The member from Mississauga–Malton.

Thank you.

Of course, the members of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs all came together, irrespective of which party they belong to, to listen to the people of Ontario.

And definitely, we need to say thank you to our staff members, who were there to support us all along the way.

It was not an easy task, but we accomplished it. And you can see that the result and the fruit of that accomplishment is this budget.

From groceries to gasoline, the affordability of everyday necessities is diminishing. In the face of these challenges, we are making sure that the urgent need to provide relief to Ontario families is in this budget. That is why we’re proposing to extend the gas and fuel tax cuts until December 31, 2024, through the passage of this spring bill. This would save Ontario households an average of $320, since the cuts were first introduced on July 1, 2020, putting more money back into the pockets of hard-working Ontarians.

Together, let’s work towards a future where prosperity is within reach of all Ontarians, regardless of their economic circumstances.

The vast natural resources, for example, in the north present a wealth of opportunities for sustainable development and job creation. By investing in infrastructure, innovation and skills training in the mining industry, we aim to unlock the full economic potential of the region while safeguarding its environmental integrity for our future generations. Ontario has dedicated a billion dollars to support critical legacy infrastructure such as all-season roads, broadband connectivity and community support for the Ring of Fire region. At the heart of our strategy lies a concerted effort to attract investment and create jobs. Madam Speaker, this government understands and believes that, in order for a prosperous Ontario, we need to increase the revenue of Ontario so that we can have the money to invest back into the services for the people of Ontario.

Our government is committed to investing in critical infrastructure and innovation to support the growth of northern Ontario. From modernizing transportation networks to expanding broadband access and investing in R&D, we are paving the way for increased connectivity, productivity and competitiveness in the region. Madam Speaker, that is why our government is investing $15 million to enhance the Critical Minerals Innovation Fund, which was launched in 2022. The additional funding of $5 million per year for 2024-27 will continue to help Ontario’s mining sector undertake research, development and commercialization of innovative technologies, techniques, processes and solutions related to the critical minerals, something which we heard during the budget consultations, and we’re delivering the results. This is part of our plan for building a better Ontario, now and into the future.

And all this work, when we talk about attracting these investments and building everything, building the products and the services for the people of Ontario, we need to have sustainable, competitive energy to support our growth. That is why our government firmly believes that the clean, safe, reliable and emissions-free nuclear energy must play an even larger role in our future energy supply mix. That is why nuclear energy has long been recognized as the cornerstone of Ontario’s electricity system, providing a stable and low-carbon source of power that is essential for meeting our energy needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In line with this region, the government remains committed to supporting the continued, safe operation of nuclear facilities such as the Pickering nuclear generating plant, as well as the refurbishment of Darlington and Bruce nuclear generating stations. These initiatives not only ensure the continued reliability and the safety of our nuclear fleet, but also contribute to job creation and economic growth in communities across the province.

Madam Speaker, by embracing clean and sustainable energy solutions like nuclear power and small modular reactors, we can ensure a reliable and resilient energy supply. We can ensure that there is energy available for the future generation while advancing our goals of environmental stewardship and economic prosperity.

Look at the numbers, for an example, Madam Speaker. If you really compare, as I talked about the tale of two different governments—I want to add to this: When the government was formed in 2018, there were 7.17 million people who were employed. To date, in the last three years itself, our government has helped support the job creators to create the jobs and we have seen the total employed are now 7.91 million people working, which is 700,000 people more compared to 2018. And now, again, if you compare it with the 15 years of Liberal government, where we saw 300,000 jobs going out, we have 700,000 jobs coming in, and that is another contrast between the two governments.

And it’s not that the people don’t recognize it. That’s why we saw in the by-election results in Milton and L-K-M—we saw the by-election results where people said, “Keep going. The people of Ontario want to make sure there is prosperity and the government continues to support that progress for the people of Ontario.” Why? There are a lot of people from across the world who want to come to Ontario and make their home, like me and my family. So, to everyone who is thinking and considering a move to Ontario, I’d like to say thank you for taking that decision. You’re welcome here. If you want to invest, this is a place where you come; if you can dream it, with your hard work you can achieve it. That is why, Madam Speaker, it is very important that this budget talks about creating progress and prosperity.

Another example is that revenue in 2018-19 was $153.7 billion. Today, if you look at 2023-24, revenue is $201 billion. For this increase in revenue, I want to say thank you to all the hard-working Ontario workers for supporting Ontario’s progress and prosperity, and thank you to the government for making sure that we continue to make the investments. In 2018-19, the total expenses were $161 billion. If you look in 2023-24, the government invested over $194 billion to serve the people of Ontario. This strategic approach not only enhances the reliability and resilience of our infrastructure, but also contributes to the progress of the economy and the people at large.

Madam Speaker, talking about investments, we’re investing in 15 new projects through the $15 million Hydrogen Innovation Fund, which supports projects that pave the way for reliable, affordable, clean electricity generation and alternatives to conventional electricity.

Back to the north, we are continuing to support the northern economy through the Northern Energy Advantage Program, which will provide a rebate for eligible mining, forestry and steel operations in northern Ontario. So to all those who are thinking of investing, Ontario is a place where you can make your investments, and you’re not only growing the economy of Ontario, you’re growing the economy of your organization as well. If you are thinking of investing, Ontario is the economic engine of not only Canada but of North America, and soon will be the economic engine of the world. That is why we are making sure that we are investing into the programs that it needs to help and support this progress.

It’s not just the money, it is the people—the people are the biggest asset of this province. That is why, Madam Speaker, one of the key pillars of our progress is a sustainable workforce. We are delivering a plan to build by investing to attract better jobs, build roads, highways, public transit, while keeping costs down for the people of Ontario.

We truly believe that we have supported the long-term targeted and strategic investments in Ontario manufacturing. For example, one of the ways that government is lowering costs for Ontario manufacturers is through the Ontario Made Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit. For example, when you invest $100, a 10% refundable corporate income tax credit for eligible investment in building, machinery and equipment for use in manufacturing or processing will be delivered. It’s a vicious cycle—when you come here, you invest and you support Ontario, the government of Ontario is going to support you, and together we are able to support the people of Ontario. Introduced in the 2023 budget, the credit will provide Ontario businesses with estimated income tax relief of approximately $1.1 billion over the first four years of the incentive, from 2023 to 2026.

Madam Speaker, we have supported this. We have made sure, through these initiatives, the output is that we are able to attract Volkswagen’s $7-billion investment in St. Thomas. What will it do? It will create 3,000 good-paying jobs. The $5 billion extra in energy investment—what will it do? Employ 2,400 more workers. The Umicore investment in Loyalist township will create 600 direct jobs.

Why is it required, Madam Speaker? When all these investments come, it gives opportunity and growth for the people of Ontario to work hard. When they work hard, they become financially more independent. When they become financially more independent, they’re able to give back to the community.

As we are talking about the community and we are talking about making sure that we have people, our workers—Madam Speaker, Ontario’s workers are central to Ontario’s plan to build. They’re our greatest asset, and that is the reason why the government of Ontario is investing in the people of Ontario.

In 2023 alone, employment in Ontario increased by 2.4%, driven by an increase in both full-time and part-time positions. Through these initiatives, we’re making sure we will help and support and promote financial stability and peace of mind. Something which we are doing is prioritizing sustainable pensions for our workers, supporting a target-benefit framework to safeguard retirement security in the skilled trades and other fields. If passed, the spring bill amendment will bolster this framework, allowing employees to maintain their pensions while transitioning to different employers.

And our infrastructure commitment is not just a promise, it’s real progress, improving connectivity, fuelling economic growth and bolstering quality of life. Strategic investments in transportation are easing congestion, enhancing safety and opening doors for businesses and communities. We are laying the foundation for more efficient and resilient infrastructure, ensuring that Ontario is ready for future generations.

All told, as part of our historic 10-year infrastructure plan, we are investing more than $190 billion in highways, transit, broadband, and housing-enabling and other infrastructure all across our province.

We are committed to easing the burden of commuters. Our new One Fare program, for another example of how we are here to support the affordability crisis for the people of Ontario: The new One Fare program simplifies transit payments for riders connecting across Ontario, saving the average daily rider $1,600 per year.

Another great example is, right now, as we are going through the summer, there are a lot of university students who are going to be doing their internship. For somebody who is living, for example, in Mississauga and is doing an internship at the Legislative Assembly, they can hop onto Mississauga transit, go to the GO station, take the GO train or bus, come to Union Station, take the TTC subway, while making sure all of it is paid by one fare. These are real solutions to a problem and support the people of Ontario.

Madam Speaker, there are so many good things in this budget, but I want to sum up by saying that the measures contained in the spring bill are aimed at rebuilding Ontario’s economy, building infrastructure, highways and transit, working for workers, keeping costs down and better services for all of us. We have a plan and a long-term vision, and we’re taking real action rooted in strong fundamentals.

I firmly believe, Madam Speaker, this government can and will get it done and that is why the people of Ontario want us to keep going and build a better, prosperous Ontario. So I encourage everyone to come together and vote in favour of Bill 180, the Building a Better Ontario Act.

Questions?

The minister talked about health care in Niagara. It was under your government that we closed six hospitals in Niagara: St. Catharines General, the Hotel Dieu, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Welland, Fort Erie and Port Colborne, and in 2014, it was your government and your candidate that said no to GO two-way, all-day, all the way to Niagara and no to the new hospital. It was brought in by other people.

Investing in health care, I believe, is one of our foremost priorities. So I’m going to ask the government—I don’t care who answers it. In Fort Erie, you have decided to close our urgent care centre which provided 24/7 care for 40,000 residents in Fort Erie. They’ve now cut it down to 10 hours a day. I’m going to ask the government: Are you going to reopen the Fort Erie Urgent Care Centre that, quite frankly, the Premier promised to keep open in the last election?

Thank you to the member opposite. I can tell you this minister and this government care a lot about the Niagara region. We have dedicated a lot of resources and time. In fact, we have the great member from Niagara West, who is a member from the government here, who has been advocating for great health services here in the Niagara region and throughout Ontario. And we have a new hospital being built in Lincoln in the Niagara region which is going to be of tremendous benefit to the people of Niagara.

I can tell you, we’ve also been supportive of all the wine producers and the craft beer manufacturers in the Niagara region which have been very thankful for the support we have given them in this budget to make them more competitive, to get their products sold to market and helping consumers and businesses in the Niagara region. We will continue to be supportive of the people and businesses in the Niagara region.

My question is for the minister. By any measure, Ontario carries the largest debt burden in Canada. It’s the most indebted province in Canada. By your own measures, I might add, you are supporting an unsustainable debt burden. Your net debt-to-GDP is now higher than when Kathleen Wynne left office.

You have a $9.8-billion operating deficit. Your total debt and deficit is projected to be $439 billion. You’ve increased it by almost $150 billion. The amount that you’re spending, the interest on the debt, continues to climb.

At the same time, you are spending the least in Canada on per-capita spending when it comes to health care, when it comes to education.

How do you square the fact that you are the most indebted province in Canada but spend the least on the things that people care about?

Great member from Markham–Unionville for a great question. He is absolutely correct in that we do need more medical professionals here in Ontario. That’s the case not only in Ontario but, indeed, throughout Canada and, in fact, all throughout North America. So, we are incentivizing them with northern stay grants to have doctors who are educated stay in remote communities so that they can service those communities.

We have announced that we are creating a new medical school in York University, close to your community, right in Vaughan, Ontario. Minister Lecce is here, I see—great for you and that community.

We need to educate and foster more doctors right here in the province of Ontario, and this is the first government in many decades that is actually doing that.

What is making progress is the deficit that has been going down year over year. We actually had a surplus two or three years ago. We have a path to balance—the only major government in Canada with a path to balance. We will be balanced in two years.

With all the things that the opposition is promising, could you imagine if they were in power, the fiscal mismanagement, the debt we’d have piled on?

We have a great path right now. It’s a path of investment in building Ontario, but also being fiscally prudent. I’m proud of our track record with respect to the debt and deficit.

With respect to Ottawa in general—I know you did touch on Ottawa—Ottawa is a region we’ve been extremely committed to. As you know, the government recently had the Premier down there to make a big announcement for a new funding agreement for the region of Ottawa and changing some of the cost situations with the government there. Ottawa is a region we’re very committed to as well as, of course, as you touched on, the mental health and addictions, which we’ll continue to support.

Next question?

Further debate?

First of all, we are building infrastructure. And first of all, I have to thank the Minister of Education for being in my riding on Friday to announce a new public school for our growing community. In that area where we’re growing and building, we’re building another 825 student spaces and another 88 child care spaces, which is just huge for families. Thank you again to the Minister of Education for this infrastructure build.

Also, what we’re looking for in some of our communities is—we have aging infrastructure when it comes to community centres, and we need that extra little help. We see a lot of our malls are changing. A lot of our seniors would walk around the malls, but our malls are being redeveloped into townhouses and different types of housing—affordable housing—because of our initiatives from our government. Once again, thank you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for helping us build more housing, but for that we need some help with some community space.

I’m asking the parliamentary assistant, if you can help me: Explain what’s in the budget to help with community space for our growing communities.

First of all, I’ll say thank you to the member from Lakeshore, Etobicoke–Lakeshore—there are two Lakeshores—for your advocacy for the people of Etobicoke–Lakeshore. You’re so right. Who does not remember going to community centres or the libraries to play and have fun? Those who are parents—I do remember when my kids were young, I used take them to the Fletcher Creek community centre. It used to be fun. We would hang out as parents, the kids would have fun. They learned swimming and essential things for their lives. These centres have been serving our community for generations.

That is why, as said earlier, this is the government that believes in investing for the people of Ontario. We are investing $200 million to new community sport and recreation infrastructure. All the caucus members—

Any of the members opposite can answer this question. I’m wondering why Ottawa didn’t get the funds we needed for mental health supports. Let me talk in particular about something we brought up in pre-budget consultations. Counselling Connect: This is a program that runs at about $600,000 a year. It provides, within 48 hours, immediate help of up to three psychotherapy sessions for people in immediate crisis. This was a plea that the Pinecrest-Queensway Community Health Centre made to the government: “Could the province assume responsibility for this?” What we got instead, unfortunately, is a province of Ontario office in our city that’s going to cost three times the amount this particular program costs—we’ll take the office; we’ll use whatever means we have to lobby the government.

I would ask any of the members opposite: Why not take on that responsibility provincially so we could get every single person in our city—and, why not, every single person in Ontario—access to mental health support within 48 hours?

I’m so pleased to be here today. I’m going to say it like I mean it: I’m really pleased to be here today. This budget, budget 2024, we have been very vocal about the gaps that we see in this budget and I’m going to talk about some of the amendments, but I’ve been listening to some Pink Floyd recently, and I’m going to try to get some Pink Floyd quotes on the record because it’s very applicable to this current culture of this government.

I’m really doing this for my own amusement, but at third reading, we need all the help we can get, especially having gone through an extensive pre-budget consultation process where myself and my colleague from London North travelled around the province, and our colleagues met us in Hamilton and northern Ontario. Although, I must point out to the government members who are so happily here, as well, that no Toronto pre-budget consultations were scheduled. This government left Toronto off the pre-budget agenda. And I have to say, I know that there is some bias towards the GTA area; certainly earlier, the Minister of Health was talking about how we’re just downtown New Democrats, even though I’m from Waterloo and we’ve got people from Windsor; we’ve got people from northern Ontario; we’ve got people in the Ottawa area.

Toronto matters. It really, really does, and the fact that this government intentionally removed Toronto delegations from the budget process was very problematic, because this is the economic engine of Ontario. The connectivity with our various communities truly does matter, and if you are trying to design and craft a budget that meets the needs of the people who we are elected to serve, then you need to include Toronto. I wanted to point that out.

I also wanted to say that we did try to make this budget bill better during committee. We introduced two significant amendments. We’re, of course, limited, just so you know, in what we can do. This obviously is not the budget that I would have designed, by a long shot. But I do want to say, we did try to make it better and, very quickly, we introduced a couple of amendments.

One of the amendments proposed an emergency room emergency fund, because we have had so many emergency closures across this province. When those small rural hospitals are shutting their ERs down—in Durham, there was emergency room closures, as well—I think there were 203 over the course of the last year. That’s another record in the province of Ontario—check—for this government. We’ve never seen these kinds of closures for emergency rooms ever in the history of the province of Ontario, and it is impacting the health and safety and well-being of the people that we’re elected to serve; make no mistake about that.

So what we did is that we created a new schedule to create an emergency room emergency fund, to keep ERs open that would otherwise be shut down due to the lack of funding. And do you know who actually recommended this? They came to committee, and I want to thank the good folks from Minden, because that community got blindsided as this government allowed and permitted and fast-tracked the closure of their emergency room in Minden. It’s heartbreaking for that community. They have been tracking the deficits of the hospitals in this province, and you would have to be literally with your head in the sand to not know how dire the situation is for our acute-care hospitals in Ontario. So we proposed this; of course, it went nowhere.

And then one of the schedules, of course, renames the infrastructure bank to the new Building Ontario Fund. The infrastructure bank was introduced originally in the fall economic statement; it’s copying the federal Liberal infrastructure bank, which has been an abject failure. So instead of this government actually looking at a mechanism that would assist with infrastructure development, do you know what they did? They just rebranded it. They just called it a new name.

We tried to really get at the heart of what this new Building Ontario Fund would look like: What are the parameters? What’s the framework? We don’t have a lot of confidence in this government’s ability to create legislation, or even regulations, well, and so what we did is we introduced an amendment that would ensure that the Ontario Infrastructure Bank—or the Building Ontario Fund, now—would not allow for public dollars to be used for private, for-profit projects that would otherwise get built. This makes a lot of sense, because, as my colleague has pointed out, this province is in massive debt and with an ongoing $9.8-billion operational funding shortfall, which was not predicted even in the fall economic statement.

So people are paying the price for your poor policy decisions, for your poor legislative decisions, and the costs for Bill 124 in total, the FAO predicts, are at $13.7 billion. I’d like to point out that that is money you put your hands in the pockets of Ontarians for, because this government talks about pockets a lot. You put your hands in the pockets of Ontarians when you introduced Bill 124, an unconstitutional piece of legislation which caps wages at 1%, then you called everybody who was working during that pandemic—the nurses, the front-line health care workers, the doctors—heroes, but you capped them at 1%, which is a contributing factor to the out-migration of those health care professionals in Ontario—100% for sure it is.

So what we wanted to make sure with this new Building Ontario Fund—how would the implementation happen? Because reduced public financing for long-term-care facilities or affordable housing that are normally privately financed that would not otherwise get built is an issue. And public financing is a big part of our Homes Ontario plan, because this government has to get back in the business of building truly attainable affordable housing. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce has encouraged this government to build that kind of housing, not market share. This is truly affordable attainable housing, because that is the stabilizer for the economy, right?

And we now know, after five and a half painful years of this particular government, that housing starts are down. It is very disturbing to see these numbers decrease in the face of people living in tents and temporary shelters across this great province. That crisis is real.

If you were serious about stabilizing the housing market, you would get back into the business of building non-market housing. We have a plan. We presented it to you in the face of a really positive solution, one part of the solution to address the housing crisis. This government said no. They’re very good at saying no to us, as they just did earlier, on the education funding.

However, it would not be worthwhile to allow costly private financing to displace affordable public financing. So, we tried to get some clarity on this, because, I have to tell you—I mean, there’s a lot of talk about the gravy train in this place, but we’re really focused now on the gravy stains, because you keep leaving a path of destruction and, quite honestly, really poor fiscal decisions which we are going to end up paying the cost for.

So we tried to make the bill better. It didn’t go very well for us, because it’s a supermajority here at Queen’s Park. We did put a dissenting opinion, though. This is a record-long dissenting opinion; I believe it’s nine pages long. I do want to thank my staff in my office, Karissa Singh, who is my legislative assistant, and Steffi Burgi, who is an OLIP intern—they’re doing amazing work—but also Caitlin Hipkiss, who is our researcher.

Interjections.

Yes, that’s good. Thank you very much.

Say what you want; we punch above our weight in the research department, I can tell you, usually out of necessity. But we put in a dissenting opinion that has never been this long, because the grievances are so real.

And really, Madam Speaker, when you go through the process of engaging the public on what they would like to see in the budget and then you essentially ignore everything that they asked for, this is insulting, and we can do better as legislators. We’re so far apart on so many issues, but there’s no willingness even to compromise on those investments that would save the health care system money down the line, for instance. And this includes access to medication or even oxygen. We heard from several organizations about the cost of oxygen and the availability of oxygen as medicine, and this government refused to even entertain increasing the availability and reducing the cost to people who require oxygen to live. I think it’s very symbolic, Madam Speaker. We can all agree, I would hope, that oxygen is one of those key factors in staying alive—but not with this government.

The other thing I do want to say is that during the consultations in Oakville, we were at the Holiday Inn ballroom. We’re all set up there, and the Canadian council of universities started their deputation to us. It was a big ballroom; there was a lot of room for people to come and watch us listen or talk—more listen, I would say—and then a leak started to happen in the ballroom. As the council of Canadian universities kept moving forward with their presentation, the leak got more profound and more water started to come in. And just at the moment when the CEO of the Canadian council of universities mentioned the infrastructure deficit on our campuses, the ceiling came down and we had to suspend the pre-budget consultations—again, very symbolic. However, the ignoring of the original leak proved to be very meaningful at that very moment.

I just wanted to reference the fact that, today, this is actually a historical time in this Legislature. It goes all the way back to the Mike Harris years—1996, when the first omnibus bill was brought into this Legislature, and it was by the previous Premier, Mike Harris, who had his slogan, “Make Ontario Great Again.”

I know, right? It’s quite something.

That was the first introduction of the omnibus bill. These omnibus bills are very problematic, because you can actually have some good things in them, but then you always have a poison pill and so we obviously have to vote against it. They actually were referenced during those 1996-97 years as bully bills.

It’s funny, because Alvin Curling stood in his place in this House—

Interjection.

I want to actually thank Steve Paikin for posting that, because I find that sort of stuff interesting.

Our own Peter Kormos also was successful in, I believe, doing 21 hours of a filibuster at the time. Of course, we can’t do that now; if we did, we would be here all the time, I have to tell you, because the legislation—including even this latest Bill 185, this so-called “build more housing, cutting red tape” bill, which is going to create so many problems for our municipalities across this province.

I’m going to circle back to health care.

During the pre-budget consultations, we heard from so many organizations, and the language that they were using, I personally have never heard before. They said, “We’ve hit the wall. We are well past the tipping point. There is a tsunami of broken people in our communities. We do not have the medical staff to take care of them.” On the mental health file, never have I seen the anxiety around the lack of mental health resources to be so profound.

In our northern and rural communities, these problems are highlighted, I would have to say. We still, obviously, are fighting for culturally appropriate health care so that people have a connection with their doctor. But in northern communities, it is very dire.

I want to thank our northern members, including our amazing health critic from Nickel Belt, who has been just tracking the money—because it doesn’t matter all of the press releases that you quote; when you start believing your own press releases that you wrote, this is a problem. But at the end of the day, it really does matter where the money is going. And of course, the figure that’s contained within the budget also includes the compensation for Bill 124.

You’re very proud of saying, “This is a historic amount of historic funding.” I’ve never heard the word “historic” used in such an unhistoric way—and incorrectly, I might add.

Where we are right now is a standoff with doctors in Ontario—and where we are right now is, we have a Minister of Health who is not concerned, she says, about the diminished supply of doctors. This is a very dangerous standoff, I just want to say. We’ve seen this play out, actually, even in our education system, where the out-migration of teachers from that sector has been—I would say, obviously, we’ve never seen that many teachers—usually teachers are moving into the system with great enthusiasm, because it’s a calling; teaching is a calling, to be an educator. But now, even following this debate and listening to the minister really diminish those concerns that exist in the system, and then not acknowledge the impact of the learning and working conditions of our classrooms and how that is impacting people staying or leaving the field—this is basic common sense: If your work experience is dreadful, if you aren’t able to actually meet the needs of your complex students in your classroom because of underfunding, because of a lack of human resources, that is going to impact whether or not you stay in the profession. This is not a complicated concept here.

This is an article from Allison Jones from the Canadian Press: “Arbitration with province’s doctors over compensation in dire shape”—and this is the Ontario Medical Association. Listen to some of these things that the minister has actually said. I’ll set the stage for you:

“Recruitment and retention of doctors in Ontario is ‘not a major concern,’ the Ministry of Health suggests in arguments it is making in arbitration with the Ontario Medical Association over physician compensation.

“The argument from the province comes as the OMA, which represents Ontario’s doctors, has repeatedly warned that more than two million residents don’t have a family doctor and thousands of physician jobs are going unfilled.”

This reminds me of that Pink Floyd lyric; you know the one—I always listen to Pink Floyd. Nobody believes that, but this is it—“Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?” That’s pretty relevant, eh? I mean, Pink Floyd is amazing, I have to say. But literally, you’ve called these people heroes, and yet when you sit down with them in arbitration, the conversation becomes less respectful, I would say.

“But the talks are going so poorly that an arbitrator is now being asked to determine compensation levels for the first year while the two sides work on the 2025-2028 period”—so they’re pushing this down the line. There are no solutions here, because there’s no respect, and you’re not going to get to a stabilized place with doctors in Ontario if you do not respect those doctors.

It goes on to say, “Things are in such dire shape that that’s the fastest way to get money out the door to stabilize family doctors’ practices”—by pushing it down to 2025-28. And this is coming from Dr. David Barber, the chair of OMA’s section on general and family practice.

In between, in these articles, there’s old titles, and one of these titles says, “Want More Family Doctors in Ontario? Pay Them Better” and “Can’t Find a Family Doctor? It Might Be Because They’re Busy Doing Other Specialties”—you know where they’re going? They’re going to the private sector, because this government has said, “Listen, it’s the Wild West out there right now, and we’re really friendly towards these medical businesses versus public health care.” It’s very clear where the resources and the talent are going.

So David Barber, who is the chair of OMA section on general and family practice:

“The government’s arguments in its arbitration brief are unlikely to improve relations, he said.... It’s really quite insulting.”

How can this government, after all of this time, after seeing what happened in the education system, after seeing what happened to the nurses, not acknowledge that doctors will walk? They will go to other sectors. They will go to other provinces. If we have 2.2 million Ontarians right now who do not have a family doctor, in five years we’re going to have 4.6 million Ontarians that do not have a family doctor.

Why I should have to explain that family doctors are the gatekeepers to the entire medical system—that is the way our system is designed. You don’t want more people going to the emergency room to access basic medical health care when those hospitals, those acute care centres, are already overrun, in a state of chaos and in a state of crisis—and also running a deficit. There is a cost to not dealing with doctors in a respectful manner, and this cost is increasing costs in other parts of the system, instead of just having a respectful dialogue around arbitration.

Barber goes on to say, “The numbers are one thing, right, but ... the government’s approach here is their briefing essentially says there’s nothing wrong. I get there’s posturing, but this is actually quite dangerous posturing on the side of the government.”

This is coming from the Ontario Medical Association, calling your rhetoric on the state of medical care, the state of doctors in Ontario—they are calling your actions as a government dangerous. And it’s dangerous for so many reasons.

“The average physician income adjustments compared favourably with other settlements where retention and recruitment is not a major concern,” the ministry wrote. And this is a direct quote: “We will illustrate that there is no concern of a diminished supply of physicians. Across Canada, Ontario has the best record in attracting medical graduates to train in Ontario. Further, Ontario has enjoyed a growth in physicians that far outstrips population growth.”

This is what the government is saying at the Ontario Medical Association arbitration. Can you believe this? Can you believe that the government has one in four people in a few years who is not going to have a doctor, and the Minister of Health is saying, “There is nothing to see here. There is no concern.”

In order to address a problem, you need to at least acknowledge that the problem exists. In Kingston recently, there was a lineup of 200 to 300 people just trying to access urgent care. In Kitchener-Waterloo, 70,000 people do not have a doctor—between 60,000 and 70,000 people. And this is with the chamber of commerce working 100%, every single day, trying to recruit more medical professionals into our region. Because—I shouldn’t have to explain this—when you have access to medical facilities and when you have access to really great schools, this social infrastructure draws investment into our communities. They are dependent upon each other.

So this rhetoric that’s coming from the Ministry of Health during what most people would acknowledge, especially if you don’t have a family doctor, is a crisis, is such a dangerous game, and it feels like a bit of a game from the Minister of Health.

I’ll just tell you an example of how it impacts people. It’s certainly impacting the people in Minden, right? People aren’t going to buy a house in Minden if they don’t have access to an emergency room. I want my parents, Allan and Sheila, to move from Peterborough to come to Waterloo. They can’t move because they can’t find a doctor. This also impacts quality of life.

You know, you don’t see this in the commercials that the taxpayers pay for: “It’s all happening here.” Yes, it’s all happening here: 2.2 million Ontarians don’t have a family doctor. That’s not something that the government wants to acknowledge or even pay attention to, it seems like, because, according to the Minister of Health, this is not of great concern to her. I’m telling you right now, this is a huge concern for the people of this province, and for very good reasons.

Ontario right now is short more than 2,000 doctors—2,000 doctors, right? Sure, start a medical school. That’s great. It takes almost 10 years from beginning to end to become a doctor in Ontario. Very few doctors want to go into family medicine anymore. They are looking where the money is.

The government has sort of carved off a whole market share on eyes, on hips. So you’ve created a whole new market for for-profit health care. You have created a very competitive sector where, if you’ve got the money, you can get to the front of the line. When the Premier once said, “You’ll never have to use your credit card”—this is factually incorrect. People are using their credit card to access health care in Ontario. In fact, we continue to bring stories to the floor of this Legislature because we believe truly in maintaining what we have left, anyway, of the universal health care system, and it shouldn’t depend on how much money you make, especially with a growing population—the demographics in this province, more and more seniors on fixed incomes. Them going to access health care and getting a bill is very stressful. We hear about it all the time in our office in Waterloo.

So this is where we are. Our health critic says the government needs to work with doctors to address the issues that are driving physicians out of family medicine. Amen. That’s exactly what needs to happen. “Over two million people don’t have a doctor.... Instead of trying to solve this problem, the government wants to ignore it.” We agree with the Ontario Medical Association that this is a very dangerous game to be playing on health care.

It is interesting; I have actually never seen this before, but the Ontario Union of Family Physicians have started a petition to call on the minister to resign. I’ve never seen doctors become this political, ever, in Ontario, so that is historic. I guess I can say that. That’s the correct use of the word “historic.” This is what they say: The Ontario Physician Services Agreement—they entered into arbitration between the Ontario Medical Association and the Ministry of Health, and then they go on to say:

“We have now learned through the publicly released details of the ... arbitration briefs that the government has no intentions on taking appropriate steps to address the family medicine crisis in Ontario. In fact, the Minister of Health ... response to the worsening crisis in family medicine is to outright deny there is any crisis at all. Her comments state ‘there is no concern of a diminished supply of physicians’ and that ‘retention and recruitment is not a major concern.’ This is a slap in the face to Ontarians, particularly to the 2.3 million in Ontario who do not have access to a family doctor and for those who have recently or will soon lose their family doctor due to inadequate funding and increasing administrative burden. The Ontario College of Family Physicians projects that by the year 2026, one in four Ontarians will not have a family doctor.”

You can avert this crisis, but you need to get back to the table and you need to be more respectful. They go on to say that “these comments are insensitive and dangerous. They also signal that the Ontario government has abandoned addressing the health care needs of Ontarians and is akin to denying to recognize Ontarians’ basic right to access universal health care.” So they are calling for the immediate resignation of the Ontario health minister. “Our current health care system is simply unacceptable. Ontario deserve better.” We agree, 100%, and until you redesign the system, doctors are key to accessing the health care system in Ontario, full stop.

I do want to move on just very quickly to education, because we did have a really painful debate, I have to say. To listen to such a—we’re so far apart on the education file. It’s like you’ve never stepped foot in a public school; you’ve never talked to a parent whose child has special needs and has had to be sent home because the staff are not there. When we talked about special education staff having to wear protective equipment like Kevlar, you laughed. Every year since 2018, I have to say, it’s like death by a thousand cuts.

I also want to point out that traditional conservatives acknowledge that inflation pressures are real. Inflationary pressures are not fictional. The FAO has clearly outlined the gap in really addressing the costs of education in the education file. But boy, you know, as someone who got involved in politics because of education, I will always show up for education, because it is always worth fighting for. People have said that it is the great equalizer. I have to say, I fully, 100%, agree with that.

The fact that the Minister of Education, earlier today, would not acknowledge that learning conditions and environments are working conditions—when we talk about educators—teachers were not mentioned in the budget bill, by the way. Whatever increase is in there is really allocated for Bill 124 costs, so you created a problem and now you have to pay more for the problem. You also created more problems because of Bill 124, and that was the out-migration of staff.

I fully support what our leader said during this debate when she said students in Ontario “deserve better than basics.” They deserve all of our attention and all of our energy and strategic investment in ensuring that children in the public education system can reach their potential. But when you see how many people—there are huge concerns around the number of non-teachers working in classrooms. These numbers have skyrocketed under the leadership of this minister. That’s nothing to be proud of, I must say. Schools can’t find enough supply teachers, so they’re using non-teachers to be in those classrooms.

In the Waterloo Catholic District School Board, about five years ago, it was maybe 100 times a month, very random, over the course of those 30 days. Now that number is 899 non-teaching staff in those classrooms. That’s nine times more since that point.

In the Waterloo public, it was 600 days a month over the winter to use non-teachers in the classroom, and on average it’s about 200 to 300 days a month now when no teacher was available. And I think that this is the key piece here, that educators—I call them educators because they are educators. I don’t call them union bosses and insult them to their face. That’s actually not good for morale, I just want to say.

There’s that Pink Floyd, Another Brick in the Wall: “We don’t need no education”—

Oh, no.

“We don’t need no thought control.”

“We don’t need no thought control,” yes. I’m just really channelling Pink Floyd a little bit today.

This is what they said: “The job has changed in such a way that teachers are leaving the profession in numbers we’ve never seen before.” They are leaving the profession because of the conditions of the system.

And these are young teachers too. I just want to say that my husband, Dale, teaches at Waterloo-Oxford. He’s a mentor. He’s a department head. He has got some young teachers there, and they cannot believe the pressure and the responsibility around the mental health piece in particular, because not all teachers have a degree in psychology. That’s not why they’re there. There used to be social workers. There used to be child and youth workers. There used to be educational workers who were trained to adapt to this new world.

And there’s no doubt that social media has impacted this. There’s no doubt that social media has an impact on mental health. But having cameras around the schools is not going to solve the problem of unravelling some of that tension and that anxiety. And so, we value quality trained staff. We know that quality trained education staff keep kids safe.

Let’s be honest: The education system, in so many ways, fills those gaps for so many children. The fact that this morning our leader was talking about a breakfast program that’s being cut in Hamilton—boy, Hamilton is hurting. There is some pain there. There’s an adjustment after that industrial sort of push. They are modernizing, but the gentrification in some of these communities, where people can’t afford to live in their neighbourhoods where they have lived for years, is real.

When I was a school board trustee, I used to go to these breakfast programs—because not even the Liberals would fund the administrative cost. They would fund the materials, but they would never fund the operations. It had to be volunteers. I guess the Liberals and the Conservatives still haven’t got the idea that when children are hungry, they are not going to learn. It’s not going to happen.

When I was a trustee, I remember going to one breakfast program one year, and there were stair-step kids. There were three stair-steps: grade 6, grade 4 and grade 2. They were there at that breakfast program a half hour early, and they were hungry. The ladies who volunteered to distribute the English muffins and the cheese said that they would wrap them up for their lunch and for their supper.

The thought that this breakfast program is going to be cancelled—I mean, surely this is a good investment. It’s a good strategic investment to ensure that children have the appropriate nutrition, that they can reach their potential. If you’ve ever seen me hangry, you would also agree that it impacts behaviour, as well, and it does impact classroom management when kids are hungry. There’s no doubt about it.

Just to finish off on the teacher shortage—why are we facing a teacher shortage? It’s about the working conditions. People are completely burnt-out because the job continues to get harder and harder. Teachers are burning out, quitting or retiring. And the teachers who stay are taking more sick leave, but the supply shortage means fewer teachers are available to fill in for those who are off sick—so the failure to fill, I can tell you, in high schools across Ontario is changing the whole culture of how we talk about wellness in our workplace and how we respect the people who are on the front lines, for sure.

I do want to say, I have examined where the money is going in this budget, and one of the most egregious areas that we’ve seen an increase in, which really surprised me a little bit, was the Premier’s office, his cabinet office.

This piece is from earlier in April, and it reads, “‘His Own Gravy Train’: Cost of Staffing Doug Ford’s Office More Than Double Kathleen Wynne’s”—well, so much for streamlined and tightening the belt and reducing the expenditures, and even being careful, even going through the optics of being careful about where money is going. This government is not even concerned. Their hubris on this issue is profound.

“The cost and size of the Premier’s office in Ontario has ballooned” under this government. “Despite promising to be careful with public money, Ford’s office is much larger and more expensive than his Liberal predecessor....” Well, isn’t that interesting? It is about priorities.

Budgets are supposed to be moral documents which tell the people we’re elected to serve about the—it demonstrates our priorities. For some reason, now the Premier’s priority is his own office, in the face of breakfast programs closing up, in the face of record use of food bank use, in the face of record demovictions and renovictions, in the face of above-guideline rent increases that are displacing seniors out of their homes and out of their communities. And for the 77% of renters in Ontario, it further destabilizes the economy, because a vast majority of their take-home pay is now going towards rent, which is arbitrarily being raised, and that is not good for the economy.

There is a serious productivity issue in this province. When people are constantly concerned about how they’re going to afford food, how they’re going to afford their rent, how they’re going to make sure that their children have the supplies that they need to go to school, this destabilizes the economy.

There was an opportunity in this budget to stabilize. That’s what we should be focused on right now, because it is so precarious out there, especially for the part-time workers in Ontario.

I haven’t seen too many members on the government side defend the Premier for his vastly expensive office, so I’m going to be curious to see what some of the members say about this, because this is not your traditional fiscal conservativism: “The cost of staffing the Premier’s office ... has more than doubled since 2018, according to public salary disclosure data, spending that has far outpaced” the former Premier Kathleen Wynne.

“Public salary disclosures of those making $100,000 or more, also known as the sunshine list, for 2023 show the total number of staff in the Premier’s office ... along with the number of people earning six figures, has grown since 2019....

“The increase in spending is a departure from the government’s initial declaration that Ford was ushering in a ‘new era of fiscal responsibility and respect for taxpayers.’”

When people show you who they really are, you should really believe them. Their actions, obviously, are more important than the press releases.

“The Premier said that under his stewardship, his government would search for savings while remaining mindful of how Queen’s Park was spending public dollars.”

Yes, that’s what was said. But in 2019, the first full year in office, they had 20 employees who made the sunshine list, and there was a cost of $2.9 million in total compensation. In 2023, the number of Premier’s office employees on the sunshine list more than doubled to 48—48—with a combined compensation of $6.9 million.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a group that I’m always surprised that I’m quoting—just as I am surprised to be quoting Pink Floyd—they say, “‘That’s unacceptable,’ said Jay Goldberg.... ‘Is the Premier’s office two or three times more effective than they were just a few years ago?’” I think not, especially with some of the legislation that you’ve had to reverse, even in Bill 185.

You’ve spent a vast amount of energy and money reversing decisions, right? You got caught on the greenbelt. There was a mea culpa, but you still found a way to dig away at the greenbelt, especially around Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass. It’s happening in Windsor. It’s going to happen in Ottawa. It’s certainly happening in Waterloo, Waterloo region, where this government is condoning and encouraging the expropriation of 770 acres of prime farmland—so much for respecting farmers. If you see the testimony for these farmers—

They’re mad.

Bill 28.