I will try to be brief.

We heard a lot of very audacious comments this morning, where we heard that funding has increased, when, in fact, it has decreased. And then, at some point, the minister said, ‘Well, actually, no, we do have less funding, but we’re expecting more, we want more for less,” which, of course, means that no, you did not increase funding; you’ve decreased funding. Did you increase staff? No, you have decreased staff.

There’s constant magic with numbers from this minister in particular. People need to look at actually how those numbers play out in the individual schools and individual classrooms, because teachers are suffering, kids are suffering. Everybody I hear from, whether it’s the board, administrators, teachers, parents, students, they’re all frustrated. Classroom sizes are too big.

I want to think about the great Cindy Blackstock, who always says you show what you care about by where you put your money. The money is not being put in public education. I would love to see the mandate letter for this minister because, again, the people I know working throughout the system—and I have taught in the system and I have taught in the faculty of education. I do know something about pedagogy, and I believe this minister has no idea. What’s in the mandate letter? I would really like to know what’s in the mandate letter.

I know I need to be very brief. The transportation funding: There’s a lot of magic with numbers there, because it says it’s increased, but actually something else was put into that portfolio, so it’s not comparable anymore. Students in my region are going to be walking very long distances on roads with no sidewalks, in 30-degree-below-zero weather, on streets that aren’t plowed, and when there are sidewalks, half the time they’re not plowed either. It is not safe. Children are having to cross the Trans-Canada Highway in order to walk to school. It is not acceptable.

It’s time for me to stop, so I will just say I completely support this motion. It’s time that the government acknowledge that they’ve been steadfastly cutting funding to education.

I’m really pleased to be able to speak on housing today and to speak in support of our motion.

Housing as a commodity or an investment is very problematic. It has cut so many people out. It has created inflated prices. It has allowed the disappearance of affordable housing to short-term rentals. It’s kicking seniors out of their homes. Two hundred seniors are losing their homes as we speak. It’s pricing seniors in Ottawa out of the market. It is dire and not how we should be providing housing for people or thinking about housing. So I’m very much in favour of the idea of housing Ontario and, really, the importance of building mixed housing and the importance of having these low-cost loans.

In the case of Thunder Bay, we have two projects: Suomi Koti for seniors. We don’t even need public land. They have the land. If low-cost loans had been available, if this government actually had something to support not-for-profit housing, Suomi Koti would already be half built by now. Giwaa On Court is another example of a rebuild of the post office. No need for public land, but they need affordable financing in order to build. It’s still on stall. Both of these projects were presented to the government. There’s been zero support, and I’m so looking forward to the implementation of our bill because these projects could actually be built, and that would be 104 units available immediately in Thunder Bay.

Co-ops: we have a long history of co-op housing in Thunder Bay. In fact, co-op everything. We’ve had co-op bakeries, co-op food buying groups. Castlegreen Co-op has been there. It is still there, and it is still a prime place to live; Superior View, newer co-op housing. What is wonderful about this co-op housing is that they are mixed income.

So we have problematic low-income housing that has wound up being a magnet for the gangs coming to the city. But when you are able to move out of there and into a co-op, where you’re no longer ghettoized, with many people who can’t afford a place to live, then you actually can become part of a community and it really doesn’t matter that you don’t have a ton of income. Those programs have been very successful, and they have moved people into those safer environments, and we really need that.

I’m thinking of another co-op which is Centre francophone de Thunder Bay, another co-op. It’s deep-rooted in northwestern Ontario.

Modular housing: There’s lots of talk of this, but we have to remember that there are different standards of modular housing. Some of them will keep to the current building code, but there’s modular housing available that goes well beyond this and is actually designed for different climates. It’s designed not to off-gas so that people with environmental sensitivities can live with it. It is designed to not have mold, a problem that is in many homes on First Nations’ communities because they were poorly built and poorly thought-out. So again, there are many, many rich opportunities available to us.

Finally, the idea of fourplexes: Why is this such a frightening notion? I’m quite sure I lived in a fourplex in Toronto. There’s lots of them around. There’s lots of them in Thunder Bay. This is not a frightening thing. It’s not suddenly an eight-storey monster in the middle of nowhere.

I will end my remarks there by saying there are solutions. There have always been solutions if you’re not afraid to embrace them. Public land or private land, but affordable financing, and we can get that housing built.

Prior to 2015, there were clear rules forbidding governments from using taxpayer dollars for self-promotion; however, in 2015, the Liberals changed the law so that the definition of “partisan advertising” was so watered down as to be useless, and in 2017 the Liberals got away with spending $17.4 million to promote themselves on the taxpayers’ dime—shameful.

In 2018, while in opposition, the current Minister of Health introduced a bill entitled End the Public Funding of Partisan Government Advertising Act, which is what we are reintroducing today.

Here we are now in 2024, and I’m getting furious phone calls from people watching the Super Bowl, asking me why they are being subjected to partisan political ads promoting the Ford Conservative government. That was just the beginning. When my constituents found out that $25 million of our taxpayer dollars were paying for these partisan ads, their fury changed to rage. What we are seeing is partisan and self-congratulatory government advertising.

What these ads tell me is that the Conservatives are so worried about the damage their government has done to public education and public health care; the fact that food banks can’t keep up with the demand; the fact that low-wage, precarious workers make up the majority of people teaching at universities and colleges; that arts institutions are crumbling; that the wages of forest firefighters, highway inspectors and conservation officers are so low they can’t attract and retain staff; that private, for-profit health care is popping up everywhere; and that schools are so underfunded, special needs kids are left by the wayside—what this tells me is that the only way the Conservatives can overcome their dreadful record is to use our money to convince us of the opposite.

You have a chance to rediscover integrity as a concept and a reality. Support our bill to end partisanship in taxpayer-funded advertising.

I rise to support our motion to free up doctors from their administrative burdens. It’s an important opportunity.

In the north, where I live, accessing primary health care, or accessing any health care whatsoever, is often a challenge—we are at about 45,000 people in Thunder Bay who don’t have access to primary health care.

We know that the Ontario Medical Association named administrative support as one of their key asks, so we think that needs to happen.

Now, nurse practitioners: I want to talk a little bit about that, because the NDP actually started them, and they’ve been a fantastic model of team-based work. The problem is, there aren’t enough positions for nurse practitioners, and they’re leaving the province, they’re going to the United States, or, in some cases, they’re joining for-profit clinics, which is exactly what has happened in Thunder Bay. The moment Bill 60 dropped, we got a for-profit clinic. It started at $100, now it’s $200, now it’s $400 a year.

I’ve just heard from health care teams in the region, and they’re saying they’re much worse off than they were two years ago. The OMA also notes that patients in the north experience persistent inequities in the care they receive and in their health outcomes.

Then we have the Northern Health Travel Grant, which this government voted against. All we were asking for was a review, and yet the member from Kenora, the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, along with the rest of the government, voted against it. Where’s the money? Well, we know that the cataract clinic in Kingston is getting 56% more than public clinics for the same work.

I’d just like to close by reading something here. Krystal Shapland said that she was initially seeing a nurse practitioner but had to stop once the practice started charging fees higher than she could afford. She now has been diagnosed with cancer and is only able to go to walk-in clinics because she can’t afford to pay for the for-profit clinic that’s now available. She says she believes the government is deliberately underfunding primary care and feels all but the healthiest patients will become casualties of a failing primary care system.

To close, I don’t know that everybody knows, but the ask from health services across the province was $700 million; the government gave out $90 million. There’s a lot of money that’s going into private health care. If it wasn’t going there, it could be going to support publicly funded primary health care that we need right now.

Not only does this government need to be supporting the work of community mental health organizations; it needs to address the stressors that are causing mental health breakdowns across the population in the first place. Let’s take the mental health of hospital staff—people we call heroes—on the one hand, while choking the physical and mental-health life out of them through repressive legislation; or our schools, where teachers and EAs are understaffed and under-resourced, paying for school supplies for their students out of their own pockets; or the university and college students mired in debt, working several part-time jobs because tuition fees are absurdly high; or children with disabilities and their parents desperately trying to navigate a hostile system that keeps children on wait-lists years after year with no communication, no guidance and no help in sight. And let’s not forget the adults with disabilities thrown under the bus, those abandoned by the WSIB along with others, forced to give up almost every asset so that they can access the few crumbs of ODSP the government throws out to them.

These are social and economic determinants of health, and they are also the determinants of mental health. When it is easier to get MAID than to find the supports to live, people get a very strong message that no, actually they are not worth it. That is the message they are given, and that is a very significant part of people’s suffering.

Individuals trying their best to provide support services are also breaking down themselves, as they are forced to reapply for funding every year, never knowing whether they will actually even have a practice.

And then, I want to say, Indigenous children and families who are that much geographically removed from municipalities—well, they don’t have access to water; they don’t have access to health care. What is the message to them? The message again is, “You’re not worth it.”

I want to give my support to this motion. I’m happy that there is a conversation going on across the aisle. We may not always agree in our analysis of what is contributing to so much mental health distress, but I think we can agree on the need for support.

The Ford government is opening the doors to for-profit corporations that are, first and foremost, in the business of making money for their shareholders. They will do this by encouraging people to pay extra to jump the queue. They will generate profits by trying to convince people they should pay for unnecessary tests.

I’d like to take a moment to revisit when long-term care was turned into a profit-driven business. When the Harris Conservative government sold off long-term care, they promised that all would be well for seniors and people with disabilities living in these homes, but that was far from reality, and it is still far from reality. Profits in long-term care are made by skimping on staffing, supplies, the quality of food, and poor hygiene standards. We saw the results during the pandemic, when members of the Armed Forces reported the appalling conditions that led to so many deaths. And the profits are scooped up through a particular packet of taxpayer funding that does not have to be accounted for. Will wonders never cease? Guess what? Instant profits at the expense of care for residents of long-term care, provided by our government out of taxpayer dollars—immediately go into the profits of long-term-care corporations and doesn’t have to be accounted for. It doesn’t have to be returned if it’s not spent on care.

Let me be clear: There’s no problem with grouping certain kinds of surgeries together for efficiencies within the public system. But there’s nothing in Bill 60 that requires the regulation of private clinics. The shiny new clinics will look nice on the outside, but like American health corporations, their singular goal will be to make money quickly. Frankly, that is never a good situation for the well-being of any society—when profits are more important than care.

As the government shifts surgeries to for-profit clinics, health care workers tell us public operating rooms are under capacity and sit empty largely due to underfunding and lack of staff. We know why there’s a lack of staff: Bill 124. What is now being recognized as “nurse abuse syndrome,” a form of PTSD, is the result of nurses being disrespected, underpaid, overworked and burnt out—the effects of Bill 124.

New nursing graduates are leaving after two years and some are even quitting after their very first placements, when they see the extreme workload first-hand along with how badly nurses are treated. Many nurses are also leaving to work for private agencies because they can work fewer hours and be better paid. It makes sense. In fact, I heard this past week from our local rehabilitation hospital that, regretfully, they are completely dependent on nursing agencies now, even though they cost three to four times as much as staff nurses, because so many nurses have left the field in frustration and despair. There would be no market for these nursing agencies if nurses weren’t being pushed out of the profession by this government’s unconstitutional wage repression bill.

Speaker, our motion today calls for the government to stop the dangerous road they are going down and to utilize our existing operating rooms by paying staff properly and bringing staff back so that Ontarians can receive the universally accessible, safe, quality care they need and deserve.