It’s my honour to rise in opposition to this anti-democratic motion of fast-tracking this legislation through the House. I also am somebody, as a former educator, who supports education support workers—doesn’t just support them, but supports them in thought, word and deed, unlike this government. We hear words from this government, but we see actions like this fast-tracking motion, which is completely anti-democratic, anti-student and anti-education worker.

We’ve heard in this House that education workers, many of whom have to work a second job—that should give us pause. This government? They’re looking at their phones. We also heard in this House that one quarter of education support workers are using food banks, and, again, from this government crickets, because, quite frankly, Speaker, they do not care. They do not care about education support workers. They do not care about students, despite claims to the contrary.

This time allocation motion is a clear example of the government not being able to bargain. Conservatives cannot bargain, they cannot negotiate and they do not stand for students. Quite frankly, the fact that this government would stand up and applaud when they’re talking about trampling on democratic rights should give this entire province pause.

Right now, in classrooms across Ontario, education support workers are clearly reading the news and feeling demoralized. They’re feeling demeaned and they’re feeling disregarded by this government.

CUPE is waiting at the table, Minister. What’s the government afraid of? What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of being fair? Are you afraid of doing what’s right? Are you afraid of doing what’s democratic? Instead, we see this hammer of a legislation coming down. This motion is completely ridiculous.

As a former educator myself, when children are losing, when they’re losing at a game, you know what they do? They try to change the rules, Speaker. They try to change the goalposts. Suddenly the rules that have been agreed upon are ones that are no longer in play, and they try that manipulative tactic. This is exactly what we are seeing from this government.

It’s a clear admission from the Conservatives that they’re incapable of bargaining. They’re incapable of negotiation. They’re incompetent. They’re ineffective and quite frankly, Speaker, they’re impotent when it comes to doing the right thing.

The NDP though, here on this side of the House, we stand for fairness. We stand for the rule of law. We stand for students, and we are the party of workers—end, stop.

My question is to the Premier.

MPPs across the province have been hearing from constituents about the unmitigated crisis in our hospitals. But are Conservative MPPs truly listening?

My constituent Colleen told me about her mother’s ER experience: “My brilliant, independent, selfless, always-helping-others mom had to hope and pray for someone to walk down that hall to attempt to get help.” Her oxygen machine was empty. When Colleen brought this to the hospital’s attention, the nurses’ overwhelmed exhaustion was clear. It wasn’t their fault.

Will this government keep blaming others and keep neglecting public health care or fund it properly and pay nurses what they’re worth?

Just last week, LHSC in London posted a 20-hour delay for their ER and asked patients to bring a snack and activities. My constituent Tina told me about searching in vain for a nurse or doctor after her partner Rod’s major surgery. No doctors were available and nurses were run off their feet. Tina waited for days until she finally got a phone call.

The RNAO surveyed nurses and found that 69% are planning on leaving the profession in the next five years. When will this government admit they’ve created a crisis and spend money on front-line health care heroes?

My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, this government claims that Ontarians are accessing the health care they need when they need it. But a constituent of mine reached out after their partner waited eight hours in an ER after having a stroke—waiting alone, without family, with only the paramedics who brought them in; eight hours.

Is it acceptable to the Premier that anyone should have to suffer like this after having a stroke?

Without nurses available, paramedics had to stay with my constituent even over a shift change. Only by sheer luck, the second massive stroke happened after my constituent was in a bed, and it was caught just in time.

Wait times continue to grow, so the next patient might not be so lucky.

Will this government invest the 1.8-billion health care dollars they hoarded last year and respect health care workers by repealing Bill 124, or will they keep strangling our public system?

My office has noticed a disturbing trend: More than ever, we are seeing families, especially single-support families, being pushed onto the street. These parents are terrified for their children and tell us their only next option is to buy a tent and hope for the best.

Speaker, I came to this House four years ago to help children realize their potential. Now, after four years of this government, I am seeing more and more of them live in poverty. How will these children ever be able to access or reach their potential with nowhere safe to live, no access to school and no one looking out for them? We’re going in the wrong direction.

The opposition has put forward solution after solution. Today, my colleagues and I will re-table the Rent Stabilization Act to help keep people in their homes. I look forward to all members supporting this important legislation.

This government also needs to listen to the people of Ontario and finance and build new affordable and non-market rental homes. Years have been wasted as this government hopes private, for-profit developers will create truly affordable housing. Hope is not a plan. This government needs to actually do the building that will help families who live in poverty.

When will enough be enough? How many children need to live on the street before this government will recognize that Ontario is in a state of crisis?

On behalf of the official opposition, I’d like to welcome Raida Chowdhury, our legislative learner, to Queen’s Park.

It’s an honour for me to rise today on behalf of the great residents of London North Centre to discuss Bill 2, the Plan to Build Act, for its third reading in this House.

Last time, I discussed some items that were good in the budget—I’m very much in support of moving WSIB to London—but today I would like to discuss some of the elements that are missing. It’s often been said that if we do the same thing again and again and expect different results, it’s the definition of madness. But also, in nature, the tree that is unyielding will eventually break, whereas the one that will move with the wind is the one that will thrive and persevere. This budget is an example of unyielding, of unchanging, of not learning the lessons over the past number of months.

You see, Speaker, we have a budget that was tabled in April that has not undergone significant modifications. We’ve seen the affordability crisis explode—inflation at 8.1%. We’ve seen ERs closing across the province. We’ve seen nurses walking away from their jobs, retiring in droves. And this government has not done enough to address that in this budget.

The budget, as well, is a statement of priorities. We discuss values often in financial terms, but a budget also includes a government’s values in terms of principles. In short, the budget is a statement of values as guiding principles; it is both an ethical and a moral document.

In this Legislature, we ought to enforce equity to ensure those who are pushed to the margins are heard, respected and strengthened. We have to affirm as a Legislature that those at the beginning of their lives and at the end of their lives, with some exceptions, need more support than the rest of us in between. We ought to ensure as well that every single dollar that is spent by this government achieves its intended result. If expenditures are ineffective or compromised by outside forces, we should similarly adjust our approach.

We have this opportunity to learn the lessons from COVID, and we have the benefit of retrospection and clarity to see what worked and see what did not. Seniors, children, those living with disabilities, social services and small businesses were all pushed to the brink. At the same time, we saw others profiting from these disastrous conditions. We have yet to see this government stand up to pandemic profiteering and do the right thing, do the honourable thing.

As I mentioned, inflation has hit a staggering 8.1%. In this budget, the government has 2.5%. It’s less than half the current level of inflation. It’s even been called wishful thinking by some. It’s delusional. It’s unresponsive. It’s unrealistic to our current fiscal climate.

Additionally, the budget’s $1-billion rainy day provision is far, far too low. That amount is just one half of 1% of the total spending. If there are going to be spending hiccups, overruns or any other difficult or problematic decisions, this government is going to be in grave difficulty. And I worry that it’s going to be an excuse for further privatization and further cuts to our public spending if this government doesn’t do the right thing.

Furthermore, we hear a lot about this ridiculous and unnecessary highway, Highway 413, which is going to benefit many wealthy developer friends of this government, but in this budget there is no detailed costing for it and other highway spending. It’s not itemized. That’s disturbing, Speaker.

As well, with inflation being as high as it is and not being addressed thoroughly by this government, it means working people and families have lost almost one tenth of their buying power. It could mean taking on more household debt to put food on the table. People are having to make difficult decisions. To actively combat this affordability crisis, the government could raise minimum wage. They could focus on ensuring good jobs have equally good pay.

In health care, we’ve seen that Ontario has 5,400 fewer nurses than one year ago. They could repeal Bill 124 and show some respect for our front-line heroes, who have worked tirelessly, made tremendous personal sacrifices, put their families at risk. Instead, we see them plowing forward with this cut to nurses’ wages, because 1% is a cut with inflation being at 8.1%.

We also do not have wage parity across sectors. The Victorian Order of Nurses cannot respond to the number of requests that they have for service, and part of that is a direct result of wage parity, because in the community care setting, PSWs earn $3.57 per hour less, whereas nurses earn $11 less per hour. That’s a gap that needs to be addressed by this government.

I also am deeply surprised that, in terms of seniors’ care, this government has not yet learned that—having profit off of someone’s ill health or someone’s old age is something that they’re content with. When we saw that the army came in and saw the conditions that they did, this government should have been incentivized to act to make sure seniors were treated with respect and dignity, but instead we see rewards going to the worst of the worst, multi-million-dollar contracts, 30-year contracts going to homes that do not deserve to care for yet more seniors. It is a moral horror and one that is on this government’s conscience. I wish they would listen to their conscience.

As well, when we look at young people, students do not have enough supports. We see that this government has frozen tuition, but they’ve cut from the university sector. We also need to see greater further mental health supports for students, as referenced by OUSA and Eunice Oladejo. Unfortunately, we don’t see enough investments in mental health, either for the province or for children. The two-and-a-half-year wait time for children for mental health supports is unconscionable and something that needs to be acted upon.

There’s so much to discuss in this budget. Ontarians with disabilities are hardly even mentioned. We take a look at this government and their investments in hospital infrastructure, but not in the people who support that infrastructure. There’s no mention of the AODA whatsoever. It doesn’t mention the goal or the fact that they’re not going to achieve it by 2025 as promised.

I see that I’m running rather low on time, Speaker, but I also wanted to mention something that the last Liberal government let southwestern Ontario down on for a number of years, and that would be rail connections to southwestern Ontario. It’s something that was promised, and we still have yet to see shovels in the ground.

This crisis that we have in health care and long-term care and privatization should be a wake-up call for us all that privatization steals money from the public purse. It siphons tax dollars into the pockets of insiders, and how Conservative governments can justify not spending the entire health care dollar on front-line care is beyond me. It goes against the fiscally prudent values which they claim to espouse. No one should profit off of someone’s ill health or old age.

I cannot accept this budget as written. It needs to be improved.

My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, many of my constituents have reached out, horrified about creeping privatization and the overt destruction of our treasured public health care system under the Ford government.

Ryan wrote to me about how the care he received for his aortic stenosis would have cost at least $250,000. Without it, he would not be alive. He remains deeply thankful, but he worries about the deteriorating quality of health care and this government’s obvious movement towards profit-making in health care.

Will this government continue to destroy health care with their privatization agenda or finally fund health care and health care workers properly?

Underfunding health care by $1.8 billion last year was a destructive act, and so is Bill 124, and now the government claims the system they’ve been strangling is barely breathing. This government manufactured this crisis in order to promote privatization.

Heather wrote to me about her stepfather being pushed out of hospital into a for-profit long-term-care home, where they would then squeeze an additional $4,000 per month for his care.

Is this government morally and ethically comfortable padding the pockets of the private long-term-care industry and private, for-profit hospitals rather than fixing our public system and paying health care heroes what they deserve?

I’d like to thank the member from Brampton East for his inaugural speech. I thought it was excellent—hearing about how you came to this place, your history, and what your vision is.

It was also interesting, in your comments, when you were talking about all the backyard barbecues, which reminds us all that we are elected by the grassroots, we are elected by the people in our community.

I was also especially pleased with your recognition of your parents, your siblings and your grandparents. It makes me think: Who’s the tougher questioner, the official opposition or your grandfather?

In all seriousness, family is the glue that holds us all together, that makes it possible for us to have this political life.

My question is: Since you’ve been elected, what is the thing that surprises your family the most?

I’d like to thank the member from Niagara West for his question, although I think there are a few mistakes in there.

One of the reasons that I became very interested and very engaged in politics was Bill 115—and that was wage-suppression tactics that were by the Liberal government at the time and supported by the Conservatives. That was a direct attack on teachers, a direct attack on workers, and one that the Conservatives really supported.

And you see a parallel: There was Bill 115, which took away the bargaining rights of educators in the education system, and now we have Bill 124, which takes away the bargaining rights of nurses and front-line health care heroes. So, really, it’s old wine in new bottles. We see the same tricks. We see the same sorts of omnibus legislation.

Supporting workers in my riding is something that’s very key, and I find it very concerning that the member would try to paint this brush—we keep hearing about this coalition that never existed. It’s funny how this government is really trying to change history, but it’s really not working.

We don’t see any support from this government for front-line workers; if we did, we would actually see them repeal Bill 124.

I want to turn to the Premier’s comments from March 30, 2020, when he was speaking about Bill 124 and speaking about health care professionals. He said: “If it was up to me, I’d just give them the bank.” Well, it has been two years, and we still see this deliberate wage suppression, this disrespectful Bill 124.

To the second part of the question, in terms of social assistance rates: We know that there was a Conservative government that slashed social assistance rates by 22.5%, and then there were 15 years when the Liberals could have fixed that and they chose to do nothing—so much so that that initial cut was drastic, and yet people are worse off now than they were then. And this government seems to claim that 5% is going to change everything; it’s not. As the member points out, $58 is not going to fix it for people. There are people who have spoken to me who have indicated that they’ve withheld medication, that they are on the brink of losing their home, and that if they’re about to go on the streets, they may choose to take that medication. That is a shocking reality that this government refuses to admit. They should not be patting themselves on the back for 5%; they should be doubling it.

We always from the government that the private sector is going to somehow be the greatest thing since sliced bread—it’s going to be choice; it’s going to be efficient; it’s going to be accurate. And yet, no, as soon as they take over contracts, it ends up costing far more, and people don’t have the care that they need.

Thank you to the member for Barrie–Innisfil for the question. It’s almost like she borrowed words from my speech and was trying to use them against me. It’s rather interesting.

On the official opposition side, we have always advocated to listen to the front lines in health care.

Throughout this throne speech, we don’t see any listening to the front lines of health care—we hear “working with system partners,” and we saw a government that worked with long-term-care owner-operators throughout the pandemic. They created legislation to protect them from legal liability for all the deaths that happened on their watch. That’s frightening.

Instead, we need to listen to the workers. We need to listen to the nurses. We need to listen to the PSWs. We need to listen to the patients who are actually being impacted. That would include having a committee so that we could actually discuss Bill 7 and hear from the people who are going to be impacted, the people who are going to be coerced and forced out of the hospital into a place where they don’t want to go, hundreds of kilometres away, away from their family. That would be listening. That would be your actions matching your words.

Instead, we have all sorts of talk in this throne speech—but it’s coded language; it’s hiding what is actually going on, and that’s increasing privatization. Quite frankly, that is something I believe Ontarians are frightened of.

Why don’t you just be forthright and tell Ontarians what you’re hoping to do—and that is to make health care for-profit in Ontario?

By listening to people, by actually engaging with Ontarians, the official opposition has been able to advocate on some very important pieces of legislation. Those include the member for Windsor West’s More Than a Visitor Act, something that would give essential caregivers more of a role within health care decisions that are being made for folks in long-term care. That was incredibly important, because, throughout the pandemic, we saw that many of these essential caregivers, these loved ones, these people who provided care, who helped buttress a system that has been woefully undercut and underfunded for many, many years—they were the ones who were actually providing that care, and they were shut out from these homes. They were not allowed to see their loved ones, and that’s so difficult on a senior, on someone with disabilities—the only thing that they look forward to every day is seeing that loved one.

Also, we had other legislation—like Till Death Do Us Part Act, to make sure that loved ones are kept in the same home, from the member for Waterloo, and so many other things.

We see a government that doesn’t want to work across party lines and that doesn’t want to work with each other.

It gives me great pleasure to present the following petitions on behalf of Mary Margison, who collected all the signatures. It reads:

“Stop Highway 413.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government is pushing ahead with plans to build Highway 413, a redundant and wasteful 400-series highway through the greenbelt that would cost taxpayers an estimated $10 billion; and

“Whereas the Ontario government’s expert panel concluded that Highway 413 would be a waste of taxpayer money that would only save drivers 30 to 60 seconds on their commutes; and

“Whereas Highway 413 would pave over 400 acres of greenbelt and 2,000 acres of farmland, destroy the habitats of at-risk and endangered species, pollute rivers and streams, and cause significant harm to historic Indigenous sites;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Stop the plans for building Highway 413.”

I fully agree with the petition. I will affix my signature and deliver it to page Juliet for the Clerks.

When we heard the throne speech, we knew it was an opportunity for relief, an opportunity for hope. And yet, unfortunately, there were some serious letdowns with this throne speech.

I think back to when I first entered this chamber back in 2018. I was pleased to see that this government has learned, because in 2018, if you will remember, Speaker, the throne speech began without a land acknowledgment—a very curious omission, something that was completely absent. Also, in mentioning the pillars of diversity in 2018 and going through all of these different attributes, the government included the word “lifestyle,” which anyone knows is a dog whistle to suggest that being gay is a choice. So I was glad to see that this wasn’t included in this government’s current throne speech.

I worry that the throne speech is really full of empty words, that it’s flimsy window dressing for actual substantive changes, and I am also concerned that it fails to directly address many of the most pressing issues that we see across our province as this time. Some of those issues include affordability, with inflation at an all-time high, and our health care crisis—such a precarious state in all of our hospitals, seeing emergency rooms closing, seeing people leaving the field; it’s a deep concern—also, in education. We need to make sure we have more robust supports for workers and social assistance and actually address the climate crisis in a meaningful way.

To begin my remarks, I’d like to take a deep dive through the throne speech itself. It starts off by talking about the virtues of partnership and collaboration, which is good to hear—that this government is interested in collaborating and interested in listening to the official opposition.

It also mentions the affordability crisis. It does mention inflation, yet we don’t see enough relief to stem that rising tide of costs.

Curiously, it does mention hard-working people, but it also, directly after that, just two paragraphs away, talks about the rising costs of labour. Therefore, they talk about inflation—they know that life is getting more unaffordable, that people are working hard—but they’re also talking about people wanting too much money. That’s a shame.

The government talks about creating good jobs in the throne speech, but they don’t mention, in combination with that, good wages.

They talk about high-quality hospitals and long-term-care homes, but they’ve left out the mention of public hospitals. That is a strange omission, but I get it; we see with government bills like G7 that they’re hoping to move money away from the public system and put it into the hands of a few shareholders.

As well, the government talks about the free rapid antigen tests that were provided directly to Ontarians, but they neglect to mention that that was yet another example of their privatization, of taking public money and putting it into the hands of people like Shoppers Drug Mart, who had a direct financial benefit from this government’s decision.

They also mention adding 3,500 new hospital beds and thousands more nurses—it’s funny that they first mentioned the furniture, almost as though the people are an afterthought.

They also talk about investing $1 billion more to expand home and community care, but what they fail to mention is that, largely, that system is private. In fact, they undertook great pains to make sure that some of the remaining vestiges of home care were privatized under the last Legislature.

There is a mention, as well, of 30,000 new long-term-care beds. I’m sure that people with private interests are just rubbing their hands together, thinking about all the profit they are going to get from people in our system.

There are, again, some very flimsy words, some sentiments saying that in the health care system there’s “an exhausted workforce and increasingly stressed emergency departments.” Those words are incredibly true, but if the government actually believed them, they would repeal Bill 124.

It mentions that nine out of 10 high-urgency patients are finishing their emergency visit within target times—as if nine out of 10 was a success.

They’re attempting to change the channel. But what is deeply concerning, when you analyze the language of the throne speech, is—they mention working with “health system partners.” They talk about doing “whatever measures” and that there’s “meaningful reform.” This is concerning because these are coded words. These are words that are signalling the increasing privatization of our publicly funded health care system.

There’s a mention of paramedicine, yet this government does not take into account the fact that, for instance, in my community of London, one third of paramedics want to leave. They’re actively pursuing another job because of the backlog at hospitals, the amount of stress they’re under, the fact that they don’t get breaks. They’re worked off their feet. All of their shifts are incredibly long. This government provides words, but we don’t see any investments to help make their lives better.

There are further buzzwords, like “stifles innovation,” “status quo.” Yet again, these are buzzwords. This government wants to overhaul the publicly funded health care system. It’s almost as though they’re suggesting that public funding is the status quo. Actually, funding hospitals properly is the status quo. They can’t claim that they have actually maintained that, because they have not funded hospitals properly. We have not seen that under this government’s mandate, yet they’re saying it’s not working. Well, it’s no surprise. If you strangle a system when it stops working, it’s no wonder it stops working because it is underfunded and cut to the bone.

There is also, of course, much finger-pointing. They’ve said that the federal government needs to pay its fair share of health care funding. Let’s look back at history. Provincial governments are calling for 35% of the health care transfers. Let’s never forget that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who cut the federal health care yearly increases from 6% to 3%—yet another example of austerity that we have not seen changed under a federal Liberal government, for that matter.

We also see: “Together, let’s build an economy with better jobs and bigger paycheques,” but it’s very careful language in that they are not saying “better wages.” It’s almost like this government is expecting people to work more so they have a bigger paycheque, but they’re not going to pay them what they’re worth—because they’re clearly not repealing Bill 124 at this stage.

They do, however, include an increase to the Ontario Disability Support Program. I’m reminded of when this government first took power. There was a promised 3% increase, which was cut to a 1.5% increase. After having learned the lessons throughout the pandemic, with everyone agreeing that $2,000 a month was an adequate, sustainable income for everyone in this province, this government still has chosen to ensure that people living on social assistance are well below the poverty level.

I’d also like to take a look at some of the things that we need to consider in terms of affordability. We see across our province that people are having to accept lower wages, and that everything else is going up in price, whether it’s the cost of food, the cost of fuel—the cost of everything else. It would be refreshing to see this government raise the minimum wage, repeal Bill 124—raise public sector compensation by getting rid of Bill 124. ODSP rates need to be doubled to make sure that people are able to maintain housing, to feed their families properly and to have a healthy life.

We also need the government to take an active role to protect people from price gouging. During the pandemic, we heard the Premier talking about becoming an 800-pound gorilla, being on people’s backs, and yet we saw no one who was pursued who reported price gouging across our province.

From the official opposition side, we introduced legislation for a consumer protection watchdog, yet this government didn’t feel it was important to protect consumers; they didn’t feel it was important to make sure seniors aren’t getting fleeced. We saw that door-to-door sales were banned under the previous Liberal government, but that doesn’t stop people—they call on the phone, they make an appointment, they get into people’s homes, and they force them to sign terrible agreements for HVAC systems, for home automation, for so many other things, and this government has done nothing to stop that.

If we take a look at our current health care crisis, right now there’s so much of our public money that is going to private, for-profit industries as it is. We know that health care spending is being used on hiring temp nurses, that spending on temp agency nurses has gone up 550% since pre-pandemic levels. There’s a clear connection here. Many nurses have been exhausted, and they feel, quite frankly, humiliated by this government—to be rejected, to be ignored, to be completely cast aside. We have words, and then we have actions. This government could repeal Bill 124 and deliver the respect that they deserve, and yet instead we see talking points and no actions.

This overreliance on these temp agency nurses is a stopgap that is not helping anyone—it is not only privatization, but it’s ensuring that people are similarly leaving the field to pursue these private industries. We also have the greater risk of injury at work for places that are unfamiliar. We also have concerns about the continuity of care. It’s yet another example of privatization, where this government is taking public money, our tax dollars, and flushing it down the drain. They’re making sure that only a few people are benefiting from that. Here, on the official opposition side, we believe in publicly funding health care and making sure we stretch every last one of those dollars as much as they can go to the greatest level of care, yet this government seems immune to that.

What’s a further tremendous concern is when we see this hinted privatization language within the throne speech. We see examples in Bill 7. We heard the government actually speaking about how people who are in hospitals, who are in an alternate-level-of-care situation, should be paying. This government believes that those people should be paying. This government wants hospitals to charge people up to $1,500 a day for their care. The only other option is for them to be forced into a situation that is not necessarily one of their choosing, into a long-term-care home that they did not choose, through really what is a disgraceful level of coercion for seniors, who deserve far better.

We also want to look towards inflation. We know that inflation is around 8.1% at this stage, yet this government doesn’t offer much relief for taxpayers; it doesn’t offer much relief for the middle class. In fact, in a recent report, it has been indicated that only 16%—did you hear that—of workers believe their wages are keeping up with inflation. That’s shocking. That would leave out so many people across this province. Think about the gig workers. Think about the PSWs who aren’t provided full-time jobs with benefits, because this government is happy to allow private, for-profit long-term-care homes to operate in the way they do.

I want to take a look at privatization itself because, as I’ve said, this throne speech reeks of it; it stinks to high heaven.

In long-term care, for-profit residents—let’s do some facts and figures here—were 60% more likely to be infected with COVID-19 and 45% more likely to die. In the for-profit homes throughout the pandemic, they were five times more likely to die than those in publicly and municipally run homes and not-for-profit homes. Yet instead of taking that information, instead of learning that lesson throughout the pandemic, we see this government is hell-bent on continuing to take public money and put it into shareholders’ pockets, put it into the pockets of insiders. It’s truly frightening. For-profit homes spend 24% less per year on care. That should be obvious. We have a government that talks a good game about finances and conservation of wealth and spending money in a wise, frugal way. This should be clear and it should be very obvious: If the money is not going towards its intended purpose, then it should not be spent. If we wanted seniors to be cared for correctly, then we would have publicly funded, not-for-profit long-term care. It’s obvious.

We also want to look towards how these private, for-profit long-term-care corporations and businesses are able to funnel that money away. Do you know how that is, Speaker? It’s because they pay their staff less money. They work their staff in ridiculous ways—they have part-time jobs without benefits, without respect—and they pay them far less. They hire, in fact, most times, casual staff, part-time staff. They rely on these very same agencies I mentioned earlier to keep their doors open—not just keep their doors open, but keep the pockets of their few investors full.

We should be expanding home care and making sure it is publicly delivered and publicly funded, instead of it going into agency pockets. If we look at how much the home care companies are paid with public funds for a nurse, it’s between $58 and $70 per hour—this was from 2015, mind you. How much do those companies actually pay the staff, pay that nurse, from that $58 to $70? They pay them about $30 an hour. That’s hefty profit—for a PSW, it’s between $30 to $50. That’s how much money they get from the government, yet they pass on less than half of that: $15 per hour for a PSW. That’s a shame, and that should be stopped. That is a very inappropriate and ineffective expenditure. It’s an unwise way to spend our public money.

Speaker, we also need to take a look at a government that needs to build affordable and supportive housing. Throughout my community, we have a really amazing organization, the Forgotten 519. Jenna Rose Sands, Dan Oudshoorn and Dr. Andrea Sereda came together to really show the plight of what’s happening to people who are losing their lives; people who have hopes, people who have dreams; people who have families who are dying on the street in front of our eyes. Yet this government is not funding social assistance well; they’re not building affordable housing. This is the problem. We need to make sure that people are housed, that people are safe, and then and only then can they build back their lives. Frequently, whenever I’ve brought this issue to the House before, we’ve heard this government talk about wraparound services, yet they don’t provide those wraparound services. They are not funding mental health support. They aren’t funding things correctly. We can fix that.

As I look back on this throne speech, we see that this was an opportunity. I had hoped, through all the different iterations of the pandemic and all the different waves, that this government would have learned and that it would have looked at how it did not create an iron ring around long-term care; how it failed working people in Ontario by waiting so long to finally provide sick days, the paltry few that they did, and finally looked towards the future by providing 10 paid sick days—like the member from London West has brought forward once again.

We also have opportunities to make sure we expedite the credentials of foreign-trained nurses, like the member from Scarborough Southwest—the excellent legislation she has brought forward. There was an opportunity back then, and yet we only hear the government making noises about this now.

There is so much more we can do. I look forward to working with this government to make sure we find—that we show what has been missing from this throne speech and what actually needs to be done here in the province of Ontario.

It’s an honour to rise today to speak on behalf of the official opposition, to recognize the second annual Convenience Store Week.

For many people, the convenience store was a cornerstone of growing up in Ontario. You’d spend your hard-earned coins on little bags of candy, run last-minute errands like picking up a bag of milk, or get a slushy on a hot summer day. It’s really the first place you learned about finance and about budgeting. It brings back so many memories for me and I’m sure for all members across this chamber.

Convenience stores are a vital hub in many neighbourhoods, providing fast, friendly service, and are also vital small businesses in our communities all across Ontario. Many stores are family-owned and represent the Canadian dream. It’s inspiring and, quite frankly, astonishing to hear how many hours these dedicated folks spend serving their customers well and always with a smile. They are some of the most hard-working people I know.

I think of my friend Amit at Springbank Mini Mart, who fosters relationships with the people who visit his store and who is always looking to improve his offerings, like adding a postal outlet or a balloon store. His convenience store is just one of the businesses that he owns. Honestly, where the guy finds the time I will never know—but he also gives back. Outside his store is a food donation cabinet, which he replenishes every single day.

These dedicated folks, who run almost 8,500 stores and have almost 80,000 employees, sponsor local teams. They give back to charities. The convenience store is even more vital for your family’s needs up in the north.

As a teenager, I began my first real job in a convenience store, and I remain thankful to this day for all the lessons I learned. I spent my secondary and post-secondary years in various service roles, and it gave me an appreciation for hard work, long hours, and truly listening so you can provide the help people require.

I believe that every person should work in the service industry at some point or another. I will always be thankful that the service industry helped alleviate the burden of student debt and helped put me through university.

Throughout the pandemic, corner stores remained open to serve us, to provide food and to help us with our essential needs, such as masks and so much more. Corner stores are exactly that—the cornerstones of our communities. I’m thankful that after many months of advocacy, the Ontario government finally listened to the official opposition NDP and provided much-needed supports to small businesses.

Small businesses, like convenience stores, also require further supports—not just in name alone—like paid sick days. They’re the backbone of Ontario’s economy, yet time and again we see governments, federal and provincial, look after big businesses and ignore that 80% of our economy is comprised of small businesses. It’s disturbing when you see massive, highly profitable grocery chains getting free freezers. I know that many small business owners would love a fraction of that level of support.

In my community, US retail giant 7-Eleven is pursuing a liquor licence and wants to serve alcohol—not take-home, but serve beer and wine in a busy gas station location, to turn a gas station into a watering hole. As if that weren’t questionable enough, this location is near Western University. Granting a retail giant like 7-Eleven a liquor licence would take away from other struggling small businesses, and that’s not the kind of action people need right now.

Let’s honour the great people who work seven days a week, including holidays, open before the sun is up and close well after the sun has gone down and others are tucked into their beds. Convenience stores routinely go above and beyond the big box stores and serve their neighbours with pride.

Let’s honour them this week, listen to their concerns and ensure they stay open for years to come. I encourage everyone across Ontario to visit their local convenience store and thank them for everything they do.

I wish my great thanks and congratulations to all our corner stores, the cornerstones of our communities—the unsung heroes of our convenience stores. Thank you for serving your communities with pride, dignity, respect, and, most of all, care. From the official opposition, thank you for all you do.

Speaker, I am proud today to offer my congratulations to Nazem Kadri and the whole Muslim community in London. On Saturday, Kadri, who was born and raised in London, brought Lord Stanley’s cup to the London Muslim Mosque, the first time hockey’s highest trophy has visited. Incredibly gracious, Kadri thanked the Muslim community, as they were essential to his growth as a hockey powerhouse.

He told the massive crowd, “I am very appreciative, very privileged and honoured to be the first Muslim to bring the Stanley Cup to the mosque.”

It was a bright and beautiful moment for the Muslim community in London, who have had an incredibly difficult few years dealing with the aftermath of the murder of a Muslim family.

Dr. Munir El Kassam told the thousands-strong crowd, “We are a strong community who learns to cope ... with every difficulty there is ease,” and welcomed Kadri back to London in a heartfelt speech.

Kadri is an inspiration to many, especially young Londoners. What sets him apart is not simply his focus on being a champion on the ice but his work outside of the rink. The Kadri Foundation gives back, with a focus on mental health and supports for kids, and he states, “The true meaning of being a great NHL player is to be good on the ice and great off the ice.”

From our chamber, I would like to thank Nazem Kadri for always remembering his roots, his family and his community. Thank you for visiting our great city and for being such a strong role model for young people.

Good morning, Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Earlier this month, the London Health Sciences Centre was forced to close their world-leading epilepsy monitoring unit due to critical staffing shortages. The unit being closed and a lack of access to EEGs means even more delayed surgeries. Think of the impacts to health, mental health and the quality of life of patients suffering from seizures.

When will this government admit the crisis in health care is real and address the staffing shortage that they created?

People on waiting lists are waiting even longer and it is because of the disrespectful policies of this government. Epilepsy patients, like Sarah, live in fear wondering when their next episode is going to happen.

Clearly, the Minister of Health wants to peddle privatization as a cure all for the crisis Conservative cuts have created. Overworked and underappreciated by this government, then Bill 124? It’s a perfect storm. Will this government finally admit they got it wrong, repeal Bill 124, and finally treat health care professionals with respect, yes or no?

Back to the Premier: This issue is not unique to Guelph. In London, OPSEU 147 reports that 30% of paramedics are looking to leave the field as soon as possible. They face dangerous understaffing and ever-increasing hospital off-load delays, and they run out of ambulances every day.

Communities across Ontario are worried, terrified, about not having access to emergency medical services. ERs are flooded with patients. So why is this government taking resources away from our public hospitals?

Point of order.

I’d like to thank all the individuals at Campus Vision UWO who signed the following petition. It’s entitled Petition to Save Eye Care in Ontario. It reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government has underfunded optometric eye care for 30 years; and

“Whereas the government only pays on average $44.65 for an OHIP-insured visit—the lowest rate in Canada; and

“Whereas optometrists are being forced to pay substantially out of their own pocket to provide over four million services each year to Ontarians under OHIP; and

“Whereas optometrists have never been given a formal negotiation process with the government; and

“Whereas the government’s continued neglect resulted in 96% of Ontario optometrists voting to withdraw OHIP services beginning September 1, 2021;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To instruct the Ontario government to immediately commit to legally binding, formal negotiations to ensure any future OHIP-insured optometry services are, at a minimum, funded at the cost of delivery.”

I fully support this decision, will affix my signature and deliver with page Pania to the Clerks.

It gives me great pleasure to present the following petition on behalf of Dr. Marja Salminen at Vogue Optical Masonville. It reads:

“Petition to Save Eye Care in Ontario.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government has underfunded optometric eye care for 30 years; and

“Whereas the government only pays on average $44.65 for an OHIP-insured visit—the lowest rate in Canada; and

“Whereas optometrists are being forced to pay substantially out of their own pocket to provide over four million services each year to Ontarians under OHIP; and

“Whereas optometrists have never been given a formal negotiation process with the government; and

“Whereas the government’s continued neglect resulted in 96% of Ontario optometrists voting to withdraw OHIP services beginning September 1, 2021;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To instruct the Ontario government to immediately commit to legally binding, formal negotiations to ensure any future OHIP-insured optometry services are, at a minimum, funded at the cost of delivery.”

We’ve been doing this for a year. It’s time to get this done. I fully support this and will sign it and deliver it with page Pallas.

I’d like to take this opportunity to celebrate the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s ruling that landlords cannot ban air conditioning, as access to cooling during extreme heat waves is a human rights issue. It has long been a health issue, and now it is finally recognized as a human right.

As the number of extreme heat waves increases, the right to accessible and safe housing must include air conditioning. Extreme heat makes life unbearable. It is extremely dangerous, especially for seniors and those living with disabilities. Despite empty words in 2020, the Ford government has failed to deliver air conditioning for seniors in long-term care. This government has failed seniors, time and again.

The commission grimly notes, “Extreme heat caused by climate change is killing people.”

In London, tenants like the folks at Huron Gardens have been organizing to protect their most vulnerable neighbours from extreme heat.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission is now calling on this government to include air conditioning as a vital service like the provision of heat.

The Ontario NDP were well ahead of the curve, fighting to protect Ontarians from extreme heat. I look forward to supporting my colleague the MPP for University–Rosedale’s motion when she re-tables it. I encourage all members to vote in support of this motion.

My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, Ontario is in the midst of a health care crisis. Dr. Marc-André Blier, an intensive care and internal medicine physician with LHSC, has observed, “a steady uptick in the number of experienced nurses leaving intensive care,” and explained they are “the lifeblood of a critical care unit.” He told me about multiple cardiac cases being cancelled, and noted many bays with no nurses to staff them. In his letter, he asked the Premier and the Minister of Health to repeal Bill 124.

Will this government finally listen to front-line experts and repeal Bill 124?

Dr. Blier—just listen to the doctor who has seen empty bays while urgent surgeries are being cancelled. Wake up. According to front-line experts like Dr. Blier, the obvious reason is that a 1% raise annually cannot match the inflation rate. “Our health care professionals are worth it.”

My question is simple: Will this government be fair, show front-line nurses that they are worth it, and repeal Bill 124? Yes or no?