My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, we all know that access to affordable child care is a huge determinant of women’s labour participation. Affordable child care in this province could add nearly 100,000 more women to Ontario’s labour force. And yet, at every turn, this government has neglected and underfunded the rollout of affordable child care in this province. Every space that is unopened due to the government’s lack of a funding formula or staff shortages due to low wage impacts a family, a mother looking to earn an equitable wage.

Will the Premier commit to properly funding child care so that women who can work will be able to access equal pay in the child care workforce?

My question is also to the Premier.

In Ontario, caregiver jobs are predominantly filled by women in crucial sectors like health care, long-term care, education, developmental services and child care. Those women are often primary caregivers for their own families too. And yet, we see a disheartening lack of progress in closing the gender pay gap. In fact, the government brings in legislation like Bill 124 to suppress the wages of those workers. Frankly, women are tired of waiting.

This government’s failure on affordable child care has resulted in limited spaces and long wait-lists, which we know further disproportionately impacts women in the workforce.

Speaker, when will this government get serious about closing the gender pay gap and begin building a child care system where workers are paid fairly and the system is accessible and affordable for all women?

My question is for the Associate Minister of Small Business.

The federal Liberal government has been collecting billions of dollars in carbon tax from small businesses and has promised those same small businesses that they would receive rebates. With $1.3 billion owed in rebates, we have yet to hear the carbon tax queen, Bonnie Crombie, and her Liberal Party call on their federal buddies for a plan to pay Ontario businesses back. But it’s not surprising, considering her inaction during the recent carbon tax hike.

While the Prime Minister and the Ontario Liberals bizarrely claim this damaging tax hike will benefit future generations, our government knows what Ontarians really need is an end to this disastrous tax.

Can the associate minister explain how the carbon tax hike provides no environmental benefit but risks harming our economy? Will she tell us how it hurts future generations of Canadians?

Speaker, the Liberals in this Legislature could not be more out of touch with the struggles of everyday Ontario business owners. Despite estimates showing that every Ontario business is owed between $2,600 and nearly $7,000, the Liberals in this Legislature think they’re “better off” with this carbon tax. And when their leader was asked if she would stand up for Ontario businesses to her federal counterparts, she said she was not going to “tell the federal government how to do their job.” That’s not what Ontarians expect from their elected officials.

It’s clear that the Ontario Liberals won’t stand up for Ontarians.

So, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the associate minister: How is our government standing up for the job creators and the small businesses affected by this regressive carbon tax?

More women are working today as a consequence of our government’s commitment to reduce child care fees, after they exploded by 500% under the former Liberals—$50 a day; today, under our Progressive Conservative government, it’s at $23, on the way down to $10 a day. That is an achievement that makes a difference to supporting women and mothers and supporting more of them in the economy. And we’re going to keep doing this. We’re going to keep reducing fees, even if New Democrats oppose our historic reduction. We’re going to keep increasing spaces, even if Liberals oppose our budgets, which commit to 86,000 more spaces for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, we’re going to keep increasing wages—a 19% increase in year one; $1 per hour per year, every year thereafter. That’s a commitment to support our workers, our families, our economy.

Let’s do this. Let’s keep cutting fees for the people of this province.

We cut fees, saving families $10,000 to $12,000 in Windsor, and the member opposite from the New Democrats had the gall to vote against a 50% reduction. This is a member who opposed a 19% increase in ECEs; this is a member who opposed 86,000 spaces, with thousands of net new spaces for Windsor-Essex families—taking one position in the House and another position in Windsor.

Why doesn’t she stand up in her place and stand with affordable, accessible child care for the people of Ontario?

My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Across the world, governments have taken a more active role in trying to secure investments that will strengthen their economy for decades to come. Since we took office, under the leadership of Premier Ford, we’ve restored Ontario’s competitiveness so that, once again, we can compete on that global stage.

But with the federal government’s carbon tax, they’re putting all of our progress at risk. Their tax is driving up costs across the board, at a time when workers and businesses are already grappling with inflationary pressures and higher interest rates. We’ve seen businesses and workers come into our province in massive numbers, and now the federal Liberals want to push them out.

Can the minister explain how the federal Liberal carbon tax is putting the economic progress we’ve made as a government at risk?

I’m proud to introduce legislation that protects consumers from corporate gouging when it comes to maintenance and repairs on heavy farming equipment, wheelchairs, motor vehicles, electronic products and household appliances. This legislation is better known as Right to Repair. This bill is co-sponsored by the MPPs from Timiskaming–Cochrane as well as Parkdale–High Park.

This legislation would require manufacturers of electronic products, household appliances, wheelchairs, motor vehicles and heavy farming equipment to make the following available to consumers and repair businesses: the most recent version of the repair manual; replacement parts; software and tools used for diagnosing, maintaining or repairing their products; and tools for resetting an electronic security function if it is disabled during diagnosis, maintenance or repair.

The bill would enable our farmers to have access to repair manuals and parts for equipment that they have purchased. Furthermore, the manufacturer must also provide the repair manual at no charge or, if a paper version is requested, at a reasonable cost. It would require the manufacturer to provide the replacement parts, software and tools at a fair cost.

There’s too much heckling in here.

Order. Order.

The opposition will come to order.

Interjection: They get all excited when we talk about raising taxes.

Interjections.

Please start the clock.

Minister of Economic Development.

The member for Thunder Bay–Superior North, on a point of order.

There being no further business this morning, this House stands in recess until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1145 to 1500.

Report adopted.

Mr. Rakocevic moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 187, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, 2023 with respect to the right for consumers to repair consumer electronic products, household appliances, wheelchairs, motor vehicles and farming heavy equipment / Projet de loi 187, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2023 sur la protection du consommateur en ce qui concerne le droit des consommateurs de réparer les produits électroniques, appareils ménagers, fauteuils roulants, véhicules automobiles et équipements agricoles lourds grand public.

First reading agreed to.

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak to a petition being tabled today, titled “Vulnerable Persons Alert.” This petition is calling on the government to push Bill 74 through the justice policy committee and back to the Legislature, which would ensure that people who are vulnerable and have gone missing in their communities make their way home safely to their families.

This bill is also hand in hand with the over 100,000 people who have signed online petitions, one calling for a “Draven Alert,” which was due to the death of a young boy with autism; secondly, for a senior in my community of Hamilton. Her name was Shirley Love and she went missing, had dementia and was found days later, unfortunately, deceased. This bill would absolutely ensure that the community was aware that someone was missing in their local geographic area and hopefully bring them home safely.

I wholeheartedly support this petition, will affix my name to it and give it to page Simon to bring to the Clerk.

The petition is to raise social assistance rates. We know that people who are on social assistance in the province of Ontario are living in legislated poverty. The lack of funds does not even cover the rent, and we are seeing so many people end up in food banks.

There were 230 organizations that signed a letter to the minister and to the Premier asking them to double social assistance rates. People on Ontario Works have not seen an increase in over a decade—$733 a month, as we all know, is impossible to be able to rent safe, affordable housing, and people on ODSP are truly not much better at $1,308 with minimal increases.

I wholeheartedly support this petition, will affix my name to it and give it to page Audrey to bring to the Clerk.

I’ve received many requests over the years, and in particular one group called Parent Finders of Canada. They reached out to me because they wanted to express how important it is that adoptees who have biological parents who have deceased are able to access their heritage and their family lineage. Right now, the legislation doesn’t allow for people to find that out, but our petition proposes that we give post-adoption birth information. That separates the immediate family members and prohibits the children of deceased adopted people from gaining access and knowledge of their identity and possibly their Indigenous heritage. So this petition allows them to do that when their biological parents or next of kin is deceased.

I fully support this petition. I will give it to page Shylah to deliver to the table.

I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on the Interior and move its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 165, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 respecting certain Board proceedings and related matters / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario en ce qui concerne certaines instances dont la Commission est saisie et des questions connexes.

I would like to introduce Judy and Rick from my great riding of Perth–Wellington, and Aunt Marilyn, as well, who is here from Toronto—it’s an okay place.

I’d also like to recognize Judy. She has worked in the member for Wellington–Halton Hills’s constituency office for 33 years, and I believe she is most likely the longest-serving staff to an MPP currently in Ontario.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Applause.

Back to the minister: The people of Ontario and, quite frankly, the people across our country have been loud and clear in their opposition to the carbon tax. It doesn’t matter where we are in the province; everyone is telling us that the federal government needs to scrap the carbon tax. We know the members opposite are hearing the same things in their riding. And yet, like their counterparts, they’re not moving forward to scrap the tax.

Bonnie Crombie, just like Justin Trudeau—they are all the same. They’re out of touch. They’re not listening to their constituents.

Minister, please tell the House why it’s so important that the federal government scraps that tax.

Recently, I had the opportunity to tour Ark Aid Street Mission’s Cronyn-Warner site. I’d like to dedicate these petitions on behalf of Rob, who told us his story about finally having a place to be safe and to be warm. The petition is entitled “London’s Urgent Homelessness Crisis.”

In this petition, Speaker, it talks about how the shelters are running over 100% capacity on a daily basis, that there are almost 2,000 people on the homelessness registry and that there are over 300 Londoners experiencing chronic homelessness. What this petition calls for is this government to actually invest in affordable housing, supportive housing, those vital wraparound supports we hear a lot of talk about but less action upon from this government in particular to make sure that people have the supports that they require so that they can be safe, they can rebuild their lives and they can contribute to our community in the ways that they know that they can.

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and deliver it with page Shiara to the Clerks.

This petition is entitled “Improve Ontario’s Child and Youth Mental Health Services.” What it calls for is this government to actually make significant investments to make sure that children and youth are able to access mental health care in a timely manner. We need to make sure that we’re addressing the root causes of these things, not dealing with everything that comes afterwards.

This government has the opportunity to make sure that kids have the supports they need when and where they need them, not making people wait endlessly on a wait-list while problems compile and while situations get out of control. Let’s think about those six kids that were reported at committee, which are actually now nine kids put into care who didn’t actually need care but because they weren’t able to get mental health supports.

I’m going to sign this petition on their behalf and deliver it with page Brayden to the Clerks.

Speaker, we’ve been talking about this carbon tax, and what we’ve seen today is a fundamental difference between how Liberals and NDP raise revenue and how Conservatives raise revenue. To raise revenue, the Liberals and the NDP raise taxes. That’s the only thing they know how to do. That is their go-to solution: raise taxes. But we have shown them that there is another way. We’ve shown them there is a right way to raise taxes—or to raise revenue.

Interjections.

Interjections.

We have shown them the right way to raise revenue. We have lowered taxes by $8 billion annually, creating 700,000 jobs. Revenue is up $64 billion since we took office, and that is by decreasing taxes.

We are doing our part, by building homes, cutting the gas tax, creating the conditions for businesses and workers to succeed. We need the Liberals to do their part now.

Scrap this terrible tax today.

It’s a pleasure to rise and speak about Bill 185. There are some good things in this bill: the use-it-or-lose-it, the reversal on the development charges. It’s not too late to do the right thing, even when you’ve done the wrong thing, so it’s good to see that.

One of the things, though, that—speaking of reversals—we may end up in a reversal on is the proposals for bonusing, allowing municipalities to bonus people who want to come to the city, usually large corporations who are looking for a corporate tax break. Of course, that wasn’t allowed in Ontario because we didn’t want to pit communities against each other—like Cornwall against Ottawa, or an even smaller place like Arnprior against Ottawa—that couldn’t afford to bonus, that it would bankrupt them if they provided a great benefit to a corporation coming in.

And we can see that it’s kind of a mug’s game when it comes to—well, people call it “corporate welfare.” You have the Ford plant, which is going to have lay off workers for, I don’t know, a couple of years because they’re not going to get it done, but they got millions and millions and millions of taxpayer dollars.

These corporations, they’re not anchored here. They change; they get sold. You get different leadership. So this bonusing is not the right thing to do, and I think what we’ll find out, once we go through this, is we’ll be doing the same thing that we’re doing on development charges. We’ll go, “Oh, my gosh, we did this. It wasn’t the right thing to do,” because we’ve got all these small municipalities who stuck their neck out to get a corporation that came to town, and they wanted to beat out somebody else or a bigger city, and they won’t be able to afford it. And do you want to know who gets stuck with that bill? The province.

So I don’t understand why this is in this bill. It smells to me—feels to me like development charges—so this one we’ll be driving in reverse again, which seems to be the favoured gear. R is not for race; it’s for reverse. I can’t support this bill for that reason, that reason alone.

I think it’s a risky financial move for the province, not just municipalities. In the questions, I would like to hear why it’s a good idea, why it hasn’t been a good idea. Maybe it’s actually just downloading the costs of attracting businesses on to municipalities and on to municipal taxpayers. It doesn’t make sense.

Building more student housing is a good thing. Now, maybe the whole idea is going to try to create another income stream for universities, like foreign students, that will ensure that the government doesn’t have to fund them better. I’m not sure. I think it’s a good thing. I hope that’s not it. But if I was going to say anything about this bill, it’s that the idea of bonusing is a very risky one, financially. I think the long-term consequences of that will not be good for Ontario, for municipal taxpayers, for municipalities and, in the long run, for this Legislature.

This is a petition about raising the ODSP, and it comes from Dr. Sally Palmer, who has collected thousands and thousands of signatures.

In the petition, it points out that under current costs in this affordability crisis, if you’re on ODSP or OW, it is almost impossible to live. It’s almost impossible to pay your rents, impossible to pay your foods.

There has been a call to double ODSP for a long time, and marginal increases are just not enough. I certainly will be signing this petition and giving it to page Simon.

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 16, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 185, An Act to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 185, Loi modifiant diverses lois.

Further debate?