

This is a testament to our government’s commitment to all aspects of what we need to build and shape a future of progress in prosperity.

Next question?

I recognize the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery.

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

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Interjection: On division.

Second reading debate adjourned.

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 8, 2024, on the amendment to the motion regarding amendments to the standing orders.

Mr. Fraser has moved that the motion be amended as follows:

By deleting everything from “Standing order 115(b)” to “Standing order 115(f) is deleted” inclusive; and

By inserting the following: “Standing order 35(g) is amended by adding, ‘In addition to the Speaker’s allotment of questions to independent members under this standing order, the Speaker may also allot to independent members the slots for what would otherwise be the third and fifth questions allotted to government members.’”

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

The motion is lost.

Mr. Jones, Chatham-Kent–Leamington, has moved government notice of motion number 24 regarding amendments to the standing orders.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 8, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 180, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 180, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

Thank you for your presentation. Moving on to questions, please.