My question is to the Minister of Finance. Today the Financial Accountability Office released a very interesting report, their fall Economic and Budget Outlook. It details projected funding shortfalls of $40 billion across all sectors over the next six years: a $23-billion shortfall in health; $6 billion in education; $4 billion in children, community and social services—if you want to keep children safe, I would invest in them—$2.6 billion in post-secondary; and a $2.3-billion shortfall in justice. Meanwhile, the government will be sitting on $44 billion in unallocated contingency funds.

Will the government be transparent with the people of this province and allocate these contingencies to ensure that there are no painful program funding shortfalls? Answer to the people.

The FAO report confirmed that Ontario has the funding to invest in this province. Ontario is projected to run $25.3 billion in surpluses over the next six years. Despite this, the government thinks it’s acceptable to cry poor and hold wage increases for our lowest-paid education workers at 1.25%, or continue to enforce their destructive Bill 124, all while food bank usage hits an all-time high for children and for seniors in Ontario. These policy choices are unconscionable. They are irresponsible.

Will the government commit today to paying education workers a fair wage, repeal Bill 124—you can do it; you can pay those people what they deserve—and double the ODSP rates? This is about choices. This government is making the wrong choices for the people of this province. Do your job.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Speaker, this government is deliberately and chronically underfunding education in Ontario and children are paying the price. This year’s budget included no meaningful increase in base funding to address the complex needs of students in Ontario, particularly the funding for special education in Ontario. It was a drop in the bucket and does not even cover the deficit of most school boards. Last year, the TDSB spent $67.6 million more on special education than what they received. Kids are hurting, teachers are struggling. It has never been this bad in Ontario before.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Why is this Conservative government so adamant about underfunding the education sector which is at a crisis point?

Speaker, recently a constituent of mine who works at a local elementary school in Waterloo region as a child and youth worker said, “Violence in schools is at a crisis point.” She detailed the abuse she faced at her school, and it was shocking: being injured or degraded on the job; being spit at; having scissors thrown at them; being punched, kicked, pinched.

On top of this, there is a lack of support to cover sick or injured staff. The Conservative government’s significant underfunding of the education system means that EAs and support staff—shows the lack of respect they have for these workers. They weren’t even mentioned at all in this latest budget.

To the minister: When will the Conservative government give the education sector and education workers the funding they desperately need and the respect that they deserve?

As the finance critic, I’m very concerned about the operational funding for post-secondary institutions. We do know that these institutions have become very dependent on international students. With the reduction in international students and the failure to meet the moment, we now know that the PSE sector will be seeing a 15% cutback, which is only comparable to 1996 Mike Harris.

How is this government going to support post-secondary institutions in their core business of education?

My question is to the Premier. Over the last couple of weeks, the NDP, the official opposition, have put forward two motions that would make life more affordable for Ontarians. Both of these motions have been shut down by this government. Last week, we tabled a motion simply calling for a clear timeline and a clear, firm funding commitment for the expanded, two-way, all-day GO train service between Kitchener and Toronto. The business case for this is very sound, but the government chose to vote against that motion, even though in 2018 and 2022 this Premier promised the people of Kitchener-Waterloo that he would get it done. This Premier also has a candidate in Kitchener in the by-election right now, and when they announced him, they promised to deliver two-way, all-day GO service. I wonder how this candidate feels now that the government has voted down a firm funding commitment and a firm plan for two-way, all-day GO.

My question is very simple to the Premier of Ontario: Why does he keep leaving the people of Kitchener-Waterloo behind, stranded at the station?

Interjections.

Speaker, just yesterday, we saw this government again vote no to a measure that would benefit the lives of Ontarians. The NDP motion to make heat pumps subsidized, actually, in co-operation with the federal government, to help Ontarians with energy-saving retrofits was the only solution, so far, put forward in this House to tackle affordability and climate change. This would create good, local jobs. It would address the underground economy. It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a good idea. But this government is not going to go down that road. Our proposal actually would make homes so much more efficient and lower people’s energy bills.

To the Premier: Why does this government continue to vote against the interests of the people we are elected to serve in Ontario?

The short answer, of course, is the smart money is on public transit, but it is also the mechanism by which you are funding that. The public-private partnerships that this government has embraced, just like the Liberals did, are so irresponsible.

I will note that in the fall economic statement there are no details, still to this day, on the estimated costs of Highway 413 or the Bradford Bypass. There is no timeline for frequent all-day, two-way GO rail to Kitchener, to Niagara or to Bowmanville.

Basically, what we have here is a government that is addicted to making announcements about transit—and yet, no follow-through.

Finally, there’s no timeline for the restoration of the Northlander, which we hear a lot about.

And then, a real safety issue: There’s no plan to address threats to northern winter roads due to climate change.

This fall economic statement missed the moment entirely on transit.

The member from Oakville mentions all these people coming into Ontario. You know one of the largest groups is international students, and the colleges and universities are so underfunded—as I said, by 12%—that international students have become a funding vehicle for the post-secondary education sector. They’re charged astronomical fees. They arrive here in Ontario. In Kitchener-Waterloo, there are 12 of them sleeping in a two-bedroom apartment because of affordability.

If the government truly wants to have a respectful relationship with newcomers, you might want to start building some non-market affordable housing so that they don’t have to sleep on the street and don’t have to go to a food bank just to survive their experience here in Ontario.

If I was an investor, I wouldn’t want to lose money here in Ontario.

So small measures are great, but why is this government spending so much time writing to the federal government to do their job for them, when they can actually have mechanisms that can make Ontario more affordable for everybody?

My question is to the Minister of Health. In April 2022, this government announced that it would finally be investing direct funding for home care. This money was supposed to go directly to improve access and quality home care because it was a mess. Quality home care should actually be a shared goal for all of us. It means more than one bath a week, for sure. However, in filing an FOI request, Seniors for Social Action Ontario has learned that at least seven of the provincial home and community care support services have returned millions of dollars to the Ministry of Health as of March 31, 2022.

When our seniors are crying out for better care, and some have become so despondent that they are contemplating medical assistance in dying because that seems like the only option for them—these caring agencies didn’t want to send this money back. They know what the need is.

Can the Minister of Health explain why millions of dollars are being returned to the ministry when the need for home care in Ontario is so great?

Thanks to the member for his comments on Bill 131. I do want to say, though, that he did not address this new funding tool, the station contribution fee, which remains a huge issue for municipalities. While we support fare integration as a concept, there are some issues around schedule 1 as well.

Schedule 2 implies the existence of a new Transit-Oriented Communities Program—a new one—whose details still remain unknown. The member did not clarify that. The original idea was for Metrolinx to negotiate deals in which developers would fund a new GO station in exchange for development rights, but now the government evidently wants and expects municipalities to assume funding responsibilities. We have no idea what sort of funding agreement the government has in mind or how the risks should be allocated.

Can the member explain to municipalities across the province who want GO stations how they’re going to negotiate the cost of a GO station with developers in the community?

We have heard that this new station contribution fee is voluntary, but the member from Parkdale–High Park raises a very good issue around equity: Not every community or municipality that wants or needs a GO station is going to have the capacity to do what this bill is suggesting, which is, essentially, work with developers to fund a GO station in exchange for development rights. The government evidently expects municipalities to assume funding responsibilities.

Metrolinx is out of the picture; that may be a mixed blessing, given the way that they’ve been currently working. And we have no idea what sort of funding agreement the government has in mind or how the risks will be allocated. This is very simply a downloading of building GO stations to municipalities who are already stressed. So do you think that this bill should actually be renamed the “transportation for the extreme distant future act”?

I was listening to the member from Whitby talk about all the GO stations that have already been built, and how great they are, how accessible they are and how bright, and opening. I have to say, those stations were built by the province. We have a long-standing tradition of supporting the stations and funding the rails in between, whereas right now this piece of legislation is going to introduce this new tool called the station contribution fee, which is essentially a download onto municipalities.

Actually, it was supposed to be Metrolinx that was going to do it. Metrolinx was going to negotiate deals in which developers would fund a new GO station in exchange for development rights. This government definitely has a problem now with developers, so they’ve moved away from that, and now the government evidently expects municipalities to assume funding responsibilities. In what world does this government think, with all of the cost pressures that are happening right now in the province of Ontario, that municipalities—like Kitchener, for instance, which doesn’t have a GO station; we have a Via station that’s sometimes open and sometimes closed.

How are they going to afford to build GO stations?

The member from Essex referenced our former member, MPP Natyshak, and asked where he’s been. He’s spent some time on the Windsor Salt picket line of late, supporting those workers, and I think that that’s a good place for him to put energy.

But he asked a financing question, and financing and budgets are about priorities. We learned in public accounts just this week that this government has been subsidizing the building of private casinos in Ontario to the tune of $3.3 billion. By the end of this fiscal year, it will be up to $5 billion.

What we would do—instead of financing the capital costs of casinos in a housing crisis, we would be investing directly and partnering with not-for-profits, the co-op housing movement, municipalities who are ready and willing to come to the table. That funding, that $3.3 billion, would be going into housing—affordable, attainable housing, which are words that your government doesn’t seem to be able to say.

Do you think it’s appropriate to be financing private casinos in a housing crisis?

In 2022, housing starts were at 96,000; in 2023, at 80,300; in 2024, by your own budget, your housing starts are down to 82,700. So you are going in the wrong direction. Maybe you should stop focusing on our plan and actually bring forward a plan that actually will work for the people of this province.

Thanks to the member from Oshawa for really addressing the issue of hospice care and the desperate need for addressing the funding formula and making it more fair and actually meeting the operational costs of hospices across the province.

We heard at finance committee that every dollar invested in compassionate palliative care really also saves the health care system so much money. But I think when she commented on her own mother and sharing that experience with all of us, it’s very personal. We know this to be very true, that dying in Ontario can be a really horrendous experience if you’re not supported and you don’t get the grief counselling that you need. And so I wanted her to address, please, the fact that hospices are only funded 60% of operational costs. How does that impact equity of access to those services across Ontario?

The member from Don Valley West and I both listened at finance committee—and I just heard the member from Essex talk about defunding the police. What does she make of the fact that this Conservative government actually is defunding the police? They’ve lost the OPP detachments in Gogama, Foleyet, and the OPP is now fighting for the French River area.

So the great irony is that you are defunding police services in northern Ontario, and you should be ashamed of yourselves for that.

Thank you, Speaker, and thanks to the member from Carleton for her comments on the budget bill. I was taken aback a little bit by her comments around hospice, because Hospice Care Ottawa actually came to the budget committee and they asked the government, the Conservative government of Ontario, to address the unfair funding formula. They made a very compelling case, I would say, on the return on investment for investing in hospice to avoid people ending up in hospital or emergency care during the end stages of their lives. But they specifically said that the operational costs in hospices are only funded to 60%, so this leaves hospices fundraising for nurses, PSWs and grief counselling. And we heard loud and clear at finance committee how important it is.

Why did Bill 85 not address this crucial part of health care funding for a more compassionate and dignified end for Ontarians?

Yes.

In essence, everyone who is connected in any way, shape or form to the autism file believes that this is an unethical process that has been set up. It’s hurting families, and it’s actually causing financial ruin for so many people.

We can do better. This budget could be better. We tried to make it better. One day—I don’t know—I’d like to introduce one, because let me tell you, it would be focused on people. That’s where our focus is.

The education folks also came to finance committee as we were trying to review Bill 85.

This is what OSSTF said:

“In its current format, Ontario’s 2023 budget falls short of what is needed to ensure all students are set up to succeed. Neither the budget nor the 2023-24 Grants for Student Needs will cover increased inflationary increases on costs in a wide variety of budget lines, let alone the rising, complex needs of students following the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It’s time for true investments. It’s time the Ford government stop shortchanging the students of this province.

“As the representative of over 60,000 front-line education workers and teachers, we hope the government will finally begin working with us in earnest so our schools can have the necessary resources and support that our students need to succeed.”

This is consistent from all education advocates, actually.

I have to say, the pandemic did leave many school boards shortchanged.

I did ask my local school board if the Waterloo Region District School Board had to use reserves to cover COVID costs over the last two years; the answer was unequivocally yes. They incurred $5.7 million in unfunded COVID expenses, and total COVID expenses were $27.7 million—$22 million of that was funded by the ministry, so there was a gap around addressing COVID in our schools. That gap has not gone anywhere. It is very real.

Finally, on the social services piece, which this budget misses entirely, is the privatized foster care that this province has. Many people don’t really understand this: When children come into the care system—the previous Liberal government decided that they would outsource that care. This used to happen through family and children’s services. These agencies—and one of them the member from Windsor West has brought to the floor of this Legislature; it’s called Hatts Off. We had a delegation come, through the OFL, who talked about what these kids are experiencing in these settings where care is not prioritized. The care component is not the first item. The first item is “How much money can we make off of these kids?” There’s a per diem, and there’s a funding formula. But do you know who doesn’t get picked up by these agencies? It’s the most complex, high-needs children, because they cost too much money, and that digs into the profit margins of these organizations like Hatts Off. This is happening in Ontario. It has been happening since the Liberals privatized it. This government has had several cases now where we’ve seen the death of children in these private care options. They’ve died from neglect. It needs to be said that these are children who have already experienced trauma, and then they get sent to a place that is not caring, that sometimes overmedicates and sometimes uses restraining orders to a degree that is not based on facts, on the best interest. So this was an opportunity for this government to address that, especially because we did have family and children’s services here lobbying us at Queen’s Park not that long ago. Because these private care companies don’t want to take care of medically complex children, they’ve had to start their own homes at their own cost. So family and children’s services are actually running deficits because they don’t have the funding, because the government hasn’t acknowledged that this is a big issue.

Finally, I want to wind up a little bit with the housing, because I cannot emphasize enough how Bill 23 is cooling the market in Ontario. In Waterloo, for instance, there was a subdivision planned of about 800 homes, but when you factored in the loss of development charges, city council did the responsible thing and said, “We don’t have the money for the infrastructure.” You can’t build homes without waste water, without water, without roads. The fact that the minister has not made these municipalities whole, not addressed this gap from a planning perspective, is downright irresponsible; it’s irresponsible when municipalities want to build the houses. In fact, there are so many municipalities that have already made approvals for housing, but the housing isn’t getting built. The minister has, in his tool box, a way to hold those developers to account. If developers are receiving the approvals to build houses and then they’re sitting on those approvals for 20 years, that’s not how you accelerate the building of homes.

The intensification is something that we are completely and utterly supportive of. It is ridiculous that we get this NIMBYism back. This is exactly where we want the housing. We want the housing to be built where the infrastructure is, but it’s not going to happen if the municipalities don’t have the funding to actually upgrade and modernize the infrastructure. I think for Waterloo region, it kind of feels a little bit like ground zero. The region of Waterloo has done an extensive job of highlighting within the urban boundary where we can build housing, and this includes the missing middle housing. This is the housing that is accessible, that is close to transit, that is in the core. This is what needs to happen.

I was really pleased to see that last week the city of Toronto passed a motion to end exclusionary zoning, essentially. They’re going to build housing wherever, whenever they possibly can, within the urban boundary.

So this narrative the government has created that we must build on the greenbelt; that the greenbelt, according to the Premier, is just a piece of fiction, that somebody took a crayon and developed the greenbelt—the studies, the scientists, the communities, the ministry that was involved in developing the greenbelt, they must be watching this Premier. As I said, it was a bizarre press conference last week. There was singing. There was some dancing. No bees were harmed in that particular press conference.

I do want to say the greenbelt is real. The ecosystem is real. The wetlands are real. The farmland is real. We need that greenbelt. In fact, there is a call to action from every community across this great province, because people are not buying what this government is selling. They don’t like the narrative that the greenbelt is some form of fiction. There’s a cost to the entire province when people are so irresponsible with their language and with their words.

The Premier did come to KW. We’re going to have a by-election there, so there’s a lot of interest in KW these days. I think that the response, by and large, from the community is that they are very concerned with this Premier and with this minister and with this government unilaterally rewriting the local official plan, moving urban boundaries, violating the countryside line to open previously protected lands to development. At that particular occasion, the Premier said that this was a no-brainer. I would agree that brains were not used in this decision. The people of Ontario and the people of Waterloo region feel insulted that this is happening. They feel insulted that the government is also, for some reason, gaslighting new immigrants.

We’re totally receptive to new immigrants in Ontario, from the skilled trades to all sectors. But when those new immigrants are coming into this province, they are not likely moving to a McMansion up in the greenbelt. New immigrants have said to us—we’ve sat down with several groups that said, “We want to be close to transit. We want to be close to schools. We want to be close to hospitals.” This social infrastructure matters to new immigrants. Certainly, the employment piece is very key, as well.

The other thing that seems to be completely missing from this budget, especially around conservation—the damage to our conservation authorities will be hard. It keeps me up at night a little bit, actually, because I keep thinking about the damage that is happening and how we’re going to have to undo that damage—because you can’t transport a wetland. That’s not really how it works. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

Waterloo region relies heavily on an aquifer. We rely on source water protection, and that is built into our regional plan. Now the government has said, “We don’t need that plan. It’s just an arbitrary line around our area”—it’s not; it’s based on where the aquifer is and where we have access to clean drinking water.

Do you know what’s bad for the economy and what’s bad for business, Madam Speaker? When a whole community loses their source of water. That’s pretty much it. That’s pretty much done. It doesn’t matter where you build the houses. We’ve had examples of this in this province. We should have learned from Walkerton. There are so many examples of people saying, “We have lots of water”—water is life, as MPP Mamakwa always says—but there were no hydrological studies done.

So this budget has its own agenda. That’s where I would take it.

What missed opportunities—just to circle back to the whole theme that this was a budget that missed the moment, that failed to listen to the very people who came to us in good faith.

And this is another thing: Why have budget consultations if you’re going to ignore the lived experience, the expertise, the data that we heard on this budget round?

The Alzheimer Society, when they came to us—and the statement today around the tsunami on dementia and Alzheimer’s. That is real. When the Alzheimer Society came to us and said, “You promised us in 2021-22 that you would invest $5 million, but that money never flowed”—they came again to finance committee and said, “It’s 2023; it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing.” So really, really hoping—and we’ll be tracking it, of course, through expenditures and the monitoring of that. But we heard in finance committee that if this government does not take aggressive action and invest in the solutions that exist on dementia, every hospital up and down University Avenue, just to the south of this building, will be filled with dementia patients.

The smart thing is to partner with the Alzheimer Society of Ontario. They have great community connections. They are doing amazing work with very little money. Think of the potential that they could do if you actually invested the money that you said you were going to invest.

The other thing is for hospice—I met with Hospice Waterloo. Hospice Ontario came here from Ottawa and they said, “We need you to fund 100% of our clinical services.” I didn’t know that hospices were not fully funded for clinical services. They have to fundraise for basic medical health care, because palliative care is health care. And then they’re still fundraising for operational costs. We actually had a hospice that went to a food bank—a food bank. The research is really clear: Hospices provide a very important role in the health care system. They keep people out of emergency rooms. They provide a compassionate end of life for folks. Nobody wants to die in a hallway in a hospital, and if there’s not an option for a home arrangement, hospices are very special places, I just want to say.

Finally, I want to end on community support services. In what world is a 40% reduction to community social services acceptable? These community support services are Meals on Wheels—Meals on Wheels provide eyes on seniors and on vulnerable Ontarians. We know from the pandemic that isolation kills, and it’s a painful, painful way to die. Being lonely—we can do so much better in Ontario. The 40% reduction is really quite cruel.

So despite our best efforts to make this budget more responsive on rent, on the environment, on housing, on health care, on mental health and addictions—we really fought hard at committee and even through conversations during committee, but this is not a budget that can be supported by us. There may be some good things in this budget, but overall, it does not address, from a moral perspective, from an ethical perspective, the needs that we heard very clearly from Ontarians, and we feel that this government could do so much better.

Thank you very much for your time.

My question is to the Premier. A couple of weeks ago, the leader and I visited the Sexual Assault Support Centre in Kitchener, and we were both alarmed to learn about their lack of resources. Funding for sexual assault victims has not increased since 2011. In fact, funding is reduced by 17% compared to 10 years ago because of inflation and because of increased need. Some 40 people on a wait-list used to be a crisis, but now there are 270 people waiting for counselling. They’ve had the courage to come forward and ask for help, and that help is not there for them.

My question to the Premier, to this government: Why hasn’t funding been increased and annualized for sexual assault centres across the province of Ontario?

Because this crisis centre is in crisis, they spend so much time fundraising and chasing the money. Does the minister agree that trauma agencies shouldn’t have to fundraise to keep women and children safe in Niagara, in Peterborough, in Toronto, in Kitchener-Waterloo? It is just not right.

Interjections.

My question is to the Premier. The lack of transparency in the finances of this province are becoming increasingly concerning. Fortunately, we have the FAO, who tracks actual spending against government announcements. The FAO has said, “Ontario’s Conservative government is not being transparent about how it plans to spend money over the next several years.

“The government’s current spending plan contains $40 billion in program funding shortfalls over six years, though it also contains $44 billion in unallocated contingency funds.

“The contingencies could be used to address those shortfalls but it is an unusual way of budgeting,” he said. He also points out, “What we haven’t seen is this level of shortfall, but we haven’t seen this size of the contingency fund before.”

Speaker, this budgeting practice is irresponsible when there are such pressing issues in this province on health care, on education, on housing. Will budget 2023 actually focus on the real priorities of Ontario?

In fact, this is what the AMO president said: “In 125 years, it’s the biggest affront to Ontario’s municipalities that I’ve ever seen.” You are clearly not very respectful of our municipal partners.

Will budget 2023 make municipalities whole, as the minister has promised, so that they can address the homelessness crisis that this government won’t even acknowledge exists?

There are encampments in Greater Sudbury, in Waterloo region and in Peterborough, among other communities. Ontario spends $2,000 less per person on services and programs than the average province across Canada. AMO has said that Bill 23 is “undermining the financial capacity of municipalities to support growth.”

The simple question is, will budget 2023 reverse the damage you’ve done to municipalities? Will it assist municipalities with water, sewage, transit, parks, electricity and waste infrastructure costs, which those development charges pay for, so that housing can actually be built in the province of Ontario?

It’s a pleasure to join the House this morning to talk about this particular motion before the House. It was interesting to hear the member talk about the process that the finance committee goes through with regard to estimates. He did leave out the part where we only got 20 minutes to review the Ministry of Finance expenditures. The entire estimates process this year was truncated. My colleague and myself, who sit on the finance committee, tried to make the case to the finance committee Chair and to my colleagues across the aisle that our due diligence as parliamentarians includes exposing and honouring those words that he just said, which primarily revolve around transparency. Unfortunately, receiving 20 minutes to review the Ministry of Finance numbers proved to be very challenging. This was a very public debate at finance committee.

We did, however, get the opportunity to question the Minister of Finance, which is always an opportunity that I value, I would say, and I appreciate the Minister of Finance coming to that committee. He and I had a disagreement in that committee, I think it would be fair to say, in that I raised the issue around Bill 124. Now, for those of you who are watching at home—which is probably just Peter Tabuns’s mother and my mom and dad—Bill 124 has had a humiliating and devastating impact on our health care human resources.

I asked the minister straight up: “What is your resistance to removing this piece of legislation, which now for three years has demoralized the health care workers in Ontario, has pushed them out of the province of Ontario, has compromised the health and well-being of the people who we’re all elected to serve?”

In fact, we usually say a prayer saying that we are going to bring the best of ourselves to this place and that we are going to work to the benefit of the people of this province, for the greater good. Bill 124 is a piece of legislation which is compromising, ironically, even the goals of the government. The government has put forward a plan around health care; you are actually working against yourself and the interests of the people of this province by keeping this piece of legislation on the books.

In fact, it’s worth noting that this piece of legislation has already been deemed unconstitutional in the courts—that it violates the charter rights of Ontarians—and yet, having lost that case on Bill 124, you maintain, in the most stubborn and callous manner, this piece of legislation, and you’re wasting more tax dollars fighting and appealing that decision in the courts of Ontario.

I do want to be fair to the Minister of Finance. Maybe we’ll get into this a little bit later on, but during that committee meeting I said, “How is it fiscally responsible to undermine the health care workers who are currently working in our hospitals by having Bill 124 still on the books and then forcing hospitals—including the entire caring sector, including long-term care—to have to go to outside agencies, which are private companies, and pay those agency nurses sometimes two, three or four times as much?” In fact, we heard in Kenora that this has an incredibly demoralizing impact on the work environment, and let’s remember, the work environment is the health care environment, where the well-being of patients is supposed to come first.

In that exchange with the finance minister, I said, “Why are you willing to pay so much money for an agency nurse?” And then the private company also skims off the top of that somewhere between $200 and $400 per hour—and then not honour the nurse who is working alongside that agency nurse, coming to work every day, who went to work during the pandemic, who showed up for the people of Ontario. You called them health care heroes.

I do want to say, the finance minister said, “You and Bill 124”—yes, Bill 124 is what we will fight day in and day out in Ontario.

The fiscal irresponsibility of it is at the core of this, really. The government received a devastating report from the Financial Accountability Officer yesterday. You have a plan for health care—yes, it is a plan, but it is a plan to fail the people of Ontario. The shortfall is $21.3 billion. You will not meet your own targets. The important piece with the Financial Accountability Officer is that they are measuring you against your plan, your budget targets, and to find this large a discrepancy is—even I was surprised, and you have surprised me a few times; I will admit to that.

The process by which the budget this year, the estimates this year—it has been incredibly truncated. I’ve always said, for the last 10 years that I’ve been in this House, that when you have a flawed process, you will have a flawed product, and that has certainly been true of multiple pieces of legislation that have come before this House.

The high-level piece on health care—and of course we’re going to talk about health care for a fair amount of time today, because it is very topical to the people of this province, particularly to the 107,000 people who are called “long waiters,” who are waiting for surgery.

We know that the surgical ORs in the province of Ontario are underutilized. We know that on Thursday at 3 o’clock when the money runs out, the hospital is not allowed to run a deficit, so that OR closes. Instead of funding that OR, instead of funding the nurses and the doctors who are required to open that OR more fully, to its full capacity—in our 100 public hospitals—the government is proposing a little sideline on the surgical units. I think that our health critic, later on, is going to be exposing some of those sidelines and how devastating and how damaging they can be to the entire fabric of our universal health care system.

I will say that out of the 107,000 people who are long waiters—just to be clear, these are people who have been waiting so long that the original surgery they were booked for—they are past that point of optimal health care outcomes. This number has never been this high—107,000 people. I have asked the FAO to pull out some of the demographics on that, because we also know that there are 12,000 children waiting for surgery in Ontario. The Children’s Health Coalition has asked this government for $371 million to close that gap.

When the chamber of commerce was here on Monday—it has been a very full week, a really good week. One of their concerns is health care, because they, as a chamber—as their members from across this province have said, “When health outcomes are compromised, that impacts our work environments, and it impacts the economy.”

So those parents whose children are still waiting, those 12,000 children and their parents—you can imagine that when parents go to work and they’ve been waiting one or two years for spinal surgery, they’re not working at their optimal. We heard this story from our leader last week. When your child is sick, you are well past distracted; it is hard to focus.

I don’t think that this government fully comprehends the impact of not honouring that $371 million.

Now, the plan that the government has also put forward on health care will leave a shortfall of 30,000 nurses. The Ontario Nurses’ Association yesterday responded in a very strong manner to the FAO report, as you would imagine. They’ve experienced the brunt, really, of Bill 124, as have personal support workers.

At the end of the day, the plan that you have put forward for people in this province is already failing. We know that. We know that because there are 107,000 people—long waiters—waiting for surgery. There are 12,000 children who are left in the lurch for surgery. Unless you have a serious course correction—which hopefully happens on March 23. Listen, I’m looking forward to coming back to this House for budget week. I’m looking forward to seeing how this government acknowledges the pain of the people of this province on housing, on health care and on home care.

I just want to really talk quickly about home care because the member talked about transparency. Thank goodness we do have an independent budget officer in the province of Ontario who has an expenditure monitor, who tracks what the government said they were going to spend and what they actually did, in the end, spend. The discrepancies tell a story. They tell a very powerful story. We see the press releases, we see the announcements, we see the re-announcements on the same funding allocations, but you know what we’re not seeing? The money get out the door and invested into the communities.

Home care is really one of the pillars that actually would support and alleviate the pressures on the health care system, particularly on the hospital system, but also on long-term care.

So on home care, you’ll remember that there were several announcements made about a $1-billion investment. We welcomed that investment. The agencies across the province, home care and the helping agencies, like Meals on Wheels, for instance, and Independent Living Centre, welcomed it. They’ve never seen a number like that. And it’s an impressive number: $1 billion is nothing to ignore. But at the end of the day—and this just came out in February: “Almost a year after the Ontario government announced a historic $1-billion investment in home care and $100 million in community support services, just a fraction of that funding has been paid out, leaving the faltering system that provides care to people in their homes and in the community teetering on the brink of collapse, officials say.”

This is coming from Steve Perry, who is an Ottawa-based home care owner, Carefor, and he said, “‘We are going to run the risk of collapse, or at a minimum of service rationalization,’ if the province doesn’t quickly put enough money into home and community care to stabilize the system.... His is among the home and community care agencies and organizations pleading with the province to fast-track funding.”

Now, one could ask the question, why is the money not getting out there? It’s not like these not-for-profit and community agencies haven’t proven their worth. If you’ve ever gone on a visit or a tour with Meals on Wheels and you’ve gone from house to house to house, that agency, Meals on Wheels, has a strong volunteer base, but obviously really good leadership. They have eyes on seniors. They have eyes on vulnerable people who are isolated, who are lonely. And loneliness kills. We know that from the pandemic.

Meals on Wheels, and we heard this at budget committee at every stop, are looking at a reduction of services by 30%—30%. Who cuts home care? Especially when we know that these upstream investments actually save the health care system money down the line, so a senior doesn’t find themselves dehydrated or undernourished and then in an emergency room.

God willing they can get into an emergency room, because 145 emergency rooms were closed last year. Never in the history of the province have we seen so many—they’re called unplanned emergency rooms. That means they didn’t have the staff—I see I’m losing my audience here—they didn’t have the resources to stay open.

Does anybody remember when the Premier himself said, “You know what? We’re going to get rid of those Liberals and hallway medicine?” There are people in the province who would be happy to have a hallway to go to right now; they don’t even have an emergency room. For the love of humanity, when you make a promise to invest in a community, have the decency to follow through, or at least look into why the money is not getting out into the community, because this is a definite lack of transparency.

Just to continue on with the money that hasn’t got out there, this is, again, Steve Perry: “‘At the end of the day, these are people we’re talking about. These are people who need care and services not getting care and services.... It is really big deal that we get this right. ‘”

The promise was actually $1 billion over three years to shore up the home and community care services. They talked about how significant this investment was. It was, as I said, welcomed by agencies, but, obviously, what happened during the pandemic—and making no excuses; if there was ever a time to invest in keeping people healthy, that’s one of the big, I hope, lessons that we learned through the pandemic: that those investments are worthwhile. But the situation did worsen during this pandemic because home and community care workers are underpaid compared to their counterparts in hospitals and long-term care. I know that the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane actually understands this is as well.

“Since the province’s announcement, less than $130 million of the $1 billion promised has flowed to home care agencies, according to those who receive it. Only $32 million of the $100 million for community support services has been distributed....

“Agencies have received no word”—this is a real breach trust, I think—“on when more money is coming or how much, forcing most of them who planned to cut services in the upcoming fiscal year. Perry says that they have only been told that the province is continuing to examine how best to spend the money as part of its plan for health care transformation. The struggling home and community care systems can’t wait, he said.”

So you’re holding on to the money, trying to decide who should get the money. These agencies have been in business in communities for years now. They have proven track records, and yet you don’t trust them? It makes no sense whatsoever.

“Sixty-six per cent of the community support service agencies across Ontario are planning to reduce service volumes as part of their budget planning process with Ontario Health, and 22% say their wait lists for care will get longer. Planned cuts in service average about 27%, which officials say translates” to 874,000 hours.

“Carefor, meanwhile, has already had to cut services because of worsening staff shortages ... between health workers in the home and community care system....”

This is the biggest piece, this is the biggest lesson from this one example: that the government of the day does not value health care human resources—people. You talk a lot about funding beds. A bed does not take care of people. In fact, we heard through the budget delegations that if you’re just talking about a bed and funding a bed then you’re really funding furniture, not the services. This is a serious disconnect that this government has. At the end of the day, even when you make grandiose promises around services, we’re seeing a huge disconnect between the words and press releases and the announcements, and the money that does not get out there.

“In a statement ... Home Care Ontario warned that the Ontario government’s plan to modernize the health system could be upended unless it first stabilizes home care staffing.” Once again, this is the theme: You are actively working against yourself by not acknowledging how important it is to value the people who are in the health care and caring sector.

I did want to also talk a little bit about education, because we are starting to track the education cuts across Ontario. We’re hearing from our communities of people leaving, and we heard this at budget committee here in Toronto. OSSTF and ETFO all came to the committee and said, “Listen, we have a huge human resources issue. We can’t keep the people working in the profession that they trained for. They’re moving to other competitive fields and sectors primarily because of wages.”

Also, we do know that in the child care and education sector—elementary—that there is a disproportionately higher level of women who work in the fields. They’re leaving because they can’t afford to do the work they were trained for. Educational assistants and all of the support staff that help make a school a real community are actually in crisis. And the government of the day has said, “Listen, we’re putting in historic levels of funding.” But that funding is actually not translating down into the classroom. And the classroom, in the funding model for education, should come first and then work up to the administration, and I think that’s a key part of getting education right.

I have been in the education sector for a number of years, back in 2003 when I first was elected as a trustee, and then I became the president of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association and worked with those 71 school boards from across the province, and then at the national level. As I was moving and learning as a trustee, I also had the opportunity to chair the province’s mental health round table. And because of this, educators recognized that mental health was having a devastating impact on education outcomes. At the time, the government of the day, the Liberals, had also legislated student well-being as well and gave that to the boards. So mental health became central to some of the work we were doing as school boards. At the national level, it also was really encouraging because our interaction and exchanges with Indigenous communities also weighed in on that as well, and we became genuine allies through that process.

But I wanted to talk about the education dollars, because our critic from Ottawa has challenged the minister on several occasions. She said, “Listen, you say this, but what we’re hearing from school boards, classrooms, classroom teachers and principals is a very different story.” This is from a Mississauga newspaper that came out February 27, so this is like two and a half weeks ago. The title of it is, “‘The Kids Aren’t All Right’: Mental Health Supports Needed in More Than 90% of Ontario Schools, Report Finds.” This was an annual survey done by People for Education, which is an excellent organization that I worked with for many years—Annie Kidder. And this is a survey of principals from across the province to get a sense on the culture. It’s basically an environmental scan, if you will, of our education system.

It goes on to say, “The percentage of Ontario schools with no access to a psychologist has nearly doubled over the last decade. A symptom of a system ‘under severe stress,’ according to the report published Monday by People for Education.

“It comes as young Canadians report declining mental health, leaving overburdened education workers trapped in a ‘downward spiral’ as they confront COVID-19’s ripple effects, the report said.”

This is something that we have said to the government: We have to plan to address what happened during the pandemic. We just can’t say, “Okay, you know what? It’s over. Everybody resume as you were.” because there was some real damage that happened during that pandemic. There were learning gaps. There was learning loss. There were social skills that were compromised. Our youngest learners who learn visually by watching people’s faces looked at people wearing a mask for two-plus years. So you have to acknowledge, and you need a long-term strategy to build back stronger and to address the vulnerabilities that exist in the system. And I will say that system was already strained prior to the pandemic.

This is a quote: “‘What principals are saying—and what so many are saying—is that the kids aren’t all right.’” We need the government to hear this. It’s a genuine call to engage in an authentic conversation on what is happening in our education system.

“The survey of principals at more than a thousand elementary and secondary institutions across the province found 91% of the schools were in need of mental health supports from psychologists, social workers and other specialists.” Child and youth workers are a key part of that as well.

Some of you know that my husband does teach in a rural secondary school, and those child and youth workers are sometimes the main connection that a student has within the community. They pull those students in, they make them feel connected to the community, and we’re losing those child and youth workers. They’re moving to other jurisdictions because they are also stuck under Bill 124, which is the theme of the day.

This is a stat that I found very sobering: “In 2011, just 14% of elementary schools reported having no access to a psychologist. But by 2022, the report notes, that figure jumped to 28%.” It doubled. So over a quarter of our schools in Ontario have no access to a publicly funded resources around helping children navigate through a mental health crisis or duress.

The research and the evidence are so clear: It absolutely impacts academic outcomes and student well-being, Madam Speaker. All of us, every MPP, all 124 of us have experienced having to attend a funeral for someone who has died by suicide. In the 10 years I have been an MPP, I have attended three of these funerals. The emotional labour of doing that is one thing, but having known that with early intervention and the appropriate resources—when people have the courage to actually ask for help, that help should be there.

“Meanwhile, just 9% of Ontario schools have regular access to other kinds of mental health specialists. Some 46% of schools reported having no access at all.”

This is what a teacher has said from the Halton District School Board. She sees a system “teetering on the verge of collapse.” That’s a direct quote from her. Her name is Nicolle Kuiper. She says, “You can’t teach kids algebra when they feel their whole world is crumbling.”

We know this, and we know where the mental health supports need to be. They need to be where the students are, because navigating the mental health system in the province of Ontario—it’s almost like it was designed never to be easily navigated. If you don’t have cash, you don’t have benefits, you don’t have resources and you don’t have a natural advocate in your family, it’s a very challenging system.

That is definitely not a knock against the community agencies who have stretched those dollars as far as they can. When I meet with the Kitchener Downtown Community Health Centre or, really, any health care professional, they are literally making those dollars stretch as far as possible.

So we’re really hoping, all of us on this side of the House, that on March 23, the finance minister recognizes that by not investing in accessible mental health resources, this is a lost opportunity for a whole generation. The stakes are high on this one. One could argue that they are also life and death.

This teacher goes on to say that “the most support she’s seen in her workplace is a child and youth counsellor split between two schools—a resource that ‘barely scratches the surface.’” In fact, she just made my point. These resources are stretched as far as they possibly can.

One other stat says, “Some 82% of schools surveyed in the report said they needed more support staff like educational assistants, administrators and,” yes, “custodians.” Custodians play an important part in the education system.

You can see there is such an obvious disconnect between the words that we hear from the Minister of Education and from the Minister of Finance and the reality that’s playing itself out in our schools.

The supply motion covers a number of ministries. As I mentioned, we didn’t really get to ask too many questions on this because it was a very truncated process. I believe it was about 20 minutes that we got to ask the government questions on what you’re planning to spend. But we do have, as I said, a good benchmark for where the funding is going and where it’s not.

Really, the theme that I’ve become more and more engaged in is this so-called transparency that the government says that they’re all about. When you do follow the money, you actually learn a lot, and the numbers certainly tell a different story. The province started off the 2022-23 fiscal year with $4.6 billion in contingency funds. The reason why the contingency fund component is very interesting—this is separate from the surplus, and you’ll remember inflationary costs, the costs of services and costs of goods, have gone up so much that the government cleared their deficit three quarters ago because so much tax revenue came into the province of Ontario.

So the government benefited from a high inflationary rate. Did they pass on those savings to the people of Ontario? No, they did not. What they did, though, was put it into an unallocated contingency fund. The reason why this is so important—I believe the FAO has said the same thing in various public settings—is that it removes the transparency and the accountability over this funding allocation. Every dollar that comes through this place on behalf of the people of the province is allocated. Sometimes, as I’ve just told you with home care, you can allocate it, but you don’t necessarily get it out the door.

But in the instance of a massive contingency fund—and Ontario is an outlier in this regard—by underspending on home care, by not getting the appropriate amount of money out that you targeted for education, all of this money goes into this unallocated contingency fund—a slush fund, if you will. This removes our responsibilities as MPPs—it actually removes our rights as legislators—to oversee those expenditures and that amount of money.

This is something that is a new practice, I would say, for any government. The Liberals couldn’t do it because they ran regular operational deficits. But this money should be in the system. That’s the key part I want to say. This money should be in the court system, for instance. There’s a young person in my riding who was assaulted. She has been waiting three years for her day in court. That is justice denied.

We would support a more streamlined funding system into the court system. We would obviously support more funding into mental health—and I want to thank the minister for coming to Carizon in the fall and talking about the importance of community. Help us help you, is what I want to say. We want the minister who is responsible for mental health to receive the resources that he needs to get that money out the door and into communities—all communities across the province.

But when you have this much money—the last quarter came out, so now it’s $2.9 billion, ahead of a massive budget—and knowing that organizations like the Children’s Hospital Coalition are asking for $371 million, this money could have got to those hospitals to alleviate that surgical backlog back in the fall. So the question that the people of Ontario should be asking of this government is, what are you waiting for? How bad does it have to get before you spend the money that you actually said you would invest in health care, in education, in transportation, in infrastructure and in mental health?

And so we see this unallocated contingency fund as fairly detrimental from a financial transparency perspective, because we don’t even know—if we started the year off with $4.6 billion and now we’re at $2.9 billion, we don’t know where that money went to. The government is, one could argue, actively preventing us from doing our job, and that doesn’t serve the people of this province very well.

I did want to—this came up, actually, in budget delegation. You’ll know that the finance committee hasn’t travelled for the last few years because of the pandemic. We did go to 11 different cities. It was an interesting selection of cities, I might add, though. We missed all of the London area, all of the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cam-bridge area. We didn’t go to Niagara. It’s not like tourism is a big thing, I guess, in Ontario. We tried to go to Sioux Lookout. We had Red Lake. We ended up in Kenora. We went to Sault Ste. Marie, to Sudbury, to Timmins. We went to Ottawa. We went to Kingston. We went to a fair number of places but we missed a good part of south-central and southwestern Ontario. We also travelled Bill 46, the red tape reduction bill, but not too many people showed up to that. I just wanted to give a few of the perspectives of what we heard on this committee.

In Red Lake, one of the nurses who spoke to us, her name is Meghan Gilbart and she is the chief nursing executive. She said that to have an agency nurse working alongside you making four times as much as you impacts morale, work culture, patient satisfaction and patient safety. It depresses the caring environment because it speaks to how the government values nurses and health care workers. This is where Bill 124 was called “humiliating.” If you want to build up a health care system, you have to support the people that are in that system. If they feel that the government is actively working against them, that obviously will impact productivity and work outcomes. She went on to connect wage suppression with morale suppression.

This was also around the time that we found out that the Minister of Health actually had received a briefing note from her own ministry saying how Bill 124 would negatively impact the health care sector. So even the ministry—the minister’s own ministry—has told her how negative Bill 124 is for the entire sector. And still, they press on and are fighting and appealing the decision in court which found the legislation to be a violation of our charter rights.

We also heard from—I want to say, the Alzheimer Society showed up in a big way this year, because they have warned this government of the negative impact of not investing in those supports. We heard from caregivers as well. The province of Ontario definitely needs to understand and to support the people who are caring for their partners who are experiencing Alzheimer’s. This is one of the cruellest diseases that we see in Ontario right now and across the world.

This is what we heard from Stéphanie Leclair, and this was in northeastern Ontario: It currently takes, on average, 18 months for people in Ontario to get an official dementia diagnosis, some patients often waiting years to complete diagnostic testing. More than half of the patients suspected of having dementia in Ontario never got a full diagnosis. Research confirms that early diagnosis saves lives and reduces care partner stress. They said, and this is a direct quote, if we don’t act now and invest, “Ontario’s hospitals will exist solely to house/care for those who have dementia or Alzheimer’s.” The sector is warning you that if you don’t plan now, if you don’t invest now, there will be greater costs down the line.

I’m sure that we all know somebody who is going through this journey. It is a cruel journey for the entire family. If you don’t want the further pressures on the health care system the plan that you have, if you’re not willing to course-correct—I hope that the government recognizes that keeping people out of hospital by those community supports is one of the main pillars of trying to rebuild the health care system. The demographics of this province are also well known. They were well known before the pandemic. We have an aging demographic and the population has certain needs; we need to plan for those needs. That’s what a responsible government does. It’s not like you don’t have the money. The money is in an unallocated contingency fund.

Really good organizations like L’Arche Sudbury came. They came with solutions. That’s what was so impressive about this budgetary process: People are not just asking for a handout, they’re not just asking for cash. They’ve come to the table saying, “We want to partner in a very real and genuine way. We’ll do our part, we’ll fundraise on our part, but we need a financial partner, a willing partner to come to the table.” L’Arche Sudbury did an amazing job on that.

I want to say, the post-secondary institutions, like Algoma University, came forward and they’ve identified one of the key issues around the health care human resources crisis, which is that people in that sector are not being supported. Bill 124—a humiliating piece of legislation—aside, they’ve recognized that certain training needs to be incorporated to deal with the complex mental health and societal issues that people are facing. They want to be part of the solution, and they want to train people to deal with people who are incredibly vulnerable.

We did hear from the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association. This started some time ago, but they have an Indigenous Trustees’ Council, which has made a recommendation to the government of Ontario and the Minister of Education to create a compulsory course that deals with reconciliation and the residential school history of this country—basically just to tell the truth about what happened in Canada. They see this as a true path to reconciliation.

One of the quotes that I heard, which really resonated with me through this, is that the Honourable Justice Murray Sinclair, chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, points to education as key to reconciliation: “Education got us into this ... and education will get us out” of it. It was powerful presentation because education really is the great equalizer for so many communities, if it’s done right and if you build those supports for student well-being and make the school really the hub of the community.

Doug Gruner of the Ontario College of Family Physicians came to us, I believe it was in Ottawa, and he expressed a great deal of frustration with the system that surrounds the hospitals. He said they can’t get patients into specialist appointments. Over two million Ontarians don’t have a family doctor, 150,000 have no family provider whatsoever and 75% of family physicians do not work in family health teams—and that supportive work environment actually retains those health care professionals.

He referenced the underutilized surgical suites across Ontario. Why aren’t we making the most of our publicly funded hospitals and the investments that have been made in those surgical suites? We should be opening them as much as we can to alleviate that devastating wait-list.

They had a solution for the Minister of Health around time allocation. They said that by providing some technology and some technical supports by way of a medical scribe, doctors could spend more time with patients and less on paperwork.

These were solutions that came from the sector. They were informed, they’re research-based, they’re evidence-based and they’re looking for solutions.

I could go on at length about some of the great people who came and who took the time to come to these budget selections. I feel like the government members weren’t so keen on the Bill 124 conversation, to say the least. But not one delegation—not one—said anything good about Bill 124, because there really isn’t anything to say that is good about Bill 124. The only good thing that we can say is that at least the courts have upheld the law of this province, and they did so again earlier this week, which—thank goodness we have the court system in Ontario, although the government really should just call the last 15 court cases a lawyer employment strategy, in my view.

Earlier this week, the third-party election guidelines that the government brought in prior to 2022 were struck down in the courts, as well—and deemed it null and void and a violation of charter rights, and also a piece of legislation which prevented Ontarians from participating in their own election.

I wish people were paying attention to this kind of thing, because it’s a whittling away of our democratic institutions in some regard. When legislation is brought in by a government which undermines the rights of the people we serve, everybody should be paying attention. The court system obviously has been focused on this for some time, as well.

There are a number of other ministries that the estimates capture—certainly, the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs is timely, given our discussion around Bill 71 yesterday and some of the comments that were made by some government members about indicating what’s good for Indigenous communities. I think that our critics and our speakers yesterday were quite strong on this. Reconciliation only happens when you actually engage in an authentic and honest conversation and when you include Indigenous communities in that conversation, particularly as it relates to treaty rights and the fact that it’s their land. One would think that would be a core principle of any kind of consultation process. As is already indicated with the building mines faster act, Indigenous communities are already gearing up to go to court. I suspect that you’ll lose that court case, as well. So it actually makes fiscally responsible sense to engage with those communities sooner, at the very beginning—because consultation after the fact is called disrespect. Those are certainly our concerns with Bill 71.

On the transportation funding: The FAO also identified a $656-million discrepancy in funding that’s supposed to be going out for transportation and for transit. This is particularly impactful on the people of Toronto, with the Eglinton Crosstown and Metrolinx—the lack of transparency as it relates to the Ottawa LRT and the Eglinton Crosstown. The people of this province have the right to know where that money is going and how much money is actually going to profits versus infrastructure. The transparency language that we heard earlier, quite honestly, doesn’t resonate on this side because we’re still looking for answers.

But I will say, at the very least, we do have a very good understanding now of how poorly prepared the health care sector is for the changing demographics, as indicated by the FAO yesterday.

I do want to say, just because I’ve been consistent on the Bill 124 conversation and the question arose yesterday—if the government of the day loses the court case, the appeal of Bill 124, which the government is actively appealing right now, the cost to Ontario just in hospitals—60% of the funding around hospitals goes to wages because you need people to deliver health care. Beds do not deliver health care. If the government of the day loses that case, the—what is it called?

Interjection.

Back to the Premier: Women’s Crisis Services of Waterloo Region provides life-saving, safe and compassionate shelter and transitional housing to women and children experiencing domestic violence. In their pre-budget submission, they detailed the desperate need for core operational funding. Provincially, that number is $60 million, noting the rise in domestic violence across the province.

A key ask involves transitional housing, which is foundational for survivors to move out of a shelter while they’re maintaining support and safety before living independently. It is crucial to addressing the bottleneck on housing wait-lists and emergency shelters.

Will the government commit to providing organizations like Women’s Crisis Services with operational funding for VAW transitional housing programs in the 2023 budget? Because I hope that we can all agree that we should not have to fundraise in the province of Ontario to keep women and children safe.

I want to talk about the ethics of where the funding is going and where the funding is not going. The intentional underfunding of health care in Ontario is unethical, and we have proof of that.

I often say that a budget is a moral document and when you follow the money you follow the real priorities.

The FAO has predicted that over the next three years, there will be a $5-billion shortfall in health care funding. This is based on your expectations, as well. The government allocated $3.5 billion in contingency funds. Contingency funds are not transparent. They are not assigned to anything. This is very different than a surplus. This government of Ontario has the money to address the surgical backlog. They have it in hand, and they are choosing not to use it.

The FAO projects improving budget surpluses over the next four years, growing to $7.6 billion. You are growing your surpluses off the pain of the people of this province. It is deeply disturbing when the government has a significant amount of money that they are choosing not to invest.

The FAO has said that the government’s increased use of contingency funds is not a transparent way to budget, as it makes it more difficult for the public to know what the plans are and where the money is going—which is exactly the direction that the government is going in. They want these dollars to go to the very shareholders who have come to various events that this government has hosted. They have pitched it, and this government has said, “Do you know what? We’re going to choose you, the corporate interest in health care, over the people we serve.” This is intentional. It is a strategy that this government is using—but if we only had those mandate letters, where it will clearly, I’m sure, articulate what is happening in the province of Ontario. Has this government released those mandate letters? No. In fact, they have lost in court four times. They’re wasting your money to hide their own intentions as a government.

One of the other things that is happening in Ontario is that of the $1 billion promised for community care, only $130 million has been spent. Communities in all of our ridings are going to be cutting Meals on Wheels, community-based programs. These programs keep people out of hospital. That is the smart investment in health care—people staying healthy.

So this government’s pattern is very clear, and I think that’s why it’s so heartbreaking for some of us who have fought these battles for public health care.

I’ll leave you with this quote from economist Armine Yalnizyan. She said, “We don’t need an action plan for corporate profit and control, using public money. We need to improve the public system.”

That’s what this motion is about today, and that’s why this government should be supporting it.

My question is for the Premier.

Municipalities are reeling from the alarming passage of Bill 23 on Monday. The lack of consultation and the absence of respect and facts have resulted in a deeply flawed piece of legislation that will undermine housing affordability, increase homelessness, and compromise the integrity of the greenbelt ecosystem.

Last week, the member for Kitchener–Conestoga claimed that seven Waterloo region municipalities were “sitting on over $200 million ... of reserve funds from development charges that have already been collected.” Specifically, he went on to say that the township of Woolwich was sitting on $6.5 million of DC charges that they didn’t know about. In fact, all of the DC reserve funds are allocated and are in the municipal five-year economic forecast. You just have to learn how to read, I guess.

The drastic reduction in development charges will—

Interjections.

The drastic reduction—

Interjection.

Why is the government implying that these funds are not being used and that municipalities are negligent in their duties?

Woolwich Mayor Shantz set the record straight:

“Based on the pace of our growth ... we will actually require additional funding to be able to do all of the forecasted work. We are staying with the best practice approach that, as much as possible, growth should pay for itself.

“We do not want existing taxpayers to pay that heavy burden. That’s neither fair or appropriate.”

Mayor Crombie herself said that Mississauga will lose $885 million over 10 years in development charges because of Bill 23. She said that it’s equal to losing 20% of their capital budget.

Why is this government undermining municipalities and their ability to facilitate affordable housing?