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.”

Yes, you guys can clap.

I also want to talk about wage parity in the community. I want to thank our labour critic for really talking about the discrepancy between workers who work in the caring sector—health care workers, mental health, social workers—versus what’s happening in some of our institutions.

The Ontario Community Support Association was asking for $533 million for the home and community care sector, to keep pace with inflation and to eliminate the wage gap between home and community care. The wage gap in their sector poses a challenge in recruiting and retaining—“Sector struggles to recruit a robust workforce.” The pre-pandemic vacancy rates were 7%; they have now risen to 20%. We are losing the talent in community because the nature of the work is so emotionally laborious. It is hard, hard work, with fewer people and an increased workload, and then the wage has not kept pace.

Keeping on health care, I just want to say that the Ontario Nurses’ Association—Erin Ariss presented. ONA has been so strong on the health care file, not just because they’re defending their members; they’re actually defending public health care.

Interjections.

Yes, they appealed it twice.

Honestly, the negative impact of Bill 124 on this province will be felt for years. And there’s no concerted effort even to rebuild that workforce.

I have to say, there are many of us on this side and many of us who are think tanks and academics and politicals who think that this is very intentional—very intentional that you have abandoned your respect for the public service workers.

I’m just going to connect this. When the finance minister got up in his place, he also mentioned the former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. This was a day here in the Legislature—I really want to say, everybody spoke so well, very emotional. I did congratulate MPP Mulroney on her eulogy to her father. In fact, her whole family, really, I have to say, showed such strength and character during this grieving process.

When the finance minister referenced Brian Mulroney, he was indicating that this budget had some sort of quality and some sort of shiny motion that had dignity, that recognized what public service used to be like.

I actually have in my office a framed thank-you note to my former father-in-law, Walter Fife, and it’s signed by Brian Mulroney, for his 41 years of service to the national service. That is how leadership shows respect for the people who work for us. And we are—yes, you guys can clap.

Interjections.

I’m happy to be helping Mohammad, the concierge at my building. I have not given up on his getting his medical qualifications. Do you know why? Because he’s a talented renal specialist, which Ontario needs.

I want to thank our deputy leader, who has really taken this call up, this charge to ensure that the people who come to this great country and this great province, who have talents—that we honour the talents. It’s not just to honour them and their dedication, but also because we need their services. What a missed opportunity.

The Bill 124 piece was still a common theme in pre-budget consultations. This government has had to make amendments—make amends, I would say. The Financial Accountability Officer said that over the next three years, the price tag for your imposing unconstitutional, one would say, illegal legislation on the workers of this province—the final bill will come to $13.7 billion. So you pushed that can down the road, causing great damage to health care.

When I talk to nurses—and I’m going to be quoting the Ontario Nurses’ Association—they describe their experiences right now in hospitals as essentially like a war zone. There’s not enough time. There are not enough resources. There’s not enough expertise, because we’ve lost some of those dedicated nurses who were looking to mentor future nurses.

The connection to the health care system, for me, is very personal. I did mention last time that the wedding is coming for my son, in August. His future fiancée—because she did say yes. She also said yes to the dress, I just want to say. It was a good moment. You have to find the joy in this world. She’s a nurse who can’t get full-time work in Ontario even though she’s top of the class—specialized in NICU, working with babies. I’m so concerned that they’re going to leave Ontario, as a parent. I want them to settle in Ontario. I want them to be able to afford a home. I want them to have some quality of life. I want them to have a doctor.

Speaker, 2.3 million Ontarians do not have a doctor, and in four years, that number is going to go to 4.4 million Ontarians.

Our entire health care system is designed so that in order to enter the health care system and access appropriate care, you need a doctor. That’s how the system is designed. So when people don’t have a doctor, where do they go? They go to the urgent cares.

The wait time at urgent cares in Waterloo region, last Saturday, was 10 hours—so 10 hours for an urgent care, or 21 hours at the emergency room. These are the choices that the government is proud of?

This is the problem that the government made a choice not to solve in this budget, and for the life of me, I can’t understand it.

Our leader and our entire caucus fully understand that if you want a strong economy, if you want to draw investors into the province of Ontario, if you want people to reach their potential, then you make sure that you have the social infrastructure, you make sure that you have the acute care, but you also have that full spectrum of care, and that includes mental health, and that includes good schools.

Waterloo region is drawing talent from around the world. But now what’s at risk for that investment and that drawing of that talent into our region is the fact that people can’t find a doctor.

That’s why the chambers of commerce from across this province also have been on this campaign to recruit. The government should also be focused on retaining the talent. This is the missing piece—that we cannot afford to lose more doctors and lose more nurses. We certainly can’t afford to lose more teachers. So that’s the retaining piece. But recruiting into that system—that system has to be greatly improved, because you cannot recruit into a broken system. It actually goes against everything that we value.

This budget bill can be amended. It can be fixed. We want to fix it. We want to make sure that the needs of Ontarians are reflected in this budget. We haven’t given up. We want people to have hope.

I just want to say to the members across the way, when we ask questions about the wait times, about the 600,000 women who are waiting for mammograms in Ontario, about the 2.3 million Ontarians who don’t have a doctor, and then you come back at us with the carbon tax, that also is incredibly insulting to the people we’re elected to serve. It does feel like a Monty Python skit sometimes here in question period. It’s astounding to me that these serious problems do not warrant serious attention and a serious response. We need a serious government in 2024, in Ontario, because people are hurting.

I did want to go through some of, as I mentioned, the gender lens for budget 2024.

We heard from Victim Services of Durham Region, and they said the government should deem intimate partner violence as an epidemic. I asked them, “Do you think the government of Ontario should recognize that intimate partner violence is an epidemic?” They said, “Absolutely. The numbers speak for itself. It is recognizing the issue for what it is, absolutely an epidemic, crisis, human rights crisis” in Ontario.

The government is stubbornly stuck and refuses to acknowledge the problem. If you don’t acknowledge a problem, if you don’t identify a problem, how will you ever solve that problem? And this problem impacts all of us. All of us have personal experiences where we have friends or family who have experienced violence or fear of violence or harassment. I personally do not know one woman in my life who has not experienced some form of violence or harassment because of her gender.

So they were actually asking for the government to treat this issue seriously, and they specifically required consideration for the creation of an inter-ministerial task force. This was a really good solution because it would incorporate the women’s issues and the economic impact, which is a good combination to have because women are often coerced and controlled away from their financial independence. It’s well-documented; the research is very clear. And then, it also would include the justice system.

To say that the justice system in Ontario is broken would be being kind to this government. For all the bluster of this government on tough-on-crime—right now, it is bluster, because rapists and people who assault women are going free in Ontario.

I talked about Emily at the fall economic statement—what courage she had to come forward and talk about her experience of being sexually assaulted, and then her experience in the court system and the lack of independent legal advice that she was supposed to have access to.

Legal aid is not even mentioned in the budget.

These are choices that this government has made.

Right now, in the media studio, the member from Toronto Centre has a panel of women and legal advisers. These two women are talking about how hostile the court system is to women when they have the courage to come forward; how they’ve been denied justice.

But they’ve got money for helicopters—four helicopters to monitor auto thefts. There are cheaper options to address auto theft, I have to say. This is the great irony for me: Even if those helicopters catch the bad guys as they’re trying to steal your car, once those people get into the court system, they will not get access to justice in a reasonable time.

The Auditor General said eight months was the threshold. Emily’s rapist went free after 18 months. The court case was dismissed; it was stayed. Justice was denied to Emily, but one could also say her accused never got their day in court, as well. The system and the backlog is preventing justice, and we all know that justice delayed is justice denied.

So I applaud our member from Toronto Centre for bringing these voices right here into the House. This is seriously what we have to do, because the stats on the court system are not so transparent, and that’s also very intentional, I would say.

The fact that bail reform was not funded in this budget, even though we hear the tough talk from the Premier; the independent legal advice, which was piloted in Thunder Bay, Toronto and Ottawa during the pandemic—then it was extended to the whole province, but the funding allocation was not? This is a do-more-with-less sort of initiative.

Those women who have come to Queen’s Park to share their experience—this is an opportunity to learn. And this is what the pre-budget consultation was also about—an opportunity for us, as legislators, to learn and to apply solutions.

So I want to applaud Victim Services of Durham Region for making this recommendation.

We also heard from Bethesda House and Laura Burch from Sault Ste. Marie. She was talking about domestic violence in the Soo and Whitby, and she cited the 62 femicides that happened in 52 weeks—62 women were murdered by their partners in 52 weeks. She talked about the fact that they served 123 clients over the course of the year. They received 3,000 calls. They have funding for only one staff member, 18 beds. They had to turn away 1,063 women and children. When you turn away women who are fleeing violence because you’re not resourced to take care of that situation, that’s a sign for that woman and for the children—often, women who are fleeing violence have children—that the system as a whole does not care. It needs to be prioritized in the budget. It was not prioritized in this budget.

They also made a really good case that prevention is the path for eradicating violence against women. I have to tell you, there is a lot of truth in that statement.

Speaker, 15 years ago, I was a researcher at Camino, and we did a course for high school students around what a healthy relationship looks like. I remember a young man saying to me, “I didn’t know that when I called her such-and-such a name”—he said, “I’ve heard that all my life from my parents, from my home. I didn’t know that it was even demeaning.”

Education is the key to eradicating violence, and this can be incorporated into the education curriculum. There needs to be political will to incorporate what healthy relationships look like. It should start really early. Now that we’re going back to math and science in kindergarten, why not throw some healthy relationships in there too?

YWCA Toronto really made a case, because the YWCA here in Toronto and, actually, across the province—I’m thinking of what is happening in Kitchener right now. They said they must not just provide shelters but must give more supports to those fleeing violence, including wraparound, culturally sensitive, trauma-informed supports. This is really hard work—when you are on the front line and you’re working in a shelter and you’re dealing with a lot of issues. In fact, we now know from the brain injury society of Ontario how many women have concussions, and that impacts decision-making. There’s a research project going on right now—also another good opportunity to learn. I like learning. It’s fun.

The YWCA said, “Our ability to provide support is directly tied to our funding.” They also said that intimate partner violence must be declared an epidemic. Why the resistance to this from the Ford government? What is the harm? What would you lose from identifying and naming a problem?

Moving on to health care: The Charles H. Best Diabetes Centre—Lorrie Hagen is the executive director—made a compelling case around community care. I’m going to quote some of their submission. They said that their care, as a diabetes organization, keeps people out of the hospital. Do we want to alleviate the pressure on the acute-care system? Of course we do. They are asking for $3.5 million to do so, and they made a financial case to do so. They said, “The acute-care system that currently sends type 1 patients to us would be forced to take on this care in a very expensive and inefficient way. The cost of patient care in hospitals is up to $1,800 a day,” versus “our interdisciplinary community-based preventive care that provides exceptional value at $3.50 a day.” This is a good solution. It is a smart solution. It’s not going to get any of the private health care corporations that go to your events any additional funding, but it is community-based, not-for-profit, where every single dollar goes into the care of the clients. That is the system—

Interjections.

Yes, they’re doing okay. You know who’s not? The people who are looking for housing, particularly affordable housing, and the people who are getting energy bills. And you’re going to increase their energy bills. Why would this government go down this road, Madam Speaker?

So we question the decision-making. Honestly, the OEB’s decision was based on research by experts. The evidence is clear that the government’s direction around expanding natural gas was not in the best interests of Ontarians. And yet, now we have a piece of legislation, ironically called “keeping your energy bill down,” or something like that—something ridiculous. I don’t know who writes the titles of these bills.

And then you know what? Even when we do come to this House and we propose some solutions, the government is not willing at all to even contemplate them. I’m thinking particularly of our oppo day motion from this week. We came to this House with our oppo day motion to remove the tolls for truckers on the 407. For us, this was a very creative solution; perhaps a stopgap for other highways or other infrastructure projects, but really, an immediate solution to address painful gridlock on the 407.

This would also address the productivity of Ontarians, because people spend too much time on the parking lot called the 401. And this would address the economic development call and potentially save $8 billion by not having to build another highway directly parallel to the 407. And also, quite honestly, there would be significant environmental benefits from ensuring that we make better use of the 407. There was, of course, the forgiveness of the $1 billion in non-compliance fees that were forgiven by this government. So there’s definitely a need to sit down and have this conversation.

I don’t know why they’re so soft on tolls because, ironically, they brought forward a piece of legislation saying that they’re going to take the tolls off roads where there are no tolls, but they refuse to take the tolls or even address or reduce the tolls where there is a toll, on the one highway in Ontario that has a toll, which is the 407 ETR.

Just to give you some sense as to how this would play out, the potential—and this is a report that I will quote in a second. This would move trucks to the 407 and “12,000 to 21,000 trucks a day off Highway 401, reducing daily traffic for passenger vehicle drivers” on that highway. Moving trucks to the 407 “will improve journey times for truckers by approx. 80 minutes”—time is money, Madam Speaker—“which would be less than half the length of time than the equivalent trip on Highway 401.”

Subsidizing the 407 will “cost $6 billion less than constructing” another proposed highway. And that highway isn’t even going to be built for another decade. People who are stuck in traffic and gridlock on the 401 right now, they cannot wait another decade for some kind of relief.

This report from Environmental Defence says this confirms—if they had even been willing to have a conversation, right? “Their findings confirm that the alternative approach of subsidizing the toll for trucks on the 407 would address the key aim of reducing congestion on the 401 while eliminating the risk of negative environmental impacts.”

Was this government willing to have this conversation with us? No, they were not. In fact, for some reason, the Minister of Transportation didn’t even want to talk about the 407. I know why they don’t want to talk about the 407. They don’t want to talk about the 407 because this was the worst deal in the history of the province, and our debate really revealed a lot of issues that are ongoing.

This goes back to contract law. For some reason, the 407 ETR contract with the province of Ontario heavily favours the 407, not the people of this province. Some of the highest tolls in the country—I think “the universe” may have been quoted the other day—but definitely the highest tolls, on the 407, in Ontario, than any other province in this great country.

Going back to that $1 billion: Let’s remember that during the pandemic, obviously, ridership was down on the 407, and the 407 ETR wanted some COVID-related relief. They got relief. They got $1 billion worth of relief.

According to documents obtained through the provincial freedom-of-information act, the government “didn’t pursue ‘potential congestion penalty payments in the order of $1 billion’ for 2020 and could decide not to do so again”—which they did.

This comes at a time when the government was planning to build a parallel highway to the 407. It’s really about priorities.

Even if you go back to the pocket issue, this government is actively choosing to provide relief to the 407 ETR and not to the people of this province, who, in better times, are back on the 407, paying the highest tolls in the country.

Let’s remember that the 407 ETR received that $1 billion in relief even in the year when they made $147.1 million worth of profit. So, yes, they still posted a profit, and yet they still received very, very generous—I would say $1 billion is very generous. This is a very profitable highway. When you’re charging the kind of tolls that they are, of course they’re going to generate a lot of money.

What’s really important to think about, when a government is making choices or setting priorities—this is what actually happened. The highway, during this time, had the option of reducing tolls to encourage more drivers to use the highway, possibly preventing the congestion clause from being triggered, but they opted not to do so. Do you know why they opted not to do so? Because they were like, “It’s okay. This PC government will take care of us.” They knew where the interests and the priorities of this government fell. It fell with the 407, not with the people who pay the highest tolls.

It goes on to say in the contract—“‘407 ETR is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to minimize the effect and duration of the force majeure,’ ministry officials noted in their April 3 memo. ‘This could include, amongst other things, reducing tolls to encourage traffic.’” It’s right there in the contract. The government has never even tried to pressure or push the 407 corporation to meet their contractual obligations. This meant that the 407 ETR was failing to meet its contractual obligations—I just said that.

CEO Sacristan explained to the ministry and wrote a letter, and in that letter they quoted—“407 ETR has initiated discussions with ministry staff and is seeking comfort that the government will exclude the pandemic period from any congestion penalty payment calculations. Corporate reporting requirements to shareholders, investors, debt holders and public auditing and disclosure requirements are driving the urgency of this matter....”

And the government met them at that urgent place. They met them in that moment in time. Meanwhile, minimum wage workers are actively having the government remove money from their pockets, but the pockets of the shareholders, they’re fine; they’re doing okay.

The Ministry of Transportation, ironically, does not make its traffic data public, despite the open-government legislation. The language that we hear around here around “the historic investments” and “this never happened in the history of the province of Ontario”—I have never heard a government use the word “historic” to such historic measures. I mean, it’s quite something. This is a very clear example of a government showing us who they really are, right? At the end of the day, there were a few ministry staff who really tried to push back a little bit, but not on the political side, I have to say. They said, and this is the quote from one of the FOI documents, “We believe that the congestion relief mechanisms have been rendered inoperative by the lack of congestion.” And then: “Mindful that the 407 managers could reduce tolls to encourage higher traffic levels and avoid billion-dollar penalties, however, the assistant deputy minister, operations division”—at the time, Eric Doidge—“at the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, took issue with the company’s characterization of traffic levels.”

There were people, I’m sure, who were advising the Minister of Transportation at the time that we didn’t have to be so compliant with their request to seek comfort. That is not the job of the government, to comfort corporations. It is the job to put the interests of the people of this great province ahead of those corporations. And the ministry disagreed “with the 407 ETR’s statements regarding the existence or non-existence of congestion in the” GTA. The only reason that we know some of this stuff is really through FOIs—and several people, though, who have been following this debacle of the 407, beginning with the worst deal in the history of Ontario by selling it after we’d already paid for it.

“The government could have pressed them to drop the tolls” after viewing these documents. “They don’t seem to have put any pressure on the operator. They lost that opportunity.” So this government chose the interests of this corporation over the interests of the people that we serve. I have to say, we continue to really just be the people that paid for the original highway and pay the highest tolls. They continue to pay the highest price for a really messy policy decision.

I’m just going to move on a little bit, because the government is not indicating at all that they’re even interested in alleviating congestion on the 401 with a creative option, even though it’s well within their rights, particularly on the provincially owned 407. There’s literally nothing stopping this government from removing tolls on that part, but they do have a piece of legislation that says “get it done”—is it just “get it done”?

Yes.

Yes, there’s some sunshine over here; it happens on occasion.

But I do want to say to my friend from Cambridge, I did talk about the Till Death Do Us Part legislation. I know that he has met with Jim McLeod. I know that he’s been trying to work with the new Minister of Long-Term Care and trying to navigate a way forward with that piece of legislation. My understanding is you may reinvent your own piece of legislation. You know what? At the end of the day, I don’t care too much. I just want to make sure that Joan and Jim and other seniors have a chance to be reunited.

I share your concerns with the Waterloo Regional Police video. It really is heartbreaking to see the worst in society really target the most vulnerable. That’s not the best of us. That’s not the best of our humanity. I just wish the legislation could be stronger, but perhaps we’ll get another chance to do that.

Yes.