It gives me great pleasure to stand and add the voices of the wonderful people of London North Centre to the debate on Bill 63, as the official opposition critic for economic development, job creation and trade. As I begin my remarks, Speaker, this bill is quite a surprise to the official opposition. I understand that there have been talks that have been ongoing for many months, according to city officials and municipal officials in St. Thomas, as well as central Elgin, and I must make sure that it is on the record that the official opposition has requested a briefing from the government but none has been provided to us yet. It is important. This legislation really is something that could lead to great jobs in the area, and certainly that is something that we on the official opposition side support.

If I think back, my grandfather actually was an employee at Ford Talbotville, and it is as a direct result of his being a union member that my mother was able to go pursue university at the University of Western Ontario, now known as Western University. It was because of that union job she received a scholarship, you see. It changed the trajectory of her life, of course, and, as a result, needless to say, of my life and my sister’s and my brother’s.

I think it’s wonderful to see that we have an 800-acre or 320-hectare site of land. Flavio Volpe has gone on the record to say many good thing about this. He said it puts St. Thomas “at the head of the pack right now,” and, “One of the most important things in chasing one of these investments is land assembly, being close to multi-modal access (highways, rail and airports) and labour. St. Thomas has all of that.” He also goes on to say that he’s glad that St. Thomas “has bought a ticket to the dance.”

London was a great manufacturing city, as well as St. Thomas, back many years ago. Unfortunately, due to a lack of continued provincial investment and provincial attention, many of those manufacturing jobs left. London had Kellogg’s, McCormick, major industries that unfortunately chose to leave. There was also General Dynamics Land Systems—pardon me, I’ll need to correct my record. I’m misremembering.

In terms of Bill 63, it would be creating a mega-site. A land of adequate size, it’s going to be a suitable location capable of accommodating this major new investment. What is unclear about this, though, is we don’t know who the industry players are. This has not been revealed to us by the government. There is no indication of who will be occupying this site, what this is going to look like, how many people will be employed by this. It’s all very unclear.

In theory, this looks like something that we can absolutely support, because it will be the creation of good jobs—hopefully well-paying jobs, hopefully union jobs. What is surprising is that, on first glance—because, as I said, this was just dropped upon us with no briefing whatsoever—I’m pleased to say that there doesn’t seem to be any poison pills in here, which is often happening with omnibus pieces of legislation, as I’m sure you well know.

But because this legislation seems short on details, we’re being asked to go on trust. We’re being asked to simply push this through. In this bill itself, I don’t see any mention or use of any MZOs or changes to land use planning, but I would like to also make sure that it is on the record that this government recognizes that there does need to be additional investments for child care, additional investments for housing. These are important things that this site is also going to require.

If we delve back into the history, a decade ago auto manufacturing facilities closed down. It cost the area thousands of jobs, and this is also part of this Job Site Challenge that the government has announced in 2019. Hopefully, if the rumours are true, this will be the site of an electric vehicle battery plant—but again, still pretty short on details.

Flavio Volpe has also said, “I like St. Thomas’s story. Everyone loves a comeback, and 2008 to 2010 was not kind to this community that has an incredible manufacturing history. It would be great to see another major auto investment in a town with a past.” I couldn’t agree more, Speaker. This will be a great economic benefit for the city of St. Thomas as well as for the city of London, because there will be also people who are travelling to these great jobs.

Also, as we look towards this, I look forward to the briefing from this government. I am surprised that this has been dropped upon us—there have been no details—because this goes back all the way to June. In June, St. Thomas announced that it had assembled this site, and it announced that it was doing so to woo manufacturing. So we know that there have been discussions that the government has had with the city of St. Thomas and with industry players, and yet the official opposition has not been made aware of those discussions.

I also wanted to add to the record the voice of the London Economic Development Corporation’s Kapil Lakhotia. He confirmed that the St. Thomas area—now, again, this is news from back in January. Kapil Lakhotia confirmed that the London-St. Thomas area is getting attention from manufacturers. And also recently in our news, there is an EV battery plant in Windsor that will employ almost 2,500 people when it opens in 2024. Lakhotia said, “As we work with EV suppliers, we’re confident more investment will come to this region. If a facility is being purpose-built for Cami, that’s wonderful. Winning a major investment bodes well for our region. It shows confidence to other (automakers) that we have the labour and capacity and business climate for EVs.”

EV investment, of course, is going to require a number of things. It’s going to require land. It’s going to require a workforce. It has to make sure that there’s a stable electrical supply and the access to raw materials. Southwestern Ontario really is the automotive manufacturing hub of Canada. There are so many different automakers as well as auto-parts suppliers; it is a wonderful industry. There are good-paying jobs—union jobs—which are cap-able of supporting a family, one where there are pensions, one where people can go to work, make a good day’s wage, come home and know that they have benefits, that they will also be able to retire.

It is concerning. I would like to see more protections for workers from this government. This is wonderful; we see many announcements about jobs. But I want to make sure, with all these announcements about jobs, that they’re also going to be well-paying union jobs. On the side of the official opposition, we’ve always been in favour of things like card-check certification, making sure it’s easier for people to be able to join unions, to make sure that they have those workplace protections, because without them, it is just a job. We want to make sure that these are jobs that, again, can sustain a family, can support young people when they eventually go to school and support people when they’re in retirement.

As we look through this bill, it is interesting that this bill is being pushed, because clearly there is a lot of interest in this. With this, these tools that are being achieved within this bill are also possible within other means. Annexation is provided for in the Municipal Act, but this seems to be rushing it through. Perhaps that’s because there is going to be a substantial investment from industry which, again, is a great thing, because our manufacturing sector had a major collapse almost 20 years ago. There were so many workers in southwestern Ontario who were the ones who were hit especially hard.

There have been fears for a number of years about the long-term viability of Ontario’s auto sector. Many have even wondered if North American manufacturing would move to California with Tesla. But here in Ontario, things do seem to be turning around. There have been announcements with Stellantis in Windsor, the Project Arrow. Demo EV is another powerful demonstration of the strength of Ontario’s auto sector in the EV era. I would like to say, from the side of the official opposition, we welcome this increase in manufacturing. We welcome these great new jobs.

As I said, Bill 63 bypasses that normal annexation process in the Municipal Act; I believe it’s part 5. The government is jamming this through as fast as possible. We just would like to know why. That’s all we would like is just some clarity. We would like to know who the industry players are and what we can do to support it, because on this side of the House, we’re happy to support the creation of good, new jobs and long-term union jobs.

As well, I wanted to take a look toward—Sean Dyke, the chief executive of the St. Thomas Economic Development Corp. said, “If you look across Ontario, there is a general shortage of quality industrial land and we have to say, ‘We are open to business. We are ready.’” He has said that he is “definitely looking to pursue an investment in the EV sector. It is grown at such a rapid pace....’”

If we look back, earlier this year, Stellantis and South Korean battery manufacturer LG Energy Solution announced it is building Canada’s first large-scale vehicle electric battery plant in Windsor. It’s a $5-billion investment. As I said earlier, it’s going to employ about 2,500, and it’s going to be on more than 80 hectares of land.

These are really interesting, important investments for the province. These are important investments for the St. Thomas region. It’s wonderful to see that a place that was so hard hit by the collapse of manufacturing will again have a manufacturing renaissance.

However, to this government, have they looked towards the necessary investments for housing? We’ve had many discussions in this chamber about investments in housing that have been absent from the province. We’ve seen much of it being left up to the private, for-profit industry. We’ve seen the removal of rent controls. Young families or people hoping to save money to eventually buy that first home are being subject to—within the absence of rent control, their rent is going up, after they complete their lease, at a terrible rate.

You know, you plan. When you decide to move into a new location, a new home, you do those financial calculations. You decide, “Okay, I have this much money I can spend on housing, this much on food, this much on entertainment,” and that’s all part of that equation.

But many people weren’t following what this government did back in 2018. With the removal of rent control—I believe it was Bill 147 where rent control was removed on all new builds that were first occupied after November 2018. What that meant was that these people, after completing a lease, then received the information that their rent would be increasing at a terrible rate, not subject to the year-over-year guideline. That is something that people can’t factor in. They can’t plan for that kind of dramatic increase. There are stories of people’s rents going up by 10%, 20%. It could go up by any number.

Frequently within this chamber, we also hear about the dramatic increase in the number of rental starts since this government has taken power. And while that may be true, that is probably largely due to the fact that the industry now sees that there’s an opportunity. In the absence of rent control, the creation of this new rental housing will allow people to exploit folks, quite frankly, because rent control protects people. The absence of it is exploitive. That’s something that is deeply frightening.

As I said, you used to be able to save up money when renting. It didn’t cost as much as a mortgage. Some people actually just choose it so they have that freedom. They might like to take vacations. They might like to spend money on other things. They might want to make investments in other parts of their lives, so they want to keep their housing budget rather low. That would be possible if rent prices were reasonable.

At this time, we’ve seen rents increasing at such a terrible rate that they’re often larger than the cost of a mortgage, and that’s unsustainable. In the London area, as I mentioned in a question earlier this morning during question period, the rent stability bank, a program that is to help folks who are in rental arrears or at risk of losing their housing, has seen a dramatic increase in its use. That’s something that should be a concern to this government.

Further, we also remain concerned that the creation of new and affordable housing is not something that is being done by this government. On the official opposition side, we believe that there should be a public builder, one that is tasked with the creation of truly affordable housing that is also protected by legislation.

There have been measures such as Bill 23, which has been touted by this government as something that will create new affordable housing, but there’s no provision for what that affordable housing will look like, what the rates will be and how that will be protected with legislation. Unfortunately, it’s affordable housing in scare quotes. It’s affordable housing that might not be affordable at all. It’s shocking to think that the greenbelt land swap that has been talked about with this government, that is supposedly going to be one that’s going to create affordable housing, is in fact—it makes no sense.

I had the opportunity to travel with the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs—I believe I saw you there, Speaker—and we heard from many municipalities who are concerned about the removal of development charges paid by those private developers, that were paid to municipalities, those development charges that help with the creation of infrastructure, the creation of sewers, the creation of so many other things that are necessary for a housing development. The removal of those, which has been put forward by this government, is a measure that is supposedly something where private developers are going to pass down savings to the consumer. But there’s no guarantee. That’s the thing. Developers might not have to pay these development charges, but there’s no protection in the legislation to ensure that that money that they are not having to spend to municipalities is going to then be passed through as a cost savings to consumers. That remains concerning.

In bills like these, with Bill 63, I think about all of those young families who will be thrilled and excited to get a good job, hopefully with an excellent employer who is paying them well, has union representation, has benefits, has a pension, has all the things that we know are vitally necessary for any young family. But what happens, Speaker, if they’re not able to find that place that is truly affordable? Or even if they do, what if they find a place that’s affordable, and then in one year their rent goes through the roof and they run the risk of losing their housing? What if they find a place that’s affordable and then, with the market creeping up such as it is, they end up not being able to start a family? A young couple might find themselves in a one-bedroom place, never able to expand, never able to start that family, to have or adopt a child. That remains deeply concerning.

With this bill, I do hope that we in the official opposition hear very shortly from the government about when they intend to provide us with a briefing, when they intend to explain the need for this, the need for expedience. It’s not to say that we don’t want to say yes, because we are very much in support of good jobs. We are very much in support of investments—especially myself, being from the London North Centre area—in southwestern Ontario.

But another key attribute to this that I think is vital to discuss is when we think about young people who are entering this workforce, ostensibly created by this hopefully new EV plant: What about transit? Are we going to have regional transit available for these young folks? Just because somebody might first get a good job doesn’t mean that they have a vehicle. There are some people who might be exiting post-secondary education. They might be re-entering the workforce from time off, for goodness knows what reason. But I know that right now is an economically difficult time, so with this plan, has the government considered transit links between the city of London and St. Thomas? Have they considered what infrastructure improvements are going to be necessary on the area highways? Have they made sure that they have consulted with folks in the region about what’s necessary, what’s going to help and what needs to happen in this plan?

Speaker, I think that this is a great idea on paper. I don’t see anything that is a major concern. As I said, we have only just started to delve deep into it, because it was only dropped upon us at the very last minute, but it’s something that I think the official opposition is very interested in. We are very much in favour of large-scale investments in Ontario, in the region, when we think about the economic prosperity that that will bring to many families and a rejuvenation within the area, because not only with this investment, which is one part of a much larger, complex machine—there will be other off-site jobs which will help support.

We think about auto manufacturing—and yes, there are the places and the factories that assemble the auto vehicles, but then there are also the parts manufacturers. There are many smaller different locations that might make all the components that are necessary to go in the cars. And so I think this is very intriguing, because this could be part of a much broader and much larger investment within the region. It shows that clearly there is confidence in the area.

However, I must also state that in order for multinational corporations and other large players to have confidence in Ontario, we also need to buttress and to support our publicly funded and publicly delivered health care system, because when international eyes look at our area, they want the see a workforce that is healthy. And part of that health, firstly, is housing, as we’ve discussed, but the second is public health care—publicly funded and publicly delivered health care. They want to make sure that their workforce is not only able to come to a job, but is able to stay on that job, is able to work hard and contribute to the economic prosperity that each business in our province needs.

If we have emergency rooms that have been closing, if we have people who are unable to have a primary care physician, if we have people who are endlessly waiting for surgeries because of the lack of funding that has been provided to our publicly delivered health care system, then I remain concerned. This investment may be good, but what about our long-term prospects? With the bill that we discussed earlier, Bill 60, the privatization and the profitization of our health care system is one that I think international players might be concerned about. They may look towards other jurisdictions that have better long-term economic prospects.

When we look at education—employers not only look at the health, the housing, but they also look towards education. The FAO report recently that the Financial Accountability Officer delivered was damning, quite frankly. It showed that in the next three years, Ontario would be underfunding and cutting from health care by $5 billion. The officer also showed that there would be underfunding of education by $1.1 billion, and from justice by $0.8 million.

At the same time, if that weren’t bad enough, this isn’t just money that was going somewhere else. It wasn’t being moved to other program spending. It was being moved into a contingency fund. It was being moved into a place where there is no scrutiny, no oversight. There is no accountability for that money. It’s really the antithesis of transparency. That $20 billion—almost $20 billion over three years—is money that has been called a slush fund. It’s money that can be spent in any way the government sees fit. That makes no sense at the same time when there are these drastic, dramatic cuts from programs that we rely upon, like health and education and justice. It really makes absolutely no sense. So that remains a tremendous, tremendous concern.

And I would say for the record that I think that employers or people who are looking towards making investments in Ontario might see that and also become concerned. These investors and these multinational corporations would be looking for a willing partner, a trustworthy partner—a partner that they can rely upon and can depend upon. When the FAO exposes things like that, I’m not sure that they would feel that way.

It also remains a deep concern of ours that this government has not treated workers fairly and with respect. I would love to see, with this boundary adjustment, the creation of jobs but also the protection and the promotion of good union jobs.

I think this is potentially a very wonderful thing, but there are just some key parts missing. On the one hand, I am very thankful that it’s not an omnibus piece of legislation, that there are no poison pills hidden in it, and that it seems to be relatively straightforward. But there are so many questions behind it. In the absence of a briefing, in the absence of clarity from this government, we remain interested but somewhat concerned just for the lack of detail, if I may.

As we take a look at this, Speaker, I’m very much looking forward to the government providing us with some clarity, with some assurances, and just letting us know what their plan is. There are many opportunities which are possible here, but Speaker, unfortunately those have not yet been provided to us.

I look forward to the questions from the members across, but I can guarantee you that as they’re asking questions, I will probably be asking them my very own questions because there’s just so much that is missing from Bill 63.

I think I’ll leave my comments there, Speaker.

One third of housing in London is owned by real estate investors who scoop up entry-level properties away from first-time homebuyers. This is on top of the 86% of condo apartments already owned by investors—86%; that’s more than twice the provincial average.

Speaker, this government is telling the people of this province that they’re building new homes. It remains to be seen whether these will be truly affordable homes.

What is this government doing to ensure that first-time homebuyers can actually get into these new homes?

They talk about record housing starts, and the reason for that is that you have removed rent control. You’ve created a power imbalance between the owner and between renters.

Professor Diana Mok from Western stated: “Interest in housing used as an investment tool likely spiked in Ontario after the province removed rent controls on new builds after 2018.” Again, this has led to an unfair power imbalance where landlords can jack up the rent in between or when someone completes their tenancy, because there is no rent control. You did that. You did that to renters.

Young families are being completely left behind. The Housing Stability Bank, a local program that helps renters get out of arrears, is reporting a 35% increase in demand for their services. People are sinking even more under water each day.

Will this government close the loophole that allows foreign investors and real estate investment trusts to stockpile rental properties across Ontario?

I’d like to thank the member from Oshawa for bringing up that really incredibly important question because I will always state that consent is key. Clearly Don was not provided with the opportunity to give consent.

I think as well about an individual from my riding who recently approached me, and they had said that their pharmacist, who happened to be from a Galen Weston chain—shocking; I know this government loves to support Galen Weston whenever they can—was asking about different medications. They were going through this list and, after about five, 10 minutes—I have to hand it to my constituent; she’s very savvy—she said, “Are you doing a meds check on me?” The pharmacist said, “Oh, well, I was going to tell you that at the end of the call,” and she was going to bill OHIP for that meds check without consent. I think it’s in the neighbourhood of $60, but they were doing that and it’s mercenary. Calling people on the phone, pretending to care, but it’s all about the money, isn’t it, with privatization?

I also wish this government would listen to solutions that have been brought forward in this very chamber, like embarking upon a health care human resources strategy and treating nurses with fairness, repealing Bill 124, levelling the playing field, stopping your ideological battle and your attack on health care workers and just letting them bargain.

Do the right thing. Do the fair thing. I know you have it within you. I’ll keep waiting for it.

We have seen again and again—these historic investments that they want to talk about? They’re talking giving yet more money to P3 infrastructure projects. We need to invest in people in our province. That means giving nurses a raise. You talk about this one-time funding, but let’s let them bargain fairly. Let’s bargain reasonably.

Like I said, young, small children understand the concept of fairness; I just wish it wasn’t so difficult for this government. I know you have it in you. I know you understand what’s fair and what’s unfair. So let’s be fair to nurses. Give up your battle on Bill 124.

But this government, when they first formed, started off without a land recognition in their throne speech, they cancelled the Indigenous curriculum writing sessions and they refused to acknowledge September 30 as a truth and reconciliation provincial holiday.

This is a crisis by design because they understand that if they cut and underfund, people will be so upset and so desperately in need of care that they will accept anything that is offered to them. They won’t acknowledge that somebody is skimming off the top, somebody is making a profit, because people are so desperate for care. That’s all on their watch, leaving people in pain.

They’re just leaving it up to chance.

It has been very clearly stated that there is a limited pool of talented, trained health care workers, that there’s a limited pool of nurses. Many have left the profession, and this opening up of these private, for-profit—predatory, quite frankly—clinics will drain yet more resources from the public system. That also should be a tremendous concern, but yet it seems to be this crisis by design. It seems to be as though that is exactly what the government wants. They want the public system to fail, because they want their insiders, the people who are talking to them in the backrooms, the people who want to skim off the system and want to make money—apparently, this government wants them to have their pockets filled. That’s not fair. Our public health care system is the definition of democracy, it’s the definition of fairness, because it ensures that people are going to get the care they need regardless of their ability to pay. Just like education, it’s a democratizing force, and this is completely undermining it.

I wonder as well, is this an attempt to change the channel from recent news? I can’t be sure.

As I begin to close my remarks, I think it’s important that we recognize that we cannot go backwards in terms of public health care. We can’t sit and watch government after government undermining and strangling—it’s like this government is strangling the health care system and then asking it why it’s not able to breathe. It needs to be funded properly.

Let’s look for solutions. Let’s repeal Bill 124. Let’s have a health care human resources strategy, like has been recommended across the province, to recruit, to retain and to return nurses. Treat them with respect, treat them with fairness, and hopefully they will come back. But that’s on you. You need to listen to Ontarians.

I want to conclude my final remarks by again quoting Tommy Douglas. He stated: “Health services ought not to have a price tag on them, and ... people should be able to get whatever health services they require irrespective of their individual capacity to pay.” I could not agree more, Speaker.

I hope that this government will change course. I hope it will listen to Ontarians, who want to see nurses treated well, and embark upon a comprehensive plan to have a health care human resources strategy to recruit, retain and return nurses and fund the system properly.

Don’t maintain your status quo of cuts. Don’t maintain your status quo of not keeping up with inflation. Take that $20 billion you’re hiding and spend it where people need it the most.

What we have here is a question of oversight. There is no reason to think that these different surgical suites could not be within the hospital’s purview. In London, there are operating rooms which are able to operate at this capacity—but the key difference here, and one that I wish you could understand, is that it’s publicly funded and publicly delivered. Nobody is skimming money off the top and putting it in their pocket. I know that’s what you love, but that’s something that is wrong. It’s care or profit—you stand for profit, we stand for care.

And perhaps they’ll stay.

As a result of Bill 124, we heard from multiple delegations and we’ve heard from many different organizations that nurses have left in droves because they feel insulted. For many years, as I’ve said, as the past Liberal government strangled and underfunded the health care system, they have been holding up that system by the virtue of their good nature, by the virtue of their hard work. That’s absolutely wrong. Ten years to go without a raise? It’s unconscionable. It’s an honourable profession. It’s a caring profession. It takes a strong and a capable person—but I don’t think that anyone deserves to be treated the way that this government has. Bill 60 could have taken the opportunity to rectify that, to admit that mistake—it’s not.

We also heard from multiple delegations about the wage disparity between home care, long-term care and acute care within hospital settings. This does nothing to do that—in fact, as I’ll get to in my comments if I have time, it actually makes it yet worse.

In terms of profit-making, no one should look forward to or hope for somebody else to become ill because that will line their pockets. That’s disgraceful. I think we should all be able to agree with that. But this bill opens the door for these profiteers, people who will be doing just that. It’s almost worse than ambulance-chasing. When someone is sick, our health care system pays for that care. These are people who want to skim off the top. When they skim these public dollars off the top to put in their own pockets, that means yet less care. They latch on to the public system, and they’re going to slowly bleed it of resources.

We saw this with home care and long-term care. When privatization was suggested as a model for that, it was touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread. They said, “There’s going to be choice. There is going to be competition, and prices will stay down.” Well, we know that the exact opposite is true. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed what has been going on for many years. The Wettlaufer crisis exposed what has been going on for many years. And yet, this government refuses to treat seniors with respect.

Conservatives and Liberals have always been very comfortable bedfellows. There has long been a Liberal-Conservative consortium when it comes to this for-profit care model.

In 2017, Liberals tried to pass legislation to allow for community health facilities, and guess who supported them? The Conservatives. Of course they did, because they have always been in it together when it comes to wresting public dollars from our health care system into private pockets. Fortunately, this bill died at committee. That was 2017. Here we are, in 2023. Oh, they’re not called “community health facilities”; they’re now called “independent health facilities.” It’s old wine in new bottles, but it’s the same program, isn’t it?

There has been an ideological blind adherence to this for-profit model, and I want to point out in my remaining time some of the myths about private health care that have been put forward, because this government has been relying on some very deep misunderstandings.

Our Premier said, “We just can’t as a province keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.” Well, “doing the same thing” was underfunding health care and strangling it of resources. Of course, it’s not going to have a different result from the Liberals, but this is the result that he wanted.

Funding health care properly and ensuring health care would be different, ensuring that money was spent on front-line care, ensuring it was spent on those nurses would be different from the status quo. But you’ve maintained the Liberal status quo, so congratulations on that.

Myth number two: Private clinics are needed to clear the backlog. This implies by its very nature that publicly funded surgeries are at full capacity, but we know that hospital hallways are not full of people waiting for a knee replacement or a hip replacement. In fact, there is a complexity of care, but this government won’t fund that care properly.

I also want to point out some concerns that I have with this legislation.

Schedule 2 attempts to deregulate health care settings. It expands the definition of “regulated health professionals” to include those who are not part of a regulatory college. Just when you thought that this government could not attack, insult, degrade, demean and humiliate health care workers more, they’re trying to take away their titles. They’re actually making it so that, according to schedule 2, this definition of “physician” becomes nebulous; this definition of “registered nurse” becomes something different. Does that mean, by this, that anyone can be deemed to be this role within these settings? It will be interesting, because, quite frankly, the oversight isn’t going to be here, because that is something that is also not included properly within Bill 60.

It’s an honour for me to rise today to add the voices of the great people of London North Centre to this incredibly important debate. You see, people in London take their health care very seriously. We have wonderful institutions; we have wonderful education programs that bring people into the health care system.

I want to also thank the member from Nickel Belt for her remarks in clearly stating for this House that the NDP, His Majesty’s official opposition, is the party of Tommy Douglas, and it is the party that brought medicare to Canada and to Ontario. It seems most appropriate that I should begin my remarks with a quotation from Tommy Douglas. It reads, “I felt that no” child “should have to depend either for” their “leg or” their “life upon the ability of” their “parents to raise enough money to bring a first-class surgeon to” their “bedside”—and I could not agree more.

You see, Speaker, over the last number of years, both with this government and the government prior, we have seen an overt and deliberate destruction of medicare, but nothing like we’re seeing in Bill 60. This is taking it to the next level. This was not an election promise; this was not even an election threat by this government. This has been a crisis of Conservative design. This has been wrought by a staged process. And the COVID-19 pandemic has been often used and trotted out in this chamber as a convenient excuse to explain why they’re doing what they’re doing, to justify why they’re doing what they’re doing, to excuse why they’re doing what they’re doing. But nobody believes these lines.

What we’ve seen are cuts, year over year, to the health care system. In the second stage, we’ve seen a weakening of the workers: the people who provide that excellence of care, the people who have held up a system that has been cut and eroded and neglected year over year, leaving that in a situation where the only option is private, independent health facilities where people will profit off someone’s ill health.

Let me state here for the chamber: Publicly funded and publicly delivered health care is not a profit-making business, nor should it ever be.

In terms of the cuts to our system of care that we’ve seen, Ontario’s spending on health care is the lowest among all the provinces, despite the fact that we are the richest province. A solution, an antidote to this would be for this government to properly fund health care, like the other provinces—to not be the last, to not be bringing up the rear, to not be making it over the finish line after every single other province. Ontario could do better—but it’s not under this government and certainly not under the last government.

We also have the lowest number of health care workers per capita in Canada. The solution to that would be things like repealing Bill 124, treating nurses with fairness, treating nurses with respect, letting them have the opportunity of free collective bargaining, which is their charter right. Imagine that: being fair to nurses.

We hear a lot of words, but we don’t see the actions. We hear a lot of words from this government saying how they respect health care workers, and they ought to, but their actions tell an entirely different story, and when actions and words don’t match up, that should make everyone concerned.

We heard, for many years, this talk of hallway medicine, and this was very much a Liberal invention. We saw cuts year after year—not keeping up with inflation and not making sure people were getting the surgeries they needed. I remember, when I was first elected, people and seniors coming to my office, living in pain, waiting years and years for knee replacements and hip replacements, and they told me—and we could clearly see—it was a result of Liberal underfunding. It was a result of them placing arbitrary caps on the number of joint replacement surgeries that could be performed in operating rooms. Surgeons were ready, willing and able to do it. But they chose to let these people languish in pain. Pain changes a person. Pain makes you less than yourself. It affects everyone around you, and not only just that—not just the social, not just the emotional, but also the health impacts. If you’re not moving in the way that you should, if you are overcompensating, then it has a dramatic result on the rest of your body, and so your health gets worse and worse and worse. And that was all on the Liberal watch. But this government, after they took power, did not fix that. They maintained that status quo. They are responsible for that status quo. We hear a lot of talk about them saying the status quo is not working; they have upheld it. They have kept it the exact way it was under the Liberals and made it yet worse.

Back when the Liberals were in power, they would blame situations—they would blame the increasingly older demographic; they would say there’s a complexity of care. They would say that medicine is getting better, people are living longer—and all of these things are true, but those are not things you should blame. Those are wonderful things, but you should fund accordingly. You should make sure that people who have raised our families, built our communities, have the care they deserve when and where they need it—because they deserve it the most.

It’s ironic, too, that they’re actually blaming the medical system, which has helped these people live longer, and then not funding it. It’s a very strange situation.

Recently, the Financial Accountability Officer, an independent officer of this Legislature with whom I’m sure you’re all familiar, released a report showing that this government is going to underspend on health care by $5 billion over the next three years; they’re going to underspend on education by $1.1 billion over the next three years; they’re going to underspend on justice by $0.8 billion over the next three years. They’re going to be hoarding money. They’re going to be hiding money. They probably wouldn’t have admitted this had the officer not mentioned this—almost $20 billion in an unallocated contingency fund, so that it’s not subject to public scrutiny and they can spend it like drunken sailors wherever they wish, but obviously not on education, obviously not on health care. And yet we have their solution in Bill 60. They’ve maintained the status quo of cuts and underfunding and disrespect for workers, and their only solution is privatization.

This is all going according to plan, and that is very much my concern. This government has been responsible, over the last four and a half years, for maintaining a health care system that has been on its knees, and now this government is effectively kicking it in the stomach. It’s really disgraceful that the health care workers who have worked so incredibly hard throughout the pandemic, who have sacrificed, who have kept time away from their families, were living in fear, were absolutely working hour upon hour upon hour to make sure that we were healthy—and then they deliver them Bill 124. COVID-19 was a one-two punch, but this government made it yet worse. It’s almost impossible to think that this government could take a crisis that enveloped the entire world and make it yet worse with Bill 124.

I had the opportunity to travel with the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs across this province, and we heard from multiple delegations across many different industries, with many perspectives. I can tell you, Speaker, that not one delegation supported Bill 124—not one. Nobody said it was a good thing. Nobody was even agnostic. I think the words that are most apt and will always stick with me were that Bill 124 was “demeaning,” Bill 124 was “degrading”—but more than anything else, Bill 124 was “humiliating.” Nurses feel humiliated by this government.

Across all of these delegations, people want nurses and health care workers to be treated fairly. It should be easy. It should be a knee-jerk reaction. Small children understand the concept of fairness; it should not be difficult for this government. Yet this wage restraint, this targeted attack still is on the books. Even though the Supreme Court has struck it down, they still continue to appeal it. They’re wasting money on this ideological battle. It’s ridiculous.

Pay people what they’re worth. Treat them with respect. And be fair.

My petition is entitled “Petition to Raise Social Assistance Rates.” It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s social assistance rates are well below Canada’s official Market Basket Measure poverty line and far from adequate to cover the rising costs of food and rent: $733 for individuals on OW and soon $1,227 for ODSP;

“Whereas an open letter to the Premier and two cabinet ministers, signed by over 230 organizations, recommends that social assistance rates be doubled for both Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP);

“Whereas the recent small budget increase of 5% for ODSP still leaves these citizens well below the poverty line, both they and those receiving the frozen OW rates are struggling to live in this time of alarming inflation;

“Whereas the government of Canada recognized in its CERB program that a basic income of $2,000 per month was the standard support required by individuals who lost their employment during the pandemic;

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to double social assistance rates for OW and ODSP.”

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

It’s my honour to welcome students from my alma mater, Western University, for University Students’ Council’s Women In House initiative program, where young women shadow an MPP and participate in professional development sessions to explore the world of politics and empower them to pursue leadership. I’d like to welcome Jessica Look, VP of external affairs; Cameron Cawston, VP of student support and programming; Keemia Abbaszadeh, VP of communications and public affairs; Melissa Kamphuis; Anaum Farishta; Anushka Goswami; Iris Jong; Jessica Kim; Jiya Sahni; Lara Suleiman; Michelle Wodchis-Johnson; Sara-Emilie Clark; Sofia Ouslis; Tamsen Long; and Abirame Pannerthasan. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Thank you for the presentation.

The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs just finished travelling the province for pre-budget consultations. We heard from many delegations who are deeply concerned about the impacts of Bill 124 and the health care human resources crisis that has been created by such. Not once did the committee hear any support for Bill 124. Not one delegation supported this demeaning, degrading and, as one delegation called it, humiliating piece of legislation. We heard about the nurses who left and the health care human resources crisis that needs to be addressed. There’s an opportunity here for this government to undo the damage through Bill 60 that they have created with Bill 124.

My question is: Why is this government more concerned about health care profiteers, instead of people who need care from highly skilled nurses?

Speaker, through you: Clearly, the associate minister and this government are standing behind a plan that is coming up short.

The CMHA indicates that a quarter of Ontarians are seeking mental health support; that’s one in four.

Jordan Thomas of the London Centre for Trauma Therapy said, “We’ve seen ... a lot of depression, a lot of hopelessness, a lack of vitality, a loss of ... optimism about the future.”

Will this government increase funding and expand OHIP coverage so Ontarians get the mental health care that they need?

My question is to the Premier. On Friday, massive demonstrations at Western University will call on the government to stop auctioning off the greenbelt.

My constituent Brendon writes, Bill 23 threatens “raising our taxes, worsening the housing crisis, privately trading our biodiversity and farmland for industry donations and favours.”

Mainstreet Research CEO Quito Maggi said, “There’s a perception that someone is unfairly lining their pockets. The perception is that the Ford government is unfairly giving a benefit to a small sliver of their supporters.”

Will the Premier listen and again admit: “I’ve heard it loud and clear, people don’t want me touching the greenbelt”?

I’d like give a warm welcome to Lauren Jervis, the VP external of the Postdoctoral Association of Western University, as well as Craig Thompson, the president and executive producer at Ballinran Entertainment and the founder of the Southwestern Ontario Film Alliance. He’s here with FilmOntario. I welcome all members to visit them at 5 p.m. today in the dining room.

I’d also like to welcome the London Professional Fire Fighters Association and thank them for their great work at LIFE*SPIN’s Lights and Sirens Toy Drive. I hope that all members can visit them at 5 p.m. in room 230.

My question is to the Premier. Food bank use has hit a record high under the Ford government. The London Food Bank reports that over 20,000 Londoners can’t afford food this year. Will the government listen to Feed Ontario, double social assistance rates, tackle precarious work, build social housing, and finally crack down on price gouging in the grocery aisle?

I’d like to thank the member from Scarborough–Guildwood for her comments, and especially for pointing out all of the billions sitting in contingency funds.

My question, though, is, what comparisons could the member make between the Conservatives’ Bill 124 and the Liberals’ infamous Bill 115?

I’d like to thank the member from Waterloo for her comments. She’s absolutely right; the trades are something vital and something that we should support, but we also need to make sure that those workplaces are ones that are safe.

I think about a terrible tragedy that happened in London, where there was a partial building collapse, where Henry Harder and John Martens were grievously injured. It was an absolute nightmare for everyone involved.

We see the Ministry of Labour and we see the Minister of Labour talking a great deal, but we don’t see enough enforcement. We don’t see enough proactive inspections. We don’t see them actually standing up for workers. We hear a lot of words about how they claim to support workers, and yet we also see the WSIB—which is routinely ignored, which needs a complete system overhaul. And yet, this government has said it’s quite content to allow the status quo, because it benefits them.

I have unequivocally stated that I am all in favour of the WSIB moving its headquarters to the London location. I am thankful, as well, that this government has finally started some communication, because I know it took them quite some time—we heard many gestures.

The member also mentioned ODSP rates—that is a reasonable gesture for those people who are able to work, but it excludes all the people who cannot. It also excludes all the people who are on Ontario Works. At committee, we heard from an individual who was living on ODSP. Many are concerned because they have to adjust their family life; they’re not able to live with the person they love, based on the fact that they’re an ODSP recipient, because family income is used against them in the determination of ODSP. This government had the opportunity to make that change within Bill 36, but they chose not to.

He’s absolutely right that this change does not take into account all the people who are on ODSP and the reasons for which they are on ODSP, which is frequently because they are unable to work. We on the official opposition side have stood for doubling the ODSP rate, making sure that it is reasonable and can actually address the cost of living challenges that people have.

The CERB program that was instituted by the federal government determined that everyone should receive $2,000 per month, and that was a reasonable income for everyone to survive, and yet this government has decided routinely that they would like people who receive ODSP to remain in legislated poverty, because that is the decision they have made. They’re keeping people suppressed.

I’d like to focus my recommendations on education. If we compare Bill 36, the fall economic statement, to the FAO report, the government is going to be short a billion dollars in education through 2024-25. If we consider the post-secondary sector, Ontario would have to spend 43% more, not to be first but simply not to be last.

The fact of the matter is that, year over year, we’ve had governments, Liberal and Conservative, that have looked at education as an expense, when it is an investment. The expenditures on post-secondary education don’t even cover a third of what is required for post-secondary students.

We know that children in the elementary and high school levels are struggling with mental health. The rates of violence are at an all-time high. We need to have investments now to make sure that people can have their best life.

Further, autism and the Ontario Autism Program never even show up in Bill 36. That is a great cause for concern. We know that the sooner we can get these interventions to children, the better life they will have.

I’d like to thank the member for Perth–Wellington. You may want to correct your record that I’m the member for London North Centre.

Over the pandemic, the opposition NDP brought forward a plan that was endorsed by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. It was the Save Main Street plan. You don’t typically think that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce would endorse a plan by the NDP, but they loved it. It was a number of supports to help those struggling small businesses. It took this government about eight months to finally implement many of those measures. By that point, so many people had absolutely lost their shirt—and when you consider how many businesses have their finances tied up into their home, many people lost their entire livelihood.

So I would like to see more supports for small businesses, less corporate help for the large chains, and more consideration for the folks who contribute 80% of our provincial economy.

It’s my honour to rise today to speak in regard to Bill 36. A budget is a statement of values. A budget is also a moral document. A budget outlines the priorities, the principles, the values. It addresses inequities. It provides a road map to the future.

Now, Speaker, if you listen to this government, they would spin it and claim that there is no crisis in hospitals, that there’s no need to be concerned about the greenbelt being auctioned off to the biggest Conservative donors. They claim that their meagre Band-Aids were helping families being crushed under the increasing cost of living, and that they weren’t deliberately putting students and education in peril with their cuts and underfunding.

This road map, if you can call it one, does not invest enough in people and public services. This bill does not offer people hope and help. We face unprecedented challenges in the cost of living, housing, health care, education, seniors’ care, autism and so many more. But since this was drafted, we’ve seen very little change. We’ve seen that they didn’t change this. They didn’t adjust to the new circumstances.

Since this was drafted, children’s hospitals are cancelling surgeries. Wait times have ballooned to over 20 hours before you’ve even been seen. Can you imagine taking a child who is sick and in pain and having to wait almost a day? How do you explain that to that child? How do you make that okay? That’s on this government. But worse than that is that it’s 20 hours until you’ve first been seen; that doesn’t mean that you are guaranteed a bed after those 20 hours, Speaker.

It’s not a surprise, because we warned this government, with their imposition of Bill 124—nurses have worked so incredibly hard throughout the pandemic, and then to be kicked in the teeth again by this government after they kept our families safe—nurses have not had an improvement in their wages in over 10 years.

Despite numerous calls from health care professionals, this government refuses to address the health care human resources crisis that we have across our province. As His Majesty’s official opposition, we brought forward a collaborative plan to get Ontario’s hospitals back on track, but this government simply does not want to do the work, or they would much rather deliberately sit on their hands as hospitals crumble. This government is not listening to health care workers.

While Bill 36 does provide licensing for internationally educated nurses—something I’m very thankful for, because that’s something His Majesty official opposition has been calling for for a number of years—the NDP would also put a stop to privatization, which I believe should be called US-style health theft. We would like to see the bridging programs that are available expanded and compressed so that those who have years of experience in the health care sector may upgrade their skills and enter a new job field.

Ontario’s last Minister of Health told the media that private hospitals would help clear the surgery backlog. Our current Minister of Health scratches out parts of her speech where there is a promise not to continue the Liberal privatization of our public health care system.

If you believe this government, they will claim that they’re investing. But they’re not investing in people. They care about the furniture; they do not care about the people on the front lines. Hospital beds are of no use when there isn’t a caring, talented and respected health care worker to provide care.

Bill 36 does not address health care in a way that is responsible, effective or responsive to the struggles of Ontario’s public health care sector. This government is doing this on purpose, paving the way for privatization. Privatization means the most important consideration is profit. It’s the antithesis of our public health care system, in which the most important consideration is care.

According to the Financial Accountability Office, Ontario will be short $6.2 billion in health care spending through 2024-25. Yet this government have shown that they’re willing to violate the charter. When the Supreme Court tells them that they’ve made a mistake, that they’re guilty of overreaching and undercutting nurses with Bill 124, what do they do? They get ready to launch an appeal. They’re going to lose this, likely, yet again, but this Conservative government never gets tired of throwing taxpayer money at losing legal battles—losing legal battles which are based on a flawed, problematic ideology. It’s not only fiscally imprudent, but it’s an insult. It’s an embarrassment. Health care workers deserve our respect. This government has no right claiming they have anything but disregard for health care workers with this routine pattern of treatment.

The Red Cross again having to come to this government’s rescue is, quite frankly, unconscionable. I’m glad that there are good people out here who recognize that this is a crisis and they’re willing to help. But, Speaker, I’m not quite certain that those who donate to the Red Cross are doing so because this Ontario Conservative government has cut and underfunded hospital care so much. I don’t think that the Red Cross should have to use their resources to mitigate a crisis the Ford government has wilfully caused.

It’s like the situation with COVID. This government promised an iron ring for seniors, and yet the reality was that the military had to rescue seniors who were malnourished and dying of dehydration, while trays of food scattered across the floors gathered vermin, and people covered in their own urine and feces languished on beds with no sheets, crying out for help—crying out for anyone to help them.

The fact that this government routinely requires panic-mode assistance should make us all wonder why they simply can’t seem to get anything right.

Ontario deserves a budget that takes powerful action to end the hospital crisis.

Stop the appeal to Bill 124, lift wages, fix working conditions with a health care human resources strategy, and listen to front-line health care workers, who have great solutions and should be treated like partners by this province.

Re-tabling this tired budget will only make things worse—and making things worse seems to be all according to plan for this government.

When we look at the cost of living, inflation is at an all-time high. Grocery and energy prices continue to escalate, while this government refuses to step in and stand up for families. People are working harder than ever, but the cost of everything is going up, and wages are falling far, far behind. We see some tinkering around the edges with Bill 36; we see some small band-aids. But band-aids won’t stop the bleeding that many families are feeling. Bill 36 does not deliver any relief from inflation whatsoever.

I remember back when our Premier claimed that he would be an 800-pound gorilla—but that comes up as pretty weak and stuffed with fluff.

This bill does nothing to hold to account the corporations that gouge people. Inflation is never an excuse to make money off families who are already struggling. We’ve seen new words coined, such as “shrinkflation,” “greedflation” and others. This should show that this is a crisis across the board. Is it too much to ask this government that they finally do what they’ve promised and make companies that gouge people accountable?

With wage suppression tactics like Bill 124—we also see Conservative attacks on education workers recently. They used the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an escape hatch. They have continued their attack on female-dominated professions by trying to impose a contract on education workers.

Further, if we want to look forward to solutions, 28 times His Majesty’s official opposition has brought forward legislation for 10 paid sick days—something everyone can agree will help mitigate crises like the COVID-19 pandemic—yet 28 times this government has told workers that they don’t deserve it. This Conservative government does not respect workers. When you stay home, others aren’t put at risk. Concerns of regular families don’t matter to this government. They’re disconnected—and by voting that down, they’re uncaring.

Another crisis that we are facing right now, which we see many words on but few real concrete actions, is the housing crisis. The dream of owning a home has become yet more unattainable over the last five years because of this government’s actions. They play pretend with measures that they call affordable, but then they cut up the environment for their wealthy donors. The reality is, this government cannot hide their love affair with wealthy developers.

This Conservative government cut rent control for buildings that were occupied after November 2018. What did that do for the affordability crisis? What did that do for people who lived in a new place for a year and then found that their rent was going to go up astronomically? Was that affordable? Did that help people? That was on this government. It’s completely ridiculous that their excuse at that time would be that that would somehow create more affordable housing. It created a gigantic loophole for people to be exploited by landlords and property owners. It’s not more affordable if people’s rent can go up without any restraint.

Much of the Conservatives’ entitlement shows through in their legislation. We see so much that is pro-developer and against working people.

Furthermore, when we consider the incursions on the greenbelt—the earth is everyone’s home, and we cannot go backwards. People across Ontario are furious that Premier Ford broke his promise about not touching the greenbelt. We’ve heard them try to excuse this environmental destruction by saying, “This will be affordable housing.” Nobody believes this ridiculous, posturing, bait-and-switch nonsense.

If you follow the money, the Narwhal and the Star showed how developers purchased one parcel of greenbelt land for $100 million—I believe it was in September—at 20% interest, and then the parcel became suddenly developable. It would have been really painful for that developer, at that punishing rate, if the government had not done them a solid by opening up this protected land. What is this government’s claim on that score—that this developer made a good guess? I don’t think so. This absolutely stinks.

This government could address affordability by actually creating the homes that people need. They could listen to the working people and families who need a safe place to call home by implementing NDP plans to build and deliver new affordable and non-market housing. They could stand up for working families by ending exclusionary zoning. They could protect tenants from gouging and stabilize the market. But instead, they choose to help their wealthy buddies.

Wetlands are interconnected, and they help filter water. They’re like the kidneys of the Great Lakes. Conservatives have actually fallen for the line that you can pave over a wetland and make up another one somewhere else. You cannot re-create a wetland with the same rich biodiversity and environmental significance. It’s like a chain; if you compromise one of the links, it compromises the entire chain.

Ontario is losing 320 acres of prime farmland every year. Overall, Ontario has lost one fifth of its total farmland.

I call upon this government to listen to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s Home Grown campaign. They said, “We can continue to develop Ontario without paving over our most precious natural resource—fertile farmland.” The OFA also pointed out that $47 billion is contributed to the provincial economy and employs nearly one million Ontarians through skilled labour, trades, technology, innovation and more. Ontario’s farmland must be protected. I call upon this government to join the 50,000 people who have signed on.

In terms of health care understaffing, the RNAO has made recommendations which I’d like this government to consider and implement: Stop the appeal of Bill 124 and refrain from extending or imposing future wage-restraint measures; increase the supply of RNs by expediting the process for IENs; increase nursing school enrolments and corresponding funding; compress RPN to bachelor of science in nursing bridging programs; support nursing faculty retention and recruitment; develop and fund a “return to nursing now” program to attract RNs back to the nursing workforce; support nurses throughout their careers by expanding the Nursing Graduate Guarantee program and reinstating the Late Career Nurse Initiative; and finally, have a task force to make recommendations on matters related to retaining and recruiting RNs.

I met recently with some local nurses in London, and they explained to me that graduates who are sometimes only in the field for two months are becoming the heads of departments. They’re also having to mentor students themselves, after two months. It’s ridiculous.

Before the pandemic, Ontario was 22,000 RNs short compared to the rest of Canada. This is something that needs action immediately.

My concern, as well, with this government and their decimation of our public health care system is the move towards privatization as being the only option.

When we take a look at the Auditor General’s report, private, for-profit in the home care sector has destroyed the sector—it’s somewhere where nurses and PSWs make far less, because the care isn’t there. It’s simply looking at making as much money as possible.

In Bill 36, as well, we see few measures for small businesses that have struggled so much with the disastrous Ontario small business support program that left so many people out in the cold.

Here’s a comment from the Toronto Star: “They are always saying that small businesses are the backbone of the economy, so the fact that they did nothing here to help small businesses like restaurants was really surprising.”

And then, “‘Coming out of the pandemic and into the middle of massive construction products could be lethal for some of our members....’

“Groups including the CFIB and Restaurants Canada had called for the government to either forgive the deferred taxes or let them be paid in instalments.”

This government could also take action on the predatory third-party delivery apps that take far too much out of an already lean sector. The margins in restaurants are already so low, and those organizations are, quite frankly, predatory. This government could take action. Will it? That’s a good question.

Further, we don’t see any solid investments into mental health. There has been historic underfunding in the community-based mental health and addictions sector. I think this government has a lot that they could do.

I’d like to mention, of course, for the record, that the London Health Sciences Centre is currently discussing creating a new emergency room where people who are suffering from a mental health episode can enter in a different location. This is a brilliant plan that’s going to be finalized in 2023—in July, I believe—and it’s going to cost $3 billion. But this government is already downloading the cost onto the municipality, onto the city of London. They’re asking the city of London to pay $300 million, and they haven’t even seen the plan yet. That is the worst thing.

We don’t see any supports for students.

We see very little supports for the justice system.

There are so many more things that I could discuss that this government has not been responsive to, that it has not listened to.

Ultimately this bill, Bill 36, is a statement of values, a statement of morals. It was an opportunity to course-correct. It was an opportunity to address all of the rampant needs and concerns of families and workers across this province, and I would say they have missed the mark.

I think it’s important to mention, as well, the Auditor General’s report—an absolute bombshell—where it was discussed that $3.5 billion of the $7 billion spent on COVID-19-related contracts was for non-competitive procurements. They didn’t even try to hide the fact that they were rewarding their friends.

There’s so much that needs to be done.

I’d also like to mention that on September 8, the estimates were made available to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. On September 20, I wrote a letter to this government, suggesting that we meet. That letter was never answered. So from September 20 all the way up until the second week in November, the standing committee had never met to publicly look at and consider those estimates. Normally, there are 15 hours of consideration given; we received 20 minutes of questions, total—out of 15 hours, 20 minutes. That’s not accountable. That’s not transparent. That is a deep concern for the people of Ontario.

I’d like to thank the members from Mississauga–Streetsville and Brampton East for their comments. My question is about the trades themselves. Conservative governments closed shop classes in grades 7 and 8 in the late 1990s. Students in grade 9, often with only two optional classes, don’t have the familiarity, and they don’t choose the trades as a result.

My question to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville: Will this government invest in education and reopen shop classes in grades 7 and 8?

It gives me great pleasure to introduce the following petition on behalf of Brian Williams from my riding of London North Centre. It’s titled “Protect the Greenbelt.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Bill 23 is the Ford government’s latest attempt to remove protected land from the greenbelt, allowing developers to bulldoze and pave over 7,000 acres of farmland in the greenbelt;

“Whereas Ontario is already losing 319.6 acres of farmland and green space daily to development;

“Whereas the government’s Housing Affordability Task Force found there are plenty of places to build homes without destroying the greenbelt;

“Whereas Ford’s repeated moves to tear up farmland and bulldoze wetlands have never been about housing, but are about making the rich richer;

“Whereas green spaces and farmland are what we rely on to grow our food, support natural habitats and prevent flooding;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately amend Bill 23, stop all plans to further remove protected land from the greenbelt and protect existing farmland in the province by passing the NDP’s Protecting Agricultural Land Act.”

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

On that note, I’d like to wish a very, very happy birthday to my brother Sean, who is celebrating today. Happy birthday, Sean.