I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 180, the budget bill, Building a Better Ontario. We all want and deserve a better Ontario, but I was a bit disappointed with this budget because I think it’s one that misses multiple opportunities. However, I’m one who believes there is no monopoly on a good idea. There were items in the budget that I liked, that I can support—but no time in this three minutes to list them all.

I’ll highlight the investments in municipal infrastructure, which are welcome, but I do hope that small towns and rural municipalities do see their fair share. I will be watching with interest how the funds will be allocated with respect to the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund, which, to this government’s credit, has been quadrupled. I know Haldimand, Norfolk and Six Nations will be putting forward an application for their regional water supply project.

Here’s where I felt Bill 180 could have been better: Honestly, I felt it needed to demonstrate greater fiscal restraint, with a focus on measures to getting key portfolios back on track. I’ll give you some examples.

The finance minister said the government is ready to build infrastructure like roads and bridges. The minister also pledged to build more long-term-care spaces. As we all know, that’s all well and good, but there are projects that were previously announced that still haven’t seen a shovel in the ground. Of course, everyone knows the people of Caledonia, the people of Haldimand county continue to wait for the reconstruction of the Argyle Street bridge.

An additional $2 billion over three years in home and community care—that’s great, but I am interested to see how these monies will be spent, because until the government pays those on the front line a competitive wage, I believe it’s all wasted money. A tree cannot stand if its roots are rotten. Similarly, more money for addictions and mental health—each year, more and more money being thrown at these critical issues, and yet, poorer results.

The same goes for autism supports: more money but no realignment of services that create real results for Ontario families. Sadly, no relief for those choosing between heating and eating; only crumbs for those needing an investment to base budgets in the developmental services sector; little help for the backbone of many of our small towns, our small businesses; and nary a mention of rural Ontario, our farmers or the ag sector. Many farmers were looking for a top-up of $100 million to the Ontario Risk Management Program.

At the conclusion, the document reads, “We are not stepping back from the investments that matter. Nor are we going to increase the burden on you.” This is rich, an inference of doing the taxpayer a favour when it’s our money that the government has spent, is spending and, in some cases, has and is mismanaging.

With respect to the deficit, it will more than triple to $9.8 billion despite promises last year that the books would be balanced by 2025. Speaker, I think we are headed full speed, sadly, toward a debt wall, and in the back seat sit our kids and maybe our grandkids too.

I noticed that the member made reference to keeping costs down and affordability. I had the opportunity to read the budget document, and in particular, pages 71, 72, 73 and 74. I noticed that there were a host of affordability measures in the budget, including—to me, and most importantly, in my view—keeping the price of gasoline reduced. This budget commits to extending the gas tax reduction, which is an 11-cent-per-litre reduction, extending it until December. I thought that was a very important measure to be taken in this budget because it saves a person who is driving a car 11 cents per litre on the price of gasoline, and that adds up, especially when you’re from a rural area and there are no mass transit systems.

Now, I’m from a rural area called Essex, and I know the member is from a rural area. I’d like to know whether she thinks that that 11-cent gas tax cut is going to help her rural residents.

I thank the member opposite for the question. Of course, any cost-savings measures will help our rural folks and will help Ontarians in general. But I will go back to the point that we can’t continue, when it comes to cost-savings measures—the member opposite talked about cost-savings measures. There are many instances and opportunities that this government could be taking in order to realign services, in order to put those monies that—we’ve got a $214-billion budget in front of us, the largest in the province’s history. I am a fiscal Conservative, and I’m not a believer that continuing to throw money at certain problems is always the answer, and I think that there could have been more work done in realigning services to create real results for Ontario families.

I’ll also talk about the fact that there was very little in this budget with respect to our farmers. I would have really liked to have seen the $100-million top-up to the Risk Management Program, which would have helped with succession planning for—

I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report entitled 2022-23 Interprovincial Budget Comparison, from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

This government insists on tightening the belt for everyone but themselves. They’ve cut the salaries of nurses and health care workers, teachers and education workers, even air ambulance drivers, but a quick look at the Premier’s office, and you will see his budget has exploded. His staff are being paid $6.9 million, the most expensive Premier’s office in history—not just in total, but 48 staffers are earning more than $100,000 every single year.

When this Premier was running for office, he said he’d be the one to stop the fat cats, to stop the gravy train, but he’s worse than any of his predecessors. Spending $6.9 million every year, the Premier is the most expensive Premier we’ve ever had, more than double any other Premier. When Ontarians face austerity, how will the Premier explain his runaway and self-serving expenses to the people of Ontario?

Now, it’s not a bad thing to reverse a bad decision, but you need to learn from your mistakes rather than continuing to follow an unintelligible ideology. “Measure twice, cut once” was my dad’s advice.

Why is the Premier okay with wastefully burning through Ontarians’ hard-earned tax dollars while expecting Ontarians to scrimp and save?