It gives me great pleasure to welcome Graham Henderson, the CEO of the London Chamber of Commerce, who is here for the Ontario Chamber of Commerce’s Queen’s Park advocacy day. They will be hosting a reception at 5:30 in room 228. I hope all MPPs can join them.

I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga–Malton for his presentation. I think it’s important that we recognize that trust is not something that is freely given; it is something that is earned, and it’s earned based on reputation and based on past behaviour. Frequently with this government, we see many pieces of legislation that are very concerning. We see a government that is very interested in backroom deals and escape hatches. There are many workarounds that this government has created with legislation, such as Bill 124 to trample on the rights of health care workers, as well as Bill 28, the bill that was until it wasn’t, with the “notwithstanding” clause. Also, MZOs are yet another example of this.

Does the member think that environmental protections are worth protecting? Why are you creating an escape hatch to override environmental protections?

I’d like to thank the members for their comments about Bill 69.

I want to return to the Auditor General’s report, where it was pointed out how Infrastructure Ontario management was deemed ineffective—that there were no standards of performance, no timelines, and even that there were invoices that were non-specific to the location as well as the services that were provided.

Is it good business to continually reward organizations that do not have performance standards, that do not have timelines, and that are unspecific on invoices?

I thank the member from Oakville for his comments. I listened intently.

We had the opportunity to travel on the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, and we heard from many folks and organizations across the province who underscored the importance of housing as a social determinant of health.

Here on the opposition side, we believe in stretching a dollar as far as it goes. We believe in upstream investments, such as the province creating affordable housing, making sure that there’s robust primary care infrastructure, making sure that we have nurse practitioners and family health teams.

My question is specifically about business. I would say that it is bad business—is it not?—to reward somebody who does not deserve it, somebody who has not earned it, somebody whose track record actually means that they are not doing the correct job. When we look at the example of Infrastructure Ontario, we have heard, in the Auditor General’s report, about how ineffective they are. My question is, why is the government cherry-picking only the things that they like out of the Auditor General’s report and not responding to all the things that need to be done?

I would like to thank the member from Ottawa West–Nepean for her excellent presentation showing how Bill 69 is actually creating a loophole that undermines or even negates the Environmental Bill of Rights.

It seems that this government is a government of backroom deals and escape hatches when you look at Bill 28—the bill that never was but never was—the “notwithstanding” clause, MZOs, Bill 124, and now Bill 69.

You talked about the Auditor General’s 2017 report, and you pointed out how Infrastructure Ontario management was ineffective, with no standards of performance, and that there were no timelines. It has even been pointed out that invoices were non-specific and did not have proper addresses on them—so it wasn’t necessarily as though these invoices were even related to the properties that were being managed.

My question: Is it fiscally prudent or socially responsible to give further contracts to Infrastructure Ontario?

I’d like to thank the member from Niagara Falls for his excellent question. No, I don’t think that anyone in Ontario at this point trusts the government on the way in which they’ve handled the greenbelt. They’ve talked about this swap where they’re actually adding lands that already had some protections on them. They’d like to pretend that they are doing this thing where it’s an equal exchange, but if we look at the greenbelt as a chain, if you weaken any links of that chain, such as a watershed or something else that is contributing to the filtering of our water, then that entire chain is weak.

What they’re doing to the greenbelt is odious. They’re making sure that it’s going to be easier for these developers to make McMansions, which is not what we need more of. We need more inwards and upwards development, we need affordable housing, we need rent control, we need vacancy decontrol, we need protections for tenants—none of the things that this government is doing, because they do not care about tenants.

They, on the side of the official opposition, said that they were going to change things. They agreed with the Auditor General. And now that they’re on the government benches, we see a completely different change in attitude. They’re upholding many of the things that they criticized the Liberals for, including Infrastructure Ontario, including Tarion. Now they’ve even created yet more government bureaucracy with things like HCRA.

But this attack on the greenbelt is absolutely odious. They’re also taking money away from municipalities when they need it the most. The government should be having a public builder building housing, not expecting private, for-profit agencies to—

The government has a responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to clean drinking water. The fact that there are places in this province which do not have access to that basic human right in the 21st century is unconscionable. It’s completely unacceptable.

There are areas close to my riding that have been under boil-water advisories for 25 years. If that were to happen in any large urban centre, it would be corrected immediately. It would get government attention. But we’ve seen governments, past and present, who simply want to kick the can down the road. They want to finger-point for jurisdictional change, and they simply don’t want to do the right thing. They could get clean drinking water there; they just choose not to.

With the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, we travelled the province and we heard about the people who are struggling. And yet we see bills like Bill 23, which are just actually—they wrap that bill with the word “housing,” but really what it’s about is McMansions, and it’s about seizing land from the greenbelt.

Instead, what we should make sure is we should have a government that’s actually looking at how Infrastructure Ontario operates. We should have a government that looks at how Tarion operates. When people make the largest purchase of their lives, they deserve to have some—

For many years, we criticized the Liberals for this. But this government is doing it almost on steroids. It is unbelievable what they have achieved with Bill 23, with Bill 7, with so many different things and ways—

—“that unsuccessfully bid on P3 projects up to $2 million per bid to cover some of their costs.” That is an amazing consolation prize.

So these few companies that bid on these projects can actually receive a cash windfall for simply putting in an application—not even for being successful, for just simply putting in an application. Toby calls it “a cozy fraternity of lucratively paid P3 companies and consultants getting wealthy at the public’s expense.” That is not fiscally prudent. That is not good business.

Back in the day, the Conservatives, as opposition, were quite critical of this sort of spending, yet now that they’ve changed to the other side of the House, they’re quite happy with the status quo. In fact, they have become the status quo.

I’d also like to take a look at some of the Auditor General’s report on real estate services. Now, the Auditor General states—

Interjections.

The Auditor General said that the agreement, the enterprise realty service agreement, between Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Infrastructure—here are the problems: “The agreement does not set out any mandatory, minimum standard of performance for managing the costs of capital projects. It does not set out timelines for meeting.” And it does not make sure that government properties are being “used efficiently.” These are all the buzzwords that we hear from this government all the time, and they’re not doing it. It’s abundantly clear that this is not being upheld. They are not doing their due diligence. They are not participating in what is a good business model.

So if we take a look at the request for proposals, the RFP approach, the Auditor General pointed out that that attracted only a few bids for the management of 7,500 capital projects. These were projects worth about $900 million over five years. There was not a broad range of companies that bid on this. It’s very curious.

She also criticized—it says, “Better oversight of external projects—

Interjection.

She also states, “Better oversight of external project mangers’ procurement methods for capital projects is needed.” She goes on—she believes in competition. She believes that things should be fair. And on the side of the official opposition, that makes sense. She states, “Infrastructure Ontario does not track how many vendors bid on capital projects and which vendors are winning the bids.” They actually don’t track what they are responsible for—wow. Where’s the accountability? Where’s the transparency?

The Auditor General talks about the vendor rotation process, which is supposed to be an electronic bidding service that’s supposed to provide these contracts in a more fair manner. “However”—this is where it’s interesting, Madam Speaker—“since 2013-14, Infrastructure Ontario has allowed its external project managers to select vendors from its ... list and manually add them to the list of bidders.” So they cherry-pick the ones they wanted to get the contracts to make sure they got the contracts.

Speaker, as we look at Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, there is far more that this government needs to do in terms of reducing inefficiencies. On the side of this official opposition, we hear this government with all of their buzzwords, we hear them with all of their rhetoric and their language, but we’d like to see actual action that is reducing inefficiencies. We’d like to see a better business model where there is true transparency, accountability and actual efficiency.

Let’s see the government do this. Let’s not hear them talk about it; let’s see it reflected in legislation. I look forward to the briefing, and I want to thank the Minister of Infrastructure for providing that.

This program showed great promise. It cost about $18,000 per person per year, rather than the cost of a mental health bed. It was great cost savings. It was efficient. It was amazing. And it was also something to be prescribed by a doctor. The device and the program would be prescribed. It was to be added to the Assistive Devices Program. I heard lots from this government about how ADP is 30 years old and it’s for mobility devices and sensory aids and that’s it. They had the opportunity to modernize ADP and they chose not to, so I’m tired of hearing—

It’s an interesting bill that we have here before us with Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act. Unsurprisingly, we see yet more buzzwords being thrown into more legislation. Rather than having an acronym, there’s these business buzzwords.

But to begin my remarks, I wanted to clearly state that trust is something that is not freely given on everything and anything, nor should it be. Trust is something that really needs to be earned. Trust is about dialogue. Trust is about respect. Trust is about accountability and transparency—all the things that are treated like buzzwords but actually have real, valid, tangible meaning.

I listened very intently to the Minister of Infrastructure’s presentation, and we heard many of these buzzwords—we heard about “efficiencies,” “streamlining,” and so many buzzwords, quite frankly, people at home could fill out a bingo sheet and have a heyday each day and every day with this government. But when we take a look at the government’s record on the environment, it’s a dumpster fire. It’s a dumpster fire with toxic waste in it, for heaven’s sake.

This government wants trust. They want us to trust their words. They want us to take them at their word. They want to simply smile and say, “There’s nothing dubious about this.” They have categorically been denying the official opposition the customary briefings that were typically provided as part of the tradition, respectability and honour of this House. I did want to inform the House that earlier, in my questions of the Minister of Infrastructure, I asked why the requests for briefings had gone unanswered thus far, and it’s unsurprising that directly after that question was asked and on the record, publicly available, suddenly that request for a briefing has been honoured. So I do look forward to the briefing that will be available for the official opposition—again, something that was customary and something that happened after each and every bill was introduced, but something now that has to be requested, apparently.

We also hear words like “fiscally prudent and responsible,” “efficiency,” “streamlining”—all these sorts of things—and I would say that this bill does not achieve that in that it does not tackle the real issues that the Auditor General has pointed out.

As I begin my remarks, I’d like to start with schedule 1, the changes to the Environmental Assessment Act. This will allow the minister to waive the 30-day waiting period that is currently required following the end of a class EA comment period before granting an approval to proceed with an undertaking, such as an infrastructure project.

In the Auditor General’s report from December 2022, Operation of the Environmental Bill of Rights—I’d like to read a couple of the recommendations into the record.

Recommendation 2: “To provide Ontarians with a minimum of 30 days to comment on environmentally significant proposals for acts, and to provide prescribed ministries with sufficient time to consider any comments submitted before the proposals are implemented....”

Recommendation 3: “To provide Ontarians with a minimum of 30 days to comment on environmentally significant proposals for acts, and to provide prescribed ministries with sufficient time to consider any comments submitted before the proposals are implemented, as required by the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993....”

Speaker, this is clearly a bill that is an attempt or a very overt gesture to gut the Environmental Bill of Rights. It’s a workaround. It’s a way to deny the customary comment period. It’s a way to ignore the public. It’s a way to deny consultation.

I did want to also introduce some recent information to this House. We recently passed legislation in this House, and the mayor of Central Elgin was completely caught off guard by the legislation that was passed by this House. The title of this article is, “‘Completely Off Guard’: Central Elgin Mayor Shocked by Province Annexing 700 Acres.” Mayor Sloan said, “I think a little more than surprised”—when he responded to Bill 63. “Of the 1,500 acres, 75% of that lies in Central Elgin. The concern that Central Elgin has, is that some of that was marked for development land for economic development for Central Elgin. Now we’ve lost that revenue.”

Clearly, the government did not consult with Central Elgin in the implementation of that legislation. This will be a great economic boon for the area, but it’s something that Central Elgin is clearly losing out upon. The government did not do their due diligence by contacting all interested and affected parties, and we see the exact same sort of operation here with this bill. There’s a claim that this will be more efficient, it will be streamlined, it will be faster, and perhaps that’s true. Obviously, stomping on environmental rights is a way for this government to be faster and be more efficient. They must see that as being somehow more efficient, which is concerning to the official opposition.

I’d also like to quote from a letter that was sent from the Auditor General to the official opposition, to the MPP for University–Rosedale. The Auditor General says, “In your letter, you asked my office to review whether the government has violated the Environmental Bill of Rights....

“Sections 15 and 35 of the EBR require ministers to do everything in their power to give public notice of a proposal at least 30 days before the proposal is implemented, and to take every reasonable step to ensure that all received comments relevant to the proposal are considered when decisions about the proposal are made.”

She goes on to say that she has concerns whether all of the comments related to Bill 23 were meaningfully considered before decisions were made. Obviously, these are huge concerns. This government will claim that these are not concerns. The comment period for Bill 23 was incredibly short. When we look at Bill 69, we wonder if this is yet more of the same.

As I turn to schedule 2, schedule 2 is about the Ministry of Infrastructure Act. It would allow the ministry to assume a lease entered into by the entity with a third-party landlord. So we look at all of the 14 entities that are mentioned in schedule 2 that ostensibly Infrastructure Ontario will start to take the management of and look after the servicing of, but there are so many problems that the Auditor General has already identified with Infrastructure Ontario that have not yet been addressed. So I’d like to take a look at some of the operations of Infrastructure Ontario in my comments today.

In 2014, the Auditor General released a report showing that public-private partnerships, which are administered by Infrastructure Ontario, showed wastefulness and incredible overspending—$8 billion more on projects, allowing these P3 companies to siphon money off of the public purse, to take money away from health care, to take money away from education. She stated back then, “If the public sector could manage projects successfully, on time and on budget, there is taxpayer money to be saved....”

She looked at 74 projects. They included several hospitals, the Eglinton light rail line; they were all built with these P3 models, also known as alternative financing and procurement or AFP. These were all administered under Infrastructure Ontario. She found that with these projects, they cost about 14 times what the government does for financing. It’s really become almost an industry that we see here in Ontario, and it’s the largest infrastructure company in all of Canada, because the government is quick to waste public money to make sure it gets into a few private hands. They’re taking everyone’s money, and they’re making sure that only a few people benefit from it.

Also, Infrastructure Ontario’s chief CEO at the time said, “The guys we’re outsourcing this function to, this is their core competency”—but they aren’t showing that they’re competent whatsoever when you consider the cost overruns, the way in which they overstate the risk, and the fact that also, if these projects do come in on time, which is very rare, and if there is more money that they’ve allocated, it comes to them in a windfall profit.

Back when this report was tabled: “Interim Progressive Conservative leader Jim Wilson said the first step is for the Liberals to get rid of their ‘bias’ in favour of private partnerships, and analyze projects more objectively.

“‘They have a bias—which normally we would be accused of as Conservatives—[of] wanting to always use an alternative finance plan,’ he said. ‘They need to get rid of the bias.... You’re basically skewing all your contracts into one stream.’

Now, that goes against Conservative ideology, which is that there ought to be competition, there ought to be people who are doing this for the right price. That’s supposed to drive costs down. But really, what we’re seeing with Infrastructure Ontario is something completely different.

Now, Lysyk also saw that these calculations are very wonky. They assume that if the public is managing projects, it’s going to cost a great deal more and, also, that the government will fail to meet its obligations.

It’s very interesting that it’s this sort of negative attitude that the government has about its own self—the government thinking that it, itself, is going to fail and fall behind in terms of the maintenance and fixing of infrastructure. It’s incredibly odd. But these are assumptions that, apparently, are completely acceptable in Infrastructure Ontario.

Further, when we look at the way in which these P3s operate, they also really benefit a whole host—I would say that there’s an entire industry behind this. They deliver economic benefits to corporate law firms and financiers. They earn enormously high fees arranging complex contracts, lending money to the government at rates higher than what the government normally pays. That’s bad business. The government could borrow money at a much better rate, and yet they choose not to. They’re choosing to fill the pockets of a few people. That’s not fiscally prudent. That’s not fiscally responsible. It is incredibly difficult. Overall, the Auditor General found that Ontarians paid 28% more for these projects than they ought to have. It’s incredibly, incredibly problematic.

If we also look at the way in which these projects are financed, it’s a sneaky way of the government hiding the money that they’re spending, because the borrowing is stretched out over decades and these financing charges will often account for 80% of the extra charges of these massive P3 projects.

They also hide behind these value-for-money assessments. It was actually quite groundbreaking that the Auditor General was able to get as much information, because many of these value-for-money assessments are—basically, they’ve been called “window dressing.” They claim commercial confidentiality. They really don’t want anyone to scrutinize the numbers. That’s why we’re so lucky in Ontario to have the Auditor General, who is able to provide that unbiased scrutiny of government spending.

Back when the Conservative government was in opposition, they loved the Auditor General. Now that they are in government, they suddenly—I don’t know if that relationship is really the most fond one, at this time.

I’d like to quote: “Canada’s largest P3 agency makes decisions on tens of billions of dollars of public spending using assumptions with no basis in fact.”

It’s often been called Stephen Harper’s evidence-free policy-making that we’ve seen when it comes to this blind adherence to this for-profit and P3 model. It doesn’t bear any real fiscal prudence. It doesn’t make any sense.

The large companies behind P3 projects can also walk away at any time. They risk only the equity that they place into a project. Generally speaking, that’s about 10% to 15% of the cost.

Toby Sanger also points out: “Infrastructure Ontario has been paying the big P3 companies”—

Interjections.

I’d like to thank the Minister of Infrastructure for her presentation this morning. I listened intently. I did have a question. This bill is very young; it’s about a day and a half old. The official opposition has reached out to the government benches. It seems to be this government’s standard practice that bills are dropped without offering any briefing, without offering any of the tools that are really common and traditional in this House.

My question is, Speaker, when will this government be providing the official opposition with a briefing on this bill?

Recently, I had the privilege of joining my colleagues in London to tour the new Carepoint Consumption and Treatment Service building. Evidence shows that consumption and treatment services provide many benefits to those who access services and benefits the neighbouring community, including reducing overdoses as well as a proven track record of successful connections to health and wraparound social services. In London, this program has reversed 713 overdoses and served over 1,000 clients. This new site will provide more opportunities to expand these programs and save even more lives.

Carepoint has had a long and difficult uphill battle, but we’ve really seen the London community open their minds and hearts, recognizing the importance of supporting marginalized people. I would like to thank Brian Lester, Dr. Sonja Burke, Megan Van Boheemen, Lily Bialas, Dr. Alex Summers, Shaya Dhinsa, Dr. Chris Mackie, Scott Courtice, Dr. Sharon Koivu, Dr. Andrea Sereda, Pam Hill, Linda Sibley, John Pare, Ed Holder, Karen Burton and many more.

After an exhaustive search for an ideal location, the retiring owners of John Bellone’s Musical Instruments, John and Moira Bellone, kindly offered their building to support the community to save lives.

What will always remain with me is Dr. Sonja Burke’s emphasis that every person has value, meeting them where they are, hugging each person and educating our community about harm reduction. Welcome to the neighbourhood.

I rise today in support of the bill being debated, the Building Better Business Outcomes Act, as a reasonable step in the right direction. By amending the Securities Act to require publicly traded companies to have a written and publicly available policy on the diversity of their boards of directors, we can promote the inclusion of more women, more people of colour, more people with disabilities, and more members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community on corporate boards.

Everyone in Ontario deserves to feel safe, to feel welcome and to feel at home in this great province. No one should have to face discrimination or fear because of the colour of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation or their abilities, and that includes at work.

The question becomes “What is diversity?” When we think about diversity, we typically think about race and gender, but it should be more broad, more inclusive. When we look at diverse employees, they don’t automatically create an inclusive workplace. They can start that process, but the workplace also has to have policies and frameworks that recognize the importance of both diversity and inclusion; there have to be teams with anti-discrimination policies.

Further to this, people don’t know what they don’t know. Until we have people of differing backgrounds, differing perspectives—can we begin to understand once we listen.

It’s disappointing to hear that the government is not in favour of supporting this. Representation is truly what matters. Diversity doesn’t happen by accident or by happenstance. It’s about making room at the table. It’s about providing that space. It’s about making space, not taking space. When people see themselves reflected, that is when you build trust, that’s when you build accountability, that’s when you build authenticity, and it provides an inspiration to young people. It broadens our minds.

To share some statistics—the Ontario Securities Commission reports that total board seats and executive positions occupied by women was less than 20%, yet only about the same percentage of companies had adopted targets regarding the representation of women on their boards. They hadn’t provided that room. Even worse, a study highlighted in the report found that only 5% of all directors were visible minorities. That’s not a reflection of the Ontario that we live in. Indigenous directors and directors with disabilities made up 0.05% and 0.04% of boards, respectively. Together, they didn’t even form half of a per cent. That’s problematic.

This bill echoes the recommendations from the government’s Capital Markets Modernization Taskforce. Investors are increasingly demanding data on diversity on boards and in executive officer positions to make informed investment and voting decisions, and this legislation addresses that demand. The task force recommended that publicly listed issuers set a target of 50% for women and 30% for BIPOC, persons with disabilities, and members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. It also recommended that these targets should be completed—within five years to meet the target for women and seven years to meet the other targets for BIPOC, persons with disabilities and members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. This report was issued in 2020, but the government has not taken any steps toward these goals.

The gender wage gap still exists to this day. We consider ourselves modern, we consider ourselves evolved, and yet why is it that for the same work, women are paid less? Why is it that women are still encountering the glass ceiling? Why are they not able to hold those positions of power? Women in this province earn far less for every dollar made—and that gap is even wider for intersexual identities, women who are racialized, Indigenous women, women who are newcomers, women with disabilities, trans women, and non-binary folks. We have tens of thousands of women in this province who are underpaid and undervalued for their work every day, and they earn less than they deserve. Quite frankly, it’s outrageous.

Over the course of the pandemic, it was women who were doing double duty, working and parenting without child care or school, or who were forced to give up their jobs entirely to stay home with children. This could have been resolved with more workplace flexibility.

When it comes to hourly wage rates, the gender pay gap is about 11%. The wage gap has always been greater for racialized and Indigenous women, and it could be resolved by more representative leadership.

The Equal Pay Coalition did a poll that showed that 85% of Ontarians said it’s important for the Ontario government to do more to promote women’s economic equality. But this government stalled the implementation of legislation that aimed to increase pay transparency in Ontario. This government instead makes cuts that disproportionately impact women—cancelling an increase to the minimum wage, slashing paid sick days, and refusing for years to make investments in affordable child care, long-term care, education and health care.

The London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership has also studied the impacts of discrimination on immigrants, visible minorities and Indigenous peoples. The outcomes of this study called for strategies to promote an environment that encourages victims of discrimination to report their experiences and engage in effective initiatives to prevent and reduce discrimination. The report states: “These anti-discrimination initiatives would help make London-Middlesex a more just and equitable community, and would protect its residents from the harmful negative outcomes that experiencing discrimination can produce ... would help make London-Middlesex a more welcoming community that could attract, integrate, and retain diverse individuals, an integral part of Canada’s strategy to sustain the economy.”

Of course, in my community of London, we know first-hand the horror of unchecked discrimination and what can happen as a result. On June 6, 2021, three generations of the Afzaal family were killed in an Islamophobic terror attack while out on a walk, leaving the youngest member of the family as the sole survivor.

In the last Legislature, the NDP tabled a day of remembrance and action on Islamophobia. That bill was ordered to the standing committee after second reading, and it never left.

Further, I was proud to table a bill to declare May 10 as a day of remembrance and action against anti-Asian racism. Unfortunately, that bill never passed.

We need more bills like Bill 50, to make sure that we are taking an active role to promote diversity within our province.

For Black, Indigenous and racialized people in Ontario, discrimination and racism are far too often a daily reality in a maze of deeply ingrained systemic barriers. It starts at the top. As a step to fight economic discrimination, publicly traded companies need to better reflect their workers, customers and their communities. When people see themselves reflected, it makes a difference.

To really and truly address the economic inequality experienced by women, people of colour, people with disabilities and members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, we must also be looking at fresh solutions such as updating and enforcing the Pay Equity Act and moving forward with the Pay Transparency Act so we have mechanisms in place to track and hold companies accountable for the gender pay gap.

We could also make investments and do the work to dismantle structural racism in every sector in Ontario. Shortly after this government was formed in 2018, there were many concerns about the dismantling of the Anti-Racism Directorate and the $1,000 that was afforded to something that was supposedly formed to tackle racism across the province.

There’s also rock-solid evidence that more diverse boards have better bottom lines. It is a win-win.

Ontario has the opportunity to become a leader in this. Ontario has an opportunity to be the first to do this. The world of work is changing, and Ontarians must be set up to succeed now and in the future.

I hope that this government will reconsider. I hope they’ll listen to the debates that have been presented by the member from Don Valley West as well as the official opposition. This is a way for us to move forward. I hope that the government is listening.

Back to the Minister of Finance: I had the opportunity to travel across the province with the finance committee, hearing from people about what this government’s priorities should be in this budget. Many of the proposals we heard were small investments that would produce significant long-term savings.

The Canadian Celiac Association brought to our attention that celiac testing is not covered by OHIP, which contributes to a higher rate of late diagnosis. Better access to this test would increase the quality of life for thousands and save millions in health care dollars by reducing unnecessary X-rays, ultrasounds, iron infusions and hospitalizations.

Will this government do the right thing—and the smart thing—by covering celiac testing under OHIP?

I’d like to thank my colleague from Hamilton Mountain for her comments and her concerns about privatization and profitization in our health care system. As well, I would like to thank you for mentioning the importance of publicly funded as well as publicly delivered health care.

Back in March 2022, the Deputy Premier and Health Minister Christine Elliott stated, “We are ... making sure that we can let independent health facilities operate private hospitals.” Then, the minister’s spokespeople jumped in and said, “The use ... of private hospitals and independent health facilities in Ontario is not being expanded or changed.”

My question to the member: Is this an example of the government being accountable or transparent, given that this privatization and profitization is exactly what Bill 60 is doing?

I’d like to thank my colleague from Oshawa for her wonderful presentation.

I want to take you back to March 2022, when Ontario’s former Patient Ombudsman and, at that time, the Conservative health minister, Christine Elliott, almost issued a warning—or, at the very least, let it slip. She stated: “We are ... making sure that we can let independent health facilities operate private hospitals.” Possibly, when they realized how foolish and wrong this was, the minister’s spokespeople said, of privatization, “The use or function of private hospitals and independent health facilities in Ontario is not being expanded or changed.”

Clearly, funding is being cut for publicly delivered health care, as we’ve seen in the FAO’s report—cutting $5 billion—and it’s being put into for-profit health care profiteers’ pockets.

My question to the member is, why did they flip-flop?

Speaker, I rise today to support this motion. My colleagues have explained some of the many reasons why this is necessary.

We have operating rooms that are sitting empty because we don’t have the workers needed to staff them. At best, this is incredibly problematic, fiscal mismanagement on the part of this government.

In Ontario, when you look at our operating rooms—it’s like a person who has a beautiful, high-end car and decides to go and park it out in a field so they can get into somebody else’s tired old limousine that won’t take them where they want to go and will charge them extra once they get there.

Bernie Robinson, ONA’s interim president, said it best: “There is no health care without the dedicated care from nurses and health care professionals. A bed is just a bed without the staffing and support to ensure the patient is receiving quality care.”

It’s clear that this government has no plan to actually address the health care crisis. Look at what happened in Walkerton. Look at what happened in Chesley. Look at what happened in Listowel. They are shortchanging rural and small hospitals, and they’re shortchanging health care. Look at the 80 ER closures over the summer.

Across the province, we heard during the pre-budget consultation that Ontarians want this government to invest in a health care human resources strategy. We have the lowest nurse-to-patient ratio per capita in the entire country.

Shortly after I was elected, I was approached by seniors who had been waiting years—years—in pain for joint replacement surgeries. They were left languishing on that wait-list as a result of the Liberal government, who put those arbitrary caps on the amount of time that they could spend in those ORs. And this government is going down the same path. It’s not the answer.

This government could say yes today—they could say yes to a plan that can be implemented immediately—but they keep saying no. They want people to settle for a system that’s less effective and that will cost them more. They want to waste money. It’s wasteful to underuse our public health care infrastructure. We on the official opposition side want people to expect more. Let’s not go backwards.

I urge my friends across the aisle to protect our values, protect Ontario’s integrity, protect our health. Let’s build a province where companies want to invest. What is required is a publicly funded, publicly delivered health care system so companies know they have a healthy workforce, so they don’t have to pay for that extra—an educated workforce, so they don’t have to always retrain.

Support this motion today. Say yes.

In a few weeks, one of Canada’s first fertility clinics is closing its doors after 50 years of helping families grow. The fertility clinic at London Health Sciences Centre has helped bring more than 4,500 babies into the world since opening in 1972. These services are shifting to a private clinic, Omega, due to a lack of funding.

Speaker, what does this government have to say to the thousands of families who depended on this vital public service?

What we need right now is action to address the hospital crisis and a plan to recruit, retain and return health care workers in our public hospitals, not further privatization. Why does this government want Ontarians to settle for less when it comes to creating their families?

I’d like to thank the member from Windsor–Tecumseh for his presentation on Bill 63.

You mentioned the importance of Windsor–Tecumseh in terms of the auto sector. With the Ambassador Bridge, that’s a vital trade corridor. I wondered about the length of time it took for the Premier to act upon the Windsor Ambassador Bridge blockade. Flavio Volpe said it was “‘the single most disruptive event’ of the last 20 years for the automotive sector.” Transport Canada said that $2.3 billion in trade was put on hold while this government failed to act. Most damning, though, was the reputational damage to Canada and Ontario as a reliable trading partner.

My question for the member is, should the Premier not have acted faster to declare a state of emergency and protect Ontario’s reputation?

Thank you, Speaker. Earlier in my debate, I said “General Dynamics Land Systems.” I’d like to correct my record. I meant to say “Electro-Motive Diesel.” Thank you.

I’d like to thank the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound for his comments. It was wonderful travelling with you on the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, getting to hear from folks all across the province who wanted to see investments from the province, who wanted to make sure that we shored up our health care system and made sure that there were those investments in education, ones that really contribute to the economic development across our province.

What we are arrested with as a province right now economically is that we don’t see that wages are keeping up with inflation. We don’t see that people are being paid very well. It is the era of the gig job, the gig economy, people not having those long-term and viable jobs. That’s concerning for young people. I speak with many constituents in my riding who are concerned about their adult children who are never going to be able to afford a place to call home. They’re never going to be able to afford that mortgage, because they’re spending so much in rent right now that they’re not able to save anything up. Heaven forbid that they’re in a place that has no rent control when they’re already paying those really incredibly punishing rates that might go up yet further.

People are concerned across this province, and I think what we need to make sure is that we have a province that is looking after people through health care, education and making sure people are being paid what they’re worth.

I think, as well, that we are looking forward to working with this government to make sure that we have the greatest, most prosperous province in the entirety of Canada. But part of that, as well, is making sure that our expenditures match those other provinces. We are dead last when it comes to public spending on services such as health care, education, post-secondary education—you name it—and Ontario needs to really get it together.

It’s really unfortunate that we have seen the proliferation of this for-profit model within our province when we should all be able to share in the economic prosperity. That means that these big employers have to pay fairly.

I’d like to thank the member for Windsor–Tecumseh for his questions. You quite rightly cited the deep concerns that many people have right now, which are about inflation and cost of living. There are two key areas which could be addressed with greater protections for folks, such as reinstating rent control and making sure that people have a safe place to call home. In the absence of it, we’ve seen terrible circumstances for a lot of people who are frightened about losing their homes.

With Bill 23, we’ve seen also that rental buildings can be purchased by some of these international key players, redeveloped into luxury condos—and what happens to those people who are in those units, Speaker? What happens to buildings full of seniors who have lived there their whole lives and lived there in a good way, in a comfortable way, in an affordable way, who are now at risk of losing their home? Those are key ways.

There are investments like these, but they also have to be backed up with union protections, good wages, benefits and a pension.

I think about so many different industries that closed. We look at what happened to the folks at Sears, who worked there for many years, and when it came time for them to close, the business looked after shareholders before it looked after workers. The loss of pensions was something that was deeply concerning.

We need legislation in this province that makes sure to protect workers—workers first. Business will look after itself, but a business is nothing without the people who comprise it.