role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

March 30, 2023

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2023-Mar-30 vol. A (PDF)

L060A - Thu 30 Mar 2023 / Jeu 30 mar 2023

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 30 March 2023 Jeudi 30 mars 2023

Withdrawal of Bill 89

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs

2023 Ontario budget

Members’ Statements

Canadian Cancer Society’s daffodil campaign

Autism treatment

Festival of the Maples

Affaires francophones

2023 Ontario budget

Marcel Charron

Palliative care

Community services

Rajasthan Association of North America

World Autism Awareness Day

Report, Chief Electoral Officer

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Cost of living

Health care

Services for seniors and persons with disabilities

Education funding

Missing persons

Skilled trades

Homelessness

Cost of living

Protection for workers

Home care

Mental health and addiction services

Public transit

Veterinary services

Noise pollution

Women’s services

Visitors

Business of the House

Doctors’ Day

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Building a Strong Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2023 / Loi de 2023 visant à bâtir un Ontario fort (mesures budgétaires)

Fewer Floods, Safer Ontario Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 visant à réduire les inondations et accroître la sécurité en Ontario

Working for Workers Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

Anti-Scab Labour Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur les briseurs de grève

Motions

Committee sittings

Petitions

Adoption disclosure

Tenant protection

Education funding

Emergency services

Long COVID

Occupational health and safety

Tenant protection

Highway safety

Orders of the Day

2023 Ontario budget / Budget de l’Ontario de 2023

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Good morning. Let us pray.

Prières / Prayers.

Withdrawal of Bill 89

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I rise to inform the House that Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995, with respect to replacement workers, which was introduced yesterday by the member for Nickel Belt and co-sponsored by four other members, contravenes standing order 72(a), which provides that private members’ public bills may be co-sponsored by up to four members. The bill is therefore out of order and will be removed from the Orders and Notices paper.

Orders of the Day

Working for Workers Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 visant à oeuvrer pour les travailleurs

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 29, 2023, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 79,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi, le travail et d’autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): When we last debated this bill, the member for Sudbury had made his presentation. Now we’re on questions to the member for Sudbury relating to his remarks.

Questions?

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’m sure we can all remember Peter Kormos, MPP from Welland—an incredible human being. It’s the 10th anniversary of his passing, so I just wanted to make sure that I mentioned that and that we’re all thinking of Peter. I saw that Jeff Burch put a nice post up for him this morning.

My question on Working for Workers—I’m going to ask you what’s not in the bill. This isn’t our first Working for Workers bill; we’ve had three. Deeming is not in the bill. Anti-scab legislation is not in the bill. Maybe you can elaborate on why it wouldn’t be, as our labour critic.

MPP Jamie West: Thank you to my colleague from Niagara Falls.

You spoke about Peter Kormos this morning. Peter Kormos had tabled anti-scab legislation to prevent replacement workers from crossing picket lines, ever since Mike Harris had repealed it—when the previous NDP government had put anti-scab legislation in place, which actually strengthened negotiating ability.

We all know that more than 98% of negotiations are settled at the bargaining table; of the remaining 2%, there are very few of them that actually use replacement workers. Literally, when they use them, the employer uses these workers. They divide community. They break friendships. They leave long-lasting scars. It’s not only bad for the community; it’s bad for negotiations. We all know the best place to negotiate is the bargaining table, but artificially lengthening labour disputes with replacement workers just harms community and harms the finances of everyone involved.

This is a bill that workers have been asking for for a long time. It’s a bill that the Conservative Party took away with Mike Harris, and it’s a bill that the Liberal Party promised to bring forward. I remember sitting in the gallery over here, as a worker on strike, and, when they called for the vote, watching Liberals go into the back lobby to hide from the vote so that the Conservatives could vote it down. It’s a bill that we need today. It’s a bill that should be in a bill that’s called Working for Workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The next question.

Mr. Todd J. McCarthy: My question for the member opposite is based on this premise, in terms of the proposed Working for Workers Act: We know that the men and women who serve our country in the reserve forces are heroes. When they are abroad or serving domestically, the last thing they need to worry about while keeping our country safe is whether or not their day jobs will be there when they get back. So why does the opposition not support expanding reservist leave for the brave men and women in uniform who serve our country in the reserve forces?

MPP Jamie West: Just to clarify, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the member of Durham that we don’t support this part of the legislation. Why wouldn’t we? It makes absolute sense. In my debate yesterday, I talked about how, as the OFL described, this was the lowest of the low-hanging fruit.

So there are things in here that are great, but really, this is a bill that seems more important to the Conservatives as a headline bill—to do multiple press conferences, talk about multiple things in the bill. Some of the stuff that they talked about in the press conference didn’t make it in the bill. Clean washrooms wasn’t in the bill, WSIB for firefighters wasn’t in the bill—it was in the press conference, but not in the bill.

The stuff you’re talking about—to the member opposite—these are things that are enshrined in collective bargaining agreements all the time, so I’m glad that they’re going to be further enhanced in the Employment Standards Act.

What we’re saying on this side is that there is much more we can do than just have a title—Working for Workers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8—and actually have substance, like paid sick days, in a bill called Working for Workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The next question.

M me France Gélinas: The member and I both remember the strike of 2009-10 in Sudbury by USW 6500. The strike lasted one full year. One of the reasons that it was one of the longest-lasting strikes in Sudbury is because replacement workers were brought in. Replacement workers, since then, have had a really tough time.

There was a very nice man in my community who had a sick child, and he needed $5,000 a month to keep his child in therapy. He decided to cross the picket line. He was also a coach for soccer in my community. All the families pulled out their kids from soccer, and the kids never played soccer that summer, until the coach was replaced. Real hardship was put on this family, on my community, because of replacement workers.

Do you think that replacement workers could be added into this bill to protect further families from the hardship that has happened in my community?

MPP Jamie West: I spent a year on the picket line watching replacement workers cross the picket line, and it’s a frustrating experience, knowing that it artificially extends the strikes. I had an interview this morning on the CBC, and I said that our strike should have ended months ahead of time. I’m very clear about that, and I think anyone from either side—company or union—would agree that it lasted too long because of the use of replacement workers.

The thing that stood out to me, when speaking to these workers—because you have the opportunity to speak with them as they’re going past the picket line—is that they were scared and they were worried, and they felt like they had no other option. When you dangle a carrot of a lot of money in front of a worker who is having a hard time putting food on the table or affording rent, and this is the only option, the only work they can find, they are desperate, and they get used by the company and left behind. So it’s really important that we have legislation like this that prevents these workers from being used.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate? Further debate?

Mr. McNaughton has moved second reading of Bill 79,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to employment and labour and other matters.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Second reading vote deferred.

2023 Ontario budget

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 23, 2023, on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I recognize the member for Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you very much, Speaker—and good morning to my colleagues, from across the floor. I want to preface my comments by saying I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane this morning.

The budget was released a week ago. I think it’s safe to say that as the information contained within that budget, or not contained within that budget, is hitting our communities, as you peel back the layers on budget 2023, we’re learning all sorts of things that weren’t in the speech that was given last Thursday by the finance minister as he went on his road show across the province of Ontario—his virtual road show, if you will.

One of those things really just came to our attention yesterday morning—and I am going to start off my comments by giving this a bit of a theme. For us, this is a budget that’s “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” Unfortunately, sometimes, in these circumstances, even when you’re trying to do something good, you’re so stubbornly attached to the bad that it turns very ugly for the people of the province that we serve.

Yesterday morning, we found out that doctors across Waterloo region were receiving notices from public health informing them that it was now their responsibility—these are family doctors in Niagara, in Hamilton, in London, in Timiskaming–Cochrane who were told that it is now their responsibility to arrange the courier and the transfer of vaccines from public health to doctors’ offices. Yesterday was March 29. For some reason, this became the news of the day yesterday for medical doctors.

The doctors who came to us through the Ontario Medical Association, during finance committee, were so frustrated, and they did make some proposals around streamlining their work, reducing the administrative burden that they face on a day-to-day basis, in the interest of ensuring that they could see more patients. This was actually in Windsor—when the Ontario Medical Association came to speak and proposed a solution around ensuring that the administrative overhead could be lightened for doctors so that they could see more patients. This is actually in the interest of all Ontarians. They came to that table in good faith, I think.

There are 2.1 million people in this province who do not have a family doctor, and the family doctor is still the gateway into the health care system—you need those referrals to see specialists, for instance. Family doctors ensure continuity of care. Family doctors are trusted people in their communities.

And this is not just COVID vaccines—I want to make sure people know this; this is childhood vaccines, MMR, influenza, shingles, for those of us who are in our fifties.

Usually, what has happened in the past is that because vaccines needed to be carefully transported, they needed to be refrigerated. There’s an audit on those vaccines. Someone is keeping track, one hopes, of the dates and expiry dates on those vaccines, and you need a central place to take care of that information. Usually, a courier would deliver through cold chain transfer from public health into doctors’ offices, where people who need vaccines would happily go and get their vaccines.

This trickle-down downloading of health care costs on to family physicians makes zero sense. We should have learned during this pandemic that people need access to vaccines. We should be reducing all barriers to vaccines. I hope that this is a non-partisan issue people are facing.

This particular doctor let me know that the burnout level for family doctors is already at a breaking point. This is also something that the finance minister heard during his separate consultation processes, and that we heard as a committee, loud and clear—that doctors want to do more, they can’t do more, and you shouldn’t be asking them to do any more. And now they have to arrange for vaccines to be couriered and managed from public health down to the local office. He said, “I think what this government should be afraid of ... as a physician base we are already frayed and barely holding on. So more and more physicians will be leaving the profession. The frustrating

part is lack of consultation, which is a pattern”—with this government. This came out of nowhere. It caught people by surprise. It makes zero sense. The cost savings for the government are nominal at best. He said, “How does this make sense?” It doesn’t.

One of the other issues that came to the fore, and we’ve been questioning the health minister this week on it, is those people in this province who do not have insurance for health care. That health care piece is really determined by having identification, having an address, having a health card.

With so many people in this province—now a growing number of evictions, a growing number of homeless people. We have encampments in Peterborough. We have encampments in Sudbury. We have encampments here in Toronto. In Waterloo region, in downtown Kitchener, there is a tent city. It is Canada. People in this province, in the winter, should not be living in tents.

It was really interesting to hear the Minister of Health talk about this because she said, “This was a plan that the Liberals put in, and we are going to go back to that Liberal plan,” essentially. That Liberal plan, which does not fund the full health care package for those who are homeless or who don’t have identification, was the status quo prior to the pandemic. Because of the pandemic, some dollars came in, and people realized that if we don’t take care of those who are homeless, who need those extra wraparound supports in their community, there actually is an extra cost down the line.

Also, it’s the compassionate thing to do, one would say, maybe; the humane thing to do. What we heard is the health minister say, “No, we’re not cancelling it. We’re just going back to what the Liberals had brought in.” Well, what the Liberals had brought in wasn’t good enough then, and it’s not good enough now for those who are uninsured.

I sense some defensiveness on behalf of the government members.

Yesterday, a member got up and did a statement on the virtual health care resources for those who are uninsured and homeless. Well, let me tell you: You don’t get very good WiFi in a tent in an encampment.

This is something that has frustrated me now, going into five years—that there is a level of privilege that determines how policy and legislation is made in this place. It’s a disconnect between this Pink Palace, this fortress of so-called democracy, when the transparency in our dollars is seriously undermined through the budgeting process. That dissonance was actually really well captured in the Toronto Star editorial about the budget. This is a direct quote from the editorial: “Overall, there was clanging dissonance between the budget’s palpable self-satisfaction and the economic anxiety, rising interest rates, soaring prices, health care concerns that have hit Ontario residents hard.”

This is why my comments on budget day a week ago were, “I’ve never seen a government so gleefully celebrating mediocrity.” When you have the funding, when the funding is there in an unallocated contingency fund; when you have higher, increased revenue coming into this place—sure, you didn’t plan for the high revenue, but that high revenue is generated through high inflationary costs of services, and that is generated by the people of this province.

The least that this government could do in budget 2023 is alleviate some of those cost-of-living pressures that Ontarians are facing around housing, around food and—as you’ll hear later on—around health care costs that are going up, private health care costs.

While I’m on the editorial, I think it warrants a second round. This is what the editorial said:

“Thursday was a complacent mishmash.

“But if it was uninspired and unimaginative, it was also largely unmemorable....

“The Premier—who often empathizes with the many serious problems facing Ontarians—seems to have been sufficiently comfy with things as they are that he and Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy proposed to do nothing particularly dramatic” to address them.

At finance committee, we heard from people who are at the breaking point. They have hit that tipping point. We heard about people saying they just can’t do it anymore. We heard it from doctors. We heard it from nurses. We heard it from educators. We heard it from child care folks, who are saying, “Come on, how are you ever going to achieve $10-a-day child care if you don’t have the people to actually take care of the children?”

Bill 124, the unconstitutional piece of legislation that this government brought forward, which caps workers’ raise of pay at 1% per year, is driving very good people out of this province. Out-migration is a huge issue for the province of Ontario. It doesn’t seem to be on the government’s radar. They sometimes talk about getting people back and getting those nurses back into our health care system, while Bill 124 is still being fought in the courts. The courts have deemed it unconstitutional. They have said it’s a violation of charter rights. It should never have come to the floor of this Legislature.

This was, I think, the 15th court case that this government has had to be dealing with, and yet the government is still fighting Bill 124 in the courts.

If this was House of Cards, people would say, “No, even this is too much.” Maybe another show, like—anyway, I’m not going to go there, because I’m trying to be polite today.

Obviously, our leader and our team feel that this budget does not meet the moment. It doesn’t recognize the urgency, the need to address the cost of living. It doesn’t address the cost pressures that folks are experiencing. It doesn’t even address the number one issue—other than housing—that we heard during finance committee, which is health care. You’ve created this parallel health care program that is for-profit, which will actually further undermine the public health system that we care about and that we think is worth fighting for.

This editorial from the Toronto Star went on to say, “With ... plenty of runway until his next appointment with voters,” the Premier “might have been expected to use this window for bold initiatives.” We agree.

“But there was no such sense of urgency that the crunch facing Ontarians was more than they should be expected to bear.”

And then this is the good quote: “If this budget were a Christmas present, it would be a three-pack of white socks. Not entirely useless. But an exercise in going through the motions.” I know my colleague from finance committee was defending the white socks. Socks are very usable. Everybody needs them. But if there’s a flood outside, socks are not helpful. I would invest in some rubber boots, if I had to make a comparison.

Clearly, for many regular Ontarians, this budget fell flat, and also for seniors, I would say. Aside from picking fights with the nurses, the PSWs, the ECEs across the province—I suspect you’ll have the doctors discussing this whole downloading of vaccine transfer very soon. We’re putting out a call to the OMA to find out how widespread this is.

This is actually a lesson in how not to design a budget and how having a press release and having various media announcements—as we saw through some other pieces of legislation, around the presumptive coverage for firefighters for instance. That’s not in one of the—what bill? Bill 79?

Interjection.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Bill 79. That’s not there, but you talk about it.

This is another pattern of behaviour. I’m going to get to transparency. I remember—because the Conservatives were opposition for 15 years of Liberal rule, as well.

Mr. Wayne Gates: How many?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Fifteen. And they did some propping up as well, I have to say. They voted with the Liberals more than you would imagine.

Certainly, we brought forward the presumptive coverage for firefighters through our past leader, Andrea Horwath. There were a lot of games played on that particular day. I happened to be here. I was job-shadowing Andrea at the time. I’ll never forget being in this place, sitting in the members’ gallery with fire chiefs from across the province. She had introduced her private member’s bill.

It had lots of political support, lots of community support, but the Liberals were not going to give it to her—they weren’t, because that’s who they are, and we’ve actually seen a piece of legislation play itself out this week in a similar manner. So I was sitting there, and I had never seen this happen before—first reading, second reading, third reading all happened in the course of half an hour.

I was sitting between two massive fire chiefs, and they were just crying, they were just bawling, because of course, they know people—actually, in all of our communities, we know firefighters who have contracted secondary and third cancers from exposure in the course of their job. So when the government says, “Why don’t you support this?”—we were already there 15 years ago. I have to say, Adam Overgaard, who is the firefighter union president in Waterloo, already knows where we are. Firefighters know New Democrats, and they know where their support is.

Just because you introduce a little motion like that or a little regulatory change in a piece of legislation like that—they know where our hearts are and where our energy goes.

Actually, it was really good this morning—I started off my day by watching the speech from Peter Kormos. My colleague from Niagara Falls mentioned it earlier. It was one of those just-in-time moments, where you hear the right thing at the right time and it gives you some energy and some hope, because his message was the same to the Liberals at the time. We know who we are, the people who support us know who we are, and we know why we’re here and we know why we’re fighting.

That’s why this budget is so problematic for us—because regardless of the press releases, regardless of the communications strategy and the round tables and the outreach, what really matters is where the money is going.

This leads me to a very concerning pattern with this government around transparency.

Fortunately, in the province of Ontario, we do have the Financial Accountability Officer. This is a non-partisan position. The office itself is engaged in monitoring expenditures. That is what the FAO does—he does it, and his office does this in relatively real time. They report quarterly. You can go on the website. You can look at these numbers. You can track. If you have a particular ministry that you’re concerned about, you can see what the government promised to spend and what the government actually spent.

Increasingly, with this government, there’s a disconnect between the budgeted number and the number that actually gets out the door. Increasingly, that funding is going into what we now call a contingency fund, which very few governments have ever had, but it’s otherwise known as a slush fund. The reason why that slush fund is so important is that—in a democracy, especially in Westminster democracies, budgets are supposed to be approved by the Legislature.

But with the government’s habit of hoarding the cash in massive contingency funds and making radical in-year changes to the spending plan, this Legislature increasingly cannot trust that the budget presented will be what the government actually spends. So we would argue, and I think Peter Kormos, if he was here, would argue that that lack of transparency is actually bad for democracy.

That lack of transparency not only is bad for democracy, but it’s also very concerning around the reduction of trust in budgets. That’s so important. If the finance minister stands up and delivers a budget with great pomp and ceremony but then nobody really believes what actually is in that document, that isn’t good for anybody, I would argue.

When we follow the money, there is a pattern of this government not getting that money out the door. One of the examples that I often quote, because now it’s still in place, is the services for community and social services—this is those programs like Meals on Wheels, for instance. The government, a year ago, made a huge, huge announcement—a kind of a hopeful announcement, I would have to say—that they were going to invest $1 billion in these community agencies.

We were saying, “That’s a lot of money, and that’s a long time coming, and good on you for doing it.” Unfortunately, only $130 million of that promised $1 billion got out. So when Meals on Wheels came to present, they said, “We’re going to be reducing our coverage and our services by 30%.” That’s 30% less seniors who are going to get a visit. That’s 30% less vulnerable people who are going to have eyes on them; who are going to say, “This person is obviously in distress.” Those programs are more than about nutrition; they’re about connection.

And that is going in the wrong direction, because if you don’t have eyes on vulnerable people, if you’re not making those connections with community, if isolation is becoming a serious issue—we now know that loneliness kills and those folks end up in the hospital. They end up in one of the emergency rooms in our hospitals, unless it’s one of the 435 that were closed—435?

Interjection.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Yes, 435 over the course of this year reduced hours or closed altogether. Never have we seen emergency room closures to this degree. An emergency room is supposed to be there for you when you’re in an emergency.

So what does this government do? Even when the paramedics have been sounding the alarm—code red, code white—

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Code black.

Ms. Catherine Fife: —code black. These are ambulances that have been lined up in front of emergency rooms. It’s a huge issue. In Waterloo region and I’m sure in some of the other ridings, when people call 911, they usually really need an ambulance. They need a paramedic. They need medical assistance. It’s not one of the calls that you make and you’re saying, “Well, I can stay on hold for an hour.”

So what does the government do? Instead of addressing the core issue, which is having the appropriate resources for nurses and having the appropriate staff in hospitals, Bill 124 is compounding that problem, because you cannot recruit into a broken system. You can throw some money at some of those nurses—they’re not going to go back into that workplace because it is an unhealthy workplace and they’re very aware of how unhealthy it is. So what they will do is alleviate the wait-list for the ambulances—so they will give you a hallway nurse. Again, this was a program that the Liberals brought in.

The only reason we found out about it at the time is because I was in a hospital with my husband and one of his former students was the hallway nurse. He said, “What are you doing here?” She said, “I’m the hallway nurse.” There’s a separate nursing category. It came out in committee, and the government said, “We didn’t create that position”—but actually, it was a funded line. At least I could track that money, as the finance critic. There are only two recognized parties in this place, and I take my job very seriously.

Finding those lines and identifying where those resources are going or not going is obviously really important for us because it’s how we try to hold the government to account.

Anyway, now we’ve got more hallway nurses, but you still haven’t addressed the core issue of why the backlog is happening with the paramedics and the ambulances. But you’re quick to put a Band-Aid on it. It is a flashy little funding announcement—$500 million across the province to address this issue—but you haven’t addressed the issue. You’ve just bought yourself some time, and people are still hurting throughout that process.

In the last quarter, this government also failed to address the $570 million in cash that had been budgeted for health, education, and children’s and social services.

And the education funding in this particular budget is a bit of a shell game, I have to say, because the government has incorporated the federal dollars for the $10-a-day national child care plan. That $2.3 billion that the government says they are investing in schools is not going to elementary schools, it’s not going to secondary schools—it’s parked there because it looks good. Even that $2.3 billion that’s allocated for child care—because child care falls under the Ministry of Education—is not going to get out there too. Do you know why? Because people are not entering the early learning and care sector.

They’re not entering that child care sector because it pays so poorly. When the government says, “We value you, but you’re only worth $19 an hour”—to take care of our children in those first five years, no less, when brain development is a key factor, when you’re dealing with two- and three-year-olds who were born into the pandemic and whose language acquisition was seriously compromised by masks, for instance.

I think this is the frustrating piece, overall. The government really has the right language, “biggest budget ever,” but when you follow where the money is going, the money is not getting to the most important places: those pressure points which (1) could make people’s lives better and, (2) could save money down the line—because what we heard at finance committee through the budget consultations is that housing is health care.

This government has—I guess you can call it a housing plan. It comes by way of Bill 23, which we did not support because it takes away the very tools that municipalities need to facilitate housing in Ontario. When AMO says to us, “The cumulative impact of proposed changes to municipal fees and charges is significant and contrary to the widely accepted concept that growth should pay for growth”—I just want to say that these are the 444 municipalities across Ontario, who voice their concerns through their provincial association, which is the Association of Municipalities Ontario.

This is what they say: “While AMO would like to support the province’s housing objectives, it cannot support changes that largely place the burden of carrying the costs associated with development onto municipalities. AMO believes that the proposed changes may contradict the goal of building more housing in the long term as it merely shifts the financial burden of growth-related infrastructure onto existing taxpayers.”

So not only do we have a cost-of-living crisis in Ontario, but we have a government that is willing to download the cost of housing to municipalities, which, in turn, is going to increase the taxes of the people in communities. You’re throwing gasoline on the fire. Our critic on housing did such a good job of doing an analysis of the tax increases across the province. Every municipality, with a few exceptions, had to increase their taxes to just carry out their planning, the government’s own objective, of facilitating more housing in Ontario.

When you don’t listen to people, just like the doctor I started my conversation off with—just like doctors were not consulted about downloading of vaccine transfer costs to family physicians. They would have told you, “We only bill the province $3 to $5 for those vaccines. So there are two choices: one, we don’t deliver the vaccines; two, we pass the cost onto the person who is getting the vaccine. Those are the two choices.” However, the government doesn’t know that, because the government didn’t talk to the doctors about downloading of vaccine costs to family physicians—as they didn’t do for AMO, as well.

“Municipalities are attempting to make sense of the government’s response to the housing supply crisis brought about by the COVID-19 demand spike.

“AMO will continue to shine a light on what is wrong with legislative changes that are based on a false premise.”

This is a very painful battle of words between the municipalities, which largely manage municipal housing stock planning, and the government, which has removed rent control, so we have record evictions. They are dead set against building attainable, affordable housing.

We have said to the government that developers are in the business of building homes to make money, and some of those homes, now, are going to be built on the greenbelt. The greenbelt is not where new immigrants are going to be living, I have to tell you. The new immigrants who come into KW want to be close to public transit, grocery stores, schools. None of those things exist out on the greenbelt. Do you know why? Because the greenbelt is sacred. It is environmentally sensitive. It is key to the overall health and well-being of this province. It is something that the Ontario farming association has said, “Listen”—how many acres a day?

Mr. John Vanthof: Some 319.6.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Some 319.6 acres a day in this province are bulldozed for development. This is another thing that doesn’t make any sense to us either. What we learned during the pandemic is that we need to be more self-sufficient. We need to have a stronger local economy. We need to take care of our food security systems, our worker systems. Yet the government is not taking a strong stance, I would say, at all against land degradation in Ontario.

With the greenbelt—to their credit, the Liberals had it brought in 15 years ago, and that correlated with good places to grow, which intensified planning in our city cores. Because the infrastructure was already there, it therefore reduced the cost of the housing, so that costs of the housing were not passed on to families who were looking to buy.

But right now, we even have a rental crisis in Ontario. Because this government has removed rent control, we have seniors, right now—I’m dealing with a lady in my riding who has lived in her apartment for 29 years. It is her home. She is being demovicted. It’s a six-storey building of the 1950s, 1960s era. It’s a beautiful building, but they want to knock it down, and they want to build condos. There is literally no place for her to go. It’s funny—because there are two or three other senior ladies who have reached out.

We try to help them navigate a system that really is not designed to be navigated, especially when you don’t have the stock. I was telling one lady, “There’s a couple of other women who are of your age and who are in a similar situation, on a fixed income.” She said to me, “Well, maybe the three of us should live together,” which made me think of the Golden Girls. But that’s not a realistic option for women of that generation, who did not work, did not have a pension, and so they really are—there’s no extra money here.

So when you increase the rent for some of these folks, they’re well past eating or paying the heating bill—they’re at a desperate place in their lives. I don’t believe that seniors in Ontario should ever get to that place or should have to worry about getting upsold on their cataract surgery, when they go for eye surgery at one of those for-profit, private clinics.

CBC did a really good story last Tuesday about this—I’ve shared it; our leader has shared it. It tells the story of why, when you pull public health resources and services out of the public system and you go to a for-profit, private clinic, upselling is the norm. That also, I want to say, with greatest respect, does not help with the cost-of-living challenge, especially for seniors who are on fixed incomes.

Just to go back to AMO and go back to housing—because I’m going to pass this along to my good colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane.

This budget missed the moment. Removing funding for uninsured Ontarians who need health care is a very poor decision.

The Kingston mayor came to us at the committee. Kingston has spent $18 million trying to keep 120 vulnerable people out of the emergency room. They did so, and they were very successful, but this is not where municipal budgets are usually going—to do mental health services, to do crisis intervention.

We heard yesterday from the member from London. London has spent $22 million around supportive housing. They’ve dipped into their reserves, and they’ve allocated funding from their budgets.

So that’s two municipalities—Kingston and London—who last year dipped into their reserves, who were doing the supportive housing piece that the provincial government should be responsible for.

Housing is a provincial responsibility, but the government has $202 million allocated in this budget—and so that was part of my “good, bad, ugly” thing. It’s good that there’s finally money for supportive housing; what’s bad is that it’s so insufficient, based on the two municipalities that I’ve just given you an example of. And it’s going to get ugly because those municipalities are now going to be fighting for that money and trying to prove to this government that they’re worth that $202 million.

As I’ve already pointed out, municipalities who have challenged Bill 23 are not wrong. They’re not wrong to challenge this legislation at all.

With that, Madam Speaker, I am going to pass this along to my good friend and colleague—and I hope that you enjoyed budget 2023, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.”

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the residents of Timiskaming–Cochrane and on behalf of the official opposition and in response to the budget motion.

As I was sitting listening to Minister Bethlenfalvy give his virtual road tour of southern Ontario, many of the places—actually, every town that he mentioned I’ve been to; my family comes from southern Ontario. Specifically, St. Thomas, regarding the proposed battery plant for Volkswagen—the NDP helped fast-track that bill through the Legislature. We care about jobs. We understand. As I was listening to the virtual tour—and I listened intently. I drove home the next day, thinking about the virtual road tour and thinking that there aren’t very many people, probably, who know my neck of the woods, my part of the province.

The first thing that I noticed driving home was that at the work yard for the contractor who takes care of Highway 11 in the Temagami area, the flags were flying at half-mast, in respect to the snowplow operator who had lost his life a few days before in northwestern Ontario. That’s not an uncommon occurrence for the people who take care of our roads. The last time I talked to our local contractor, I believe there were 260 or 270 major accidents with snow-cleaning equipment, not counting the ones since that meeting. That’s what happens on some of the roads in the province.

I listened very intently, and they were talking about the Ring of Fire. The Ring of Fire has got a few other problems, because the government doesn’t appear be asking for free, prior and informed consent from all the First Nations. But that’s an issue for another day.

We were talking to the road builders’ association. Something the government might not have thought about is our road infrastructure. The roads that we have now that you have to take to get to the Ring of Fire, 11 and 17, are not good enough to actually get the equipment to build the road to the Ring of Fire. That is a serious concern.

You may not believe this, Madam Speaker, but once you get to Barrie, Highways 11 and 400 split. Highway 11 is still a four-lane highway, and so is Highway 400, but at some point that stops; it stops for Highway 11 in North Bay. So you’re thinking everything is fine, and then you crest Thibeault Hill and the world changes—because it is two-lane; it’s basically a southern Ontario country road. It’s paved. It has narrow shoulders. That’s the Trans-Canada Highway. That’s the highway that you think is going to help you get to the Ring of Fire.

That is the highway that, since January, to March 29, has had major closures 11 times, and not closures for five minutes, but hours and hours—and that’s actually not accurate, because it was closed again yesterday.

“Let’s all go to the Ring of Fire”—how? How are you going to get to the Ring of Fire when we don’t have the infrastructure to actually get transit, to get goods across the country now?

It is a shame in Ontario that the Trans-Canada Highway that goes through northern Ontario is a two-lane country highway. That’s what it is.

The government can say, “We have pushed very hard”—and they have moved the average for cleaning up, from 16 hours after a major snowstorm or after a snow event to 12. Give credit where credit is due. They moved a little bit, because we’ve been pushing them like crazy for years.

To Minister Mulroney’s credit, they’re going to institute a “2+1” pilot project, which is basically extended passing lanes and a barrier on the passing lanes so you can’t cut into the passing lane. It’s a pilot project on 14 or 15 kilometres. That highway is thousands of kilometres, and a pilot project of 14 or 15 kilometres is not going to get you to the Ring of Fire. You need to think about that right away.

Northern Ontario has—as does the rest of the province—lots of jobs. We have more jobs than we have people, and we have good jobs.

I was talking to one of our major employers in my riding. A mine mechanic in Kirkland Lake can make $300,000 a year. They have a hard time finding people. Why? Because we don’t have a lot of social services in northern Ontario. Things that the member from Waterloo was talking about, that they’re worried about losing, that they are losing in northern Ontario—we never had them, or we lost them already.

We have local hospitals, and they do what they can, but if you need to see a specialist, you need to come to the hospitals down here. We have the northern travel grant, and that travel subsidy hasn’t changed in years and years and years. So equal access in health care for northerners has been gone a long time ago, and this budget completely and totally ignores that.

This budget talked a lot about the riches of northern Ontario, about the Ring of Fire—and there are many other riches of northern Ontario. But government after government—and this one probably more than any—has ignored the social needs of what people in the north need to provide the riches to the rest of the province.

The biggest gold mine, I believe, in North America, Detour Gold, is in the district of Cochrane—right next to my riding, actually. The town of Cochrane is in my riding; the mine is in the next riding. It’s a very big producer of gold, and we are soon going to have a big producer of nickel in that area—Canada Nickel.

Timmins is a mining—the Minister of Mines will know how big mining is in Timmins.

There’s so much money coming out of the north.

Do you know something else about the district of Cochrane, where Timmins and Cochrane and Detour Gold—what they are? The rate of homelessness in the district of Cochrane—covered by the Cochrane social services board—per thousand people is the highest in the province. It’s minus 40 lots of times, where I live, and homelessness now is a tragic issue. I’m not discounting it anywhere else, but very few people think about how it’s the highest where it’s the coldest, and where the riches come from. But for some reason, the services don’t come back.

It’s great to take—and we have experienced that in the north for as long as we’ve been there. Cobalt, the first silver boom; Kirkland, the first gold boom; Timmins—the original stock exchange for Ontario, the first one, was in Cobalt. But all the money eventually came to Toronto, eventually came to the south.

Now we hear this government saying, “Trust us. You, especially Indigenous people, are going to benefit incredibly from the Ring of Fire.” It has never happened before. They have trusted before, when they signed treaties. It never happened. It’s not going to happen this time either. They know that—unless they stand up for themselves.

The finance committee travelled through northern Ontario. It stopped in Timmins. It stopped in Sudbury.

Primary health care, specifically, is a tough issue in northern Ontario.

I’d like to read a quote from someone who presented at the finance committee in Sudbury. She’s actually the president and CEO of West Nipissing General Hospital, Ms. Sue LeBeau. She was also, before that, the CEO and president of the Red Lake Margaret Cochenour Memorial Hospital. She’s got a lot of experience in running hospitals in northern Ontario. I’m going to read directly from her statement. She talks about her experiences at the hospital: “But the most harrowing experience that I had and that our team had during my time there was the closure of our emergency department due to lack of staffing.

It was a scary time, it was a short time, and it is something that we would not want to relive, and it is something that—my colleagues and myself in the north have struggled to maintain core services and to be able to manage to keep serving our communities.” She also identified one of the major problems that this government is perpetuating with Bill 124. Again, this is directly from her: “In terms of agency nursing, to paint the picture locally, our hospital, West Nipissing, has expended $1.5 million for agency nursing over the first three quarters of this fiscal year.

That represents about 10% of our budget, for 10 nurses”—$150,000 per nurse, for three quarters of the year. “Those costs, of course, are not budgeted. Agency nursing has become a necessity in northern Ontario. However, it is not a long-term solution. Our loyal local nurses are impacted by these agency nurses....” They’re demoralized by this—and the government is not standing idly by while this is happening; they are perpetuating it with Bill 124.

They’re forcing health care staff out of their chosen profession, or out of their profession, working for the public side, and they’re forcing them to work for the agencies—and the same nurses come back into that hospital for twice the cost.

The government and the Minister of Finance say, “Oh, we’re putting more money than ever into health care”—that could very well be, but a lot of that money is going to the private sector, who are running those agencies and siphoning money out for profit.

Why don’t you just pay the nurses what they’re worth and cut out the agencies? How can you pretend to be careful with the province’s finances when you don’t understand that basic principle—or actually, you do understand that basic principle and you’re perpetuating it.

It’s incredibly tough to sit here and stand here and see that there are solutions. We can’t provide solutions for everything, but there are solutions staring you in the face—and, yes, for some of them, you’re going to have to admit that you made mistakes.

Bill 124 seemed like an easy solution at the time—holding public servants to 1%, and you will save costs. You just didn’t realize that public servants, especially those in health care, are going to be able to move with their feet when you’re not paying them with respect. You talk about respect, but when you’re not paying them with respect, they’re going to move with their feet. And when you still need them, then you have to hire them back through private agencies, at more cost. It’s killing the system.

I’m going to go back a little bit to my road tour—because I want people to come to northern Ontario. We need people. It is a great place to live. We have our challenges, and that’s what we’re trying to bring to people’s attention, but it’s a great place to live. If you decide to come, I’m just going to give you a couple of pointers.

If you like stopping at ONroutes—because you can get whatever food you want, you know the market, and you know you can load up for the trip—past Barrie, there are none. Ontario stops at Barrie for ONroutes—nothing. Crest Thibeault Hill and your four-lanes stop. There are none.

We have a lot of transports on Highway 11—it’s the Trans-Canada Highway; it is where the goods cross from one end of Canada to the other. There are very few places for those transports to stop. There are very few parking spots for transports. That’s a big problem, because they have no place to rest, and we have lots of accidents with transports—and you wonder how it got there. With a transport, you just can’t pull off to the shoulder on Highway 11, because you’re not coming back on, because the shoulders are narrow and you’re stuck. So be prepared.

When the highway is closed, if you cross Thibeault Hill—at Thibeault Hill, there’s a big sign that says the highway might be closed. But if it’s closed right after you cross that sign, you might be on the highway for hours in a line, and there are no emergency services that are going to come find you—maybe volunteers; volunteers from Temagami do this a lot. So you better bring a blanket, you better bring chocolate bars, and you better have a full tank of gas when you cross Thibeault Hill.

That’s northern Ontario. I am not trying to disparage it. I love northern Ontario. I’m never going to live anywhere else.

My last point I’d like to make—I’d like to give a shout-out to a group. This government is talking a lot about agriculture in northern Ontario. I’m a farmer. I’ve farmed in northern Ontario my whole life, and northern Ontario is a great place to farm. If you want to know something about farming in northern Ontario—you’ve got an incredible chance to do it on April 13 and 14, at the Earlton Farm Show. The Earlton Farm Show is an exposition of agricultural services available in our area. You will talk to people who actually make a good living farming in our area. They’re very good farmers.

In the Little Clay Belt around Timiskaming and farther north in the Great Clay Belt, there’s a lot of expertise there. If you’re thinking about farming in northern Ontario or seeing what farming is like in northern Ontario, please come to the farm show. The volunteers who put that together put a lot of effort into it. This is the first one in three years because of COVID. I’m going to be there. Everyone who has anything to do with agriculture in northern Ontario is going to be there. I have been warned that the Minister of Agriculture might even be there. We will welcome her with open arms.

But, please, we have our problems in northern Ontario. The government has to recognize them and address them so that we can truly fill our place in the province.

To talk about the Ring of Fire—when your connection to the Ring of Fire is Highways 11 and 17, two-lane roads, you’re dreaming. They can barely handle the traffic on them now. They can’t because their accident stats—people talk about Ontario having the best roads in North America; they’re certainly not 11 and 17, and those are the roads that connect southern Ontario to the Ring of Fire, and you need to pay as much attention to them as what you’re paying to the rest of the province.

I’d like to thank you for your time, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Further debate?

Mr. Todd J. McCarthy: I’m going to be sharing my time with the member for Richmond Hill, and I will simply be mindful of the fact that I will begin my remarks now, conclude at 10:15, and continue this afternoon.

In that context, it is my pleasure to join the debate in this House with regard to the Building a Strong Ontario Act, our budget bill. This budget confirms our government’s commitment to invest in Ontario’s future and enhance our competitiveness within a global economy, with a responsible, targeted approach to help people and businesses.

The budget speech that was presented last week to this House by the Minister of Finance outlines this government’s priorities for building a strong economic foundation to provide Ontario’s growing population with highly skilled, well-paying jobs, while at the same time attracting global investments in manufacturing and research. We are exercising fiscal prudence by keeping Ontario’s finances in check as we make the necessary investments in health care, education, infrastructure and transit, while being on track to balance Ontario’s books with a $200-million surplus by 2024-25. This is what Ontarians asked for.

This is what Ontarians expect. And we are delivering both on growth and fiscal responsibility. This is our duty. This is our pledge. We are getting it done.

Speaker, this budget is all about people. This budget is about investing in workers, in families and everyday Ontarians who have asked this government to live within its means while investing in the programs that workers and families desperately need to purchase a home, raise a family and save for the future. This government is a citizens’ government that reflects the will and the expectations of the people.

Because of the failed tax-and-spend policies of the previous Liberal government, Ontario lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs between 2004 and 2018. The previous Liberal government, which was propped up by the NDP for three years, thought they could spend their way to prosperity, and look where that left Ontario—higher debt, lost jobs, and a downgrade of Ontario’s credit rating.

As evidence that nothing has changed, the federal Liberal government, also propped up by the NDP, delivered a budget this past Tuesday which included record spending, tax increases, and zero investments in municipalities, business, or assistance for everyday Canadians.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Patrice Barnes): Thank you to the member from Durham.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Canadian Cancer Society’s daffodil campaign

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of the Canadian Cancer Society’s daffodil campaign.

Every April, the Canadian Cancer Society’s daffodil campaign raises essential funds to save lives and improve the quality of life for people affected by cancer, spreading hope from community to community. A key part of this effort is supporting the world-leading work of cancer researchers in Canada to transform cancer care and improve the treatment experience.

I’m thankful to the Canadian Cancer Society for all the work they do across this province, including in my riding.

I am confident that everyone in this chamber had or currently has a loved one who was diagnosed with cancer. I have a sibling who was diagnosed a year ago and today is fighting for her life.

As the member of provincial Parliament for Newmarket–Aurora, I’m committed to continuing to work closely with the Canadian Cancer Society as they establish health policies to prevent cancer and better support those living with this disease here in Ontario.

Autism treatment

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I rise today on behalf of London West families of children with autism.

After four and a half years on the wait-list, Sarah Farrants felt hopeful when her seven-year-old son Mason was invited to register for the OAP in October, but she has heard absolutely nothing since. While she waits, the one-time funding that paid for Mason’s speech therapy has run out, and so has Sarah’s hope for Mason’s future.

After a 10-month wait for an assessment for his three-year-old son Luke, Sean Menard was told he could wait years for OAP funding. Sean wants a plan from this government to clear the backlog and get Luke the critical early intervention he needs. Sean desperately wants Luke to speak one day. Sean said, “Without help from the government, he may never speak a single word to his mother or me.”

Even for families who have been approved, the autism program is broken. Virginia Ridley’s two teenage sons receive OAP funding, but Virginia struggles to find services geared to youth and faces constant delays getting reimbursed. At the end of February, she was out of pocket $9,000.

With no mention of autism in the 2023 budget, these families feel abandoned by the Ford government.

Where is the plan, where is the urgency to fix the OAP and get Mason and Luke and Virginia’s sons the services they need and deserve?

Festival of the Maples

Mr. John Jordan: This year marks the 47th anniversary of the annual Festival of the Maples in Perth, Ontario. Since 1976, Perth has celebrated a legacy of liquid gold against a backdrop of magnificent heritage architecture on the banks of the Tay River.

Hosted by the Perth chamber of commerce, the Festival of the Maples embraces all that Lanark county has to offer, with artisans, vendors, musicians and award-winning maple syrup producers. For residents, guests, and tourists of every age, the day begins with steaming stacks of pancakes and unwinds with music, shopping, dining and classic entertainment, including the historic sap-tapping contest and the wood cookie crosscut saw competition.

Lanark county is the maple syrup capital of Ontario, and at this time of year visitors are hiking our sugar bush trails, touring award-winning multi-generational sugar camps, and heading home with some of the finest maple syrup in the world.

Throughout Lanark county, you’ll find maple syrup featured in restaurants, bakeries, coffee shops and distilleries, all eager to embrace the sweet taste of spring.

Last year’s festival featured 160 vendors and welcomed over 30,000 guests—and this is a town of 9,000—to this event.

Today, I extend a warm Lanark county welcome to one and all to experience the 47th Festival of the Maples, on Saturday, April 29, in beautiful heritage Perth. I hope to see you there.

Affaires francophones

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Malheureusement, le gouvernement de M. Ford ne répond pas aux besoins des Franco-Ontariens. Le budget provincial de cette année est un exemple clair de cet échec. Par exemple, le seul collège qui ne reçoit pas le programme « learn and stay » est le seul collège pour les francophones. C’est vraiment incroyable.

Le gouvernement manque également une véritable vision pour les Franco-Ontariens. Nous avons besoin d’un gouvernement qui investit dans des communautés fortes et solidaires; qui offre des soins de santé publics de qualité, un soutien à la santé mentale, une éducation de qualité, des logements abordables et des transports publics fiables.

Encore une chose : il arrive souvent que les autoroutes 11 et 17 soient fermées à cause des accidents de poids lourd. D’abord, il faut embaucher les contrôleurs pour les stations d’inspection. Aussi, nous devons contrôler les permis de conduire des chauffeurs de poids lourd parce que, trop souvent, les chauffeurs nouveaux ne sont pas préparés à conduire dans les conditions du Nord.

Le gouvernement doit agir maintenant, avant qu’il ne soit trop tard. Les Franco-Ontariens méritent mieux que cela.

2023 Ontario budget

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: First of all, I want to congratulate the new Minister of Children, Community and Social Services. This minister is very compassionate and hard-working. This minister is someone who talks from the heart. I’m very excited to work with him, as a parliamentary assistant.

I also want to thank and congratulate the new Associate Minister of Housing on her new role.

The 2023 budget is resonating in my riding of Markham–Thornhill; it was very well received.

My constituents at the Armadale seniors club, the Tamil seniors association, Box Grove seniors wellness club, and Greensborough and Middlefield seniors wellness clubs in Markham are all very happy with the budget and are commending the changes to expand the eligibility for the GAINS program—Guaranteed Annual Income System—for seniors.

The minister for seniors is right beside me. Thank you, Minister—the GAINS program for seniors is important news.

My constituents like Ms. Cho appreciate the increase in the ODSP benefits by our government.

Parents and students are also both very happy to know that, through the targeted math supports, an additional $12.6-million investment is provided. It will double the number of math coaches who will be responsible for implementing the early intervention strategy for better understanding math concepts.

Marcel Charron

MPP Jamie West: Today I want to talk about my friend Marcel Charron.

Marce was a mill operator at Glencore back when it was called Falconbridge. He worked on the floor at a blue-collar job. He was the sort of guy who was friendly and quiet. He was definitely funny. He was proud to be blue-collar, but he wasn’t a stereotype. Marcel spoke openly about the horrors of femicide and the damage it does to community. His sister, Chantal, was murdered by an ex-boyfriend, and Marce shared his pain, hopeful that it would help, hopeful that it would lead to change.

Most people knew Marcel as someone who believed in workers. He spoke for workers. He stood for workers. He simply wanted a better world for everyone. His activism got him more involved with his union, and in 2013 he was elected as vice-president in Mine Mill Unifor Local 598, my dad’s union. Five years later, he was their president. Unfortunately, early in his term, Marce was diagnosed with cancer. The fight with cancer was hard over the past five years—but I witnessed a love story, and I’m a sucker for a love story, and few are as beautiful as how much Cathy loved Marcel and how much he loved her right back.

It’s easy to be in love in the best of times, and it’s beautiful to see love fight through in the worst.

Last Friday, I visited Cathy and Marcel at the Maison McCulloch Hospice. Cath said he knew he had to come, but he was mad. Marcel winked at her and said, “I’ll get over it.” It was the last time I’ll ever see Marcel, a blue-collar worker, a vocal advocate against femicide, a worker activist, a union president, a loving father, and a loving husband.

I’ll miss you, brother.

Palliative care

Ms. Jess Dixon: This is a brief statement about death and about gratitude.

About 17 years ago, when I was 19, I was driving to work and I was late, so I changed lanes to avoid a bus, and I rear-ended an old lady. As I said, that was 17 years ago. Most rear-endings doesn’t follow the story that we did, but what ended up happening was, we sort of adopted her into our family as a bit of a grandmother figure for me. Her name was Elta, and she was from the island country of Dominica. Over the years, my mother took care of her, and that care escalated.

Elta passed away recently, and in the course of her passing, I had the opportunity to experience both the palliative care team in our area—particularly Dr. Celine Sandor—and then ultimately the incredible benefit that we have in Waterloo region of Hospice Waterloo Region.

A week before her passing, Elta was moved to Lisaard hospice. We were very worried that it would be incredibly stressful for her, but on her first day there, I came into the room, and she held my mother’s hand and said, “I’m so happy.” I want to tell them how thankful I am for them taking care of Elta in her years—and how grateful I am that we have them in our riding.

Community services

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: On Tuesday, I was invited to a moms-and-tots tea party in the hamlet of Fairground, Norfolk county. This tea party, hosted by the Norfolk Community Help Centre, is part of a much larger picture, a bigger community initiative.

Since the program began, 64 Low German-speaking women have graduated with their Ontario secondary school diploma.

The centre also has a partnership with Fanshawe College and the Grand Erie District School Board. Currently, 15 people of diverse backgrounds are learning QuickBooks accounting.

A moms-and-tots program allows these women to come together to improve social, emotional and general well-being. Many of the families served have between five and nine children. These vital community connections enhance independence and coping skills while raising awareness of nutrition, reproductive practices and physical activity. Other supports offered are in areas such as settlement, advocacy, prenatal and postnatal care, as well as Low German

interpretation.

The supports being offered in the community continue to grow, all on a shoestring budget, all with the love of a few key people, and under the leadership of executive director Nancy Hildebrand.

Speaker, this is a small but very interesting area with many issues and needs. I look forward to working with Nancy and her team for more opportunities to assist and empower this community.

Rajasthan Association of North America

Mr. Deepak Anand: Culture gives us a sense of belonging and helps us connect to serve and celebrate while bonding for life. That is why cultural organizations like the Rajasthan Association of North America do remarkable service to the world we live in.

Started in 2007, RANA Canada has grown into a vibrant association of entrepreneurs, health care providers, lawyers, educators, and financial and IT professionals.

For the last 15 years, RANA has been promoting cultural values through community events like Holi, Gangaur, Canada Day, India Day, and Diwali.

Mr. Speaker, tough times are the test times. During COVID-19, RANA members distributed meals to the homeless and supported hospitals and local food banks with financial contributions.

RANA also provided scholarships to deserving youth, supported students with extreme financial hardships, and provided platforms to mentor local and international students to help them to better integrate, succeed and contribute to Canada.

I am pleased to share that our Mississauga–Malton community office is joining hands with RANA to organize a blood donation drive in its efforts to keep working for the good of the entire community.

Thanks to RANA members for going above and beyond the call of duty and becoming an integral part of the beautiful mosaic of Canada. You are true representatives of Ontario spirit.

World Autism Awareness Day

Mr. Ric Bresee: This coming Sunday, April 2, is world autism day. Many of us are aware of autism, and we recognize that autism brings with it its unique challenges and obstacles but also strengths, skills and perspectives that enrich our communities and contribute to our collective growth.

Now we must turn our attention away from awareness towards acceptance and inclusivity. I ask that all of us here in the chamber and all in our audience embrace the diverse spectrum of human experiences by creating environments for individuals with autism to feel valued, heard and supported. Let us take it upon ourselves to learn about autism, challenge misconceptions, and break down barriers. By cultivating a culture of acceptance, we nurture the growth of individuals on the spectrum and allow them to thrive in their own unique way.

Speaker, on world autism day, let us commit to a world where awareness leads to inclusion, where understanding leads to acceptance, and where every individual, regardless of their neurological makeup, has the opportunity to contribute their talents and reach their full potential.

Report, Chief Electoral Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: the post-event report 2022 on Ontario’s 43rd general election from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Todd J. McCarthy: I want to acknowledge, in the members’ gallery today, three excellent young lawyers: Richard Campbell, Stan Cummings and Sam Davies, from the firm Flaherty McCarthy LLP.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to welcome today to the Ontario Legislature the family of Draven Graham. With us is his father, Justin Graham; his grandparents Julie and Patrick Ritchie; Tony Stravato from the Ontario Autism Coalition; and Kyle Fitzgerald from the Alzheimer Society of Ontario.

Thank you so much for joining us today, and welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to welcome Thomas Keys-Brasier and Sarah Keys, mom of page Helen Elizabeth Keys-Brasier. Thomas was also a page here, and he gave good advice to his sister, who is page captain today. Welcome to the Legislature.

M me France Gélinas: Today, the Canadian Cancer Society is at Queen’s Park. I invite everybody to go at lunchtime in room 228-230. I would like to mention some of their members, starting with the cancer society patient advocates: Dylan Buskermolen, Rebecca Grundy, Anthony Henry, Andre Rose, Taaha Ijaz. There are also quite a few members of the Canadian Cancer Society attending: Dr. Stuart Edmonds, Hillary Buchan-Terrell, Rose D’Souza, Kelly Masotti, Rob Cunningham, Stephen Piazza, Ciana Van Dusen, Gari Ravishankar, Daniel Nowoselski, Julia Pereira, Sasha Frost, Kelly Wilson Cull, Ariana Del Bianco, Elizabeth Holmes, Olivia Kulbak, Apiramy Jeyapalan, Nuala McKee, and Sonia Sheechoria.

Welcome to Queen’s Park. I hope everybody will visit you at lunch.

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, I’d also like to introduce the Canadian Cancer Society to the Legislature this morning. I would like to also introduce Janice Hodgson, a Canadian Cancer Society advocacy volunteer from my great riding of Newmarket–Aurora.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, it’s my pleasure to welcome parents and children from Pape Avenue Junior Public School: Jaclyn Greenberg and her child Isaac Greenberg; Yue Lisa Li and her child Nathaniel Kan; Cara McCutcheon and her children Everett Trudel and Reed Trudel; Mattias Saavedra and Emme Saavedra; Daniel Miller; Amrita Takhar and her child Max Lee; Ling Teoh and her children Daniel Lam and Abigail Lam.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Deepak Anand: It is a pleasure to welcome members and directors of Rajasthan Association of North America: Pramod Mittal, Dilip Sharma, Naval Bajaj, Reeta Sachdeva, Rakesh Goenka, and President Rashi Bajaj.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Question Period

Cost of living

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, there is no better place to live than in Ontario. It’s one of the reasons I came here from Newfoundland so many years ago and why I chose to stay to raise a family here.

Ontario has always held great promise and great opportunity. But there’s a really growing sense out there that things aren’t quite right. People are struggling to pay rent and keep food on the table. Some are being forced to leave their communities or even the province just to be able to find an affordable place to live.

Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Why did his budget contain virtually no measures to help make life more affordable in this province?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I’m glad to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is as optimistic about the province of Ontario as we have been since 2018. In fact, just earlier this week the opposition was continuing to talk down the province of Ontario.

But let’s look at what we have done, Mr. Speaker. We didn’t just start this year; we started back in 2018 to reverse what was a disastrous time frame, when both the Liberals and the NDP systematically increased the costs on the people of the province of Ontario. We started, in 2018, to cut taxes from people. We took the most vulnerable right off the tax rolls entirely. They voted against those measures. We’re continuing with the gas tax rebate; of course, they voted against that. We’ve reduced the costs for our small, medium and large job creators by over $8 billion.

The results have been that over 600,000 people in the province of Ontario now have the dignity of a job that they didn’t when they shared power with the Liberals, and we have 300,000 jobs that still need to be filled. That’s good news for the people of—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The supplementary question?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, the thing is, if you’re a friend to the Premier or a Conservative insider, you’ve got a direct line to this government, but for your average Ontarian, there’s little in the way of help in this budget or anywhere else.

In just a couple of days, rent is going to come due again for millions of people in this province. Thanks to this government’s massive loopholes in rent control, people are seeing a steep and sudden increase in their rent.

Back to the Premier: With people feeling so squeezed by the costs that are out of control, why didn’t he use the budget to bring back real rent control and give Ontarians some relief?

Hon. Paul Calandra: How can the Leader of the Opposition talk about the costs on the people of the province of Ontario when this is a party that supports, year after year, federal policies which increase the cost of the carbon tax? Let’s unpack that for a second. We’ve said and we have continued to say that a carbon tax will cost the people of the province of Ontario on every single thing that they do—driving to work, more expensive; going to get groceries, more expensive; the groceries that you buy in the store, more expensive, because of a carbon tax. And this is a party that supports a 14% increase in the carbon tax on April 1.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition, will she join with us in asking the federal government to, at the very least, pause that incredible increase on the costs of everything for the people of the province of Ontario? Will she put her money where her mouth is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

Members will please take their seats. Order.

Restart the clock.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: It’s time this government started to take a little bit of responsibility for the fact that life is a lot harder for a lot of people in this province, five years after they came to power.

I’d really encourage the Premier and all his ministers to get out of the backrooms and start listening to real people, because people are really struggling, and I hear it everywhere I go.

It’s not just rent that’s through the roof; it’s more expensive than ever before to buy a home. This government’s plan to build luxury homes on protected land is not going to solve that problem.

Speaker, my question to the Premier is, will he act to end greedy land speculation and make sure the dream of truly affordable home ownership is no longer out of reach?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, when we, in our first mandate, brought in transit-oriented communities to build more homes around the incredible infrastructure that we are building across the province of Ontario—and not just in Toronto, but in communities across Ontario that have GO train stations—how did the Leader of the Opposition vote? She voted against that measure. This is thousands of homes, affordable housing, for the people of the province of Ontario. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been working since day one to bring more housing to Ontario, and they have voted against every single measure.

As I said last week, the opposition, the federal government—they can either support us in bringing more homes to the people of the province of Ontario, so that more people can share in the dream of home ownership. Whether it’s to own a home, whether it’s your first rental—more people want a share in that dream. You can either help us or simply get out of the way.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The next question.

Health care

Ms. Marit Stiles: Again, Speaker, they’re totally out of touch and not listening to the people of this province.

There’s a whole bunch of seniors—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Stop the clock.

I’ll ask the Leader of the Opposition to take her seat.

The government side will come to order so that I can hear the member who is asking the questions.

Start the clock.

Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Let’s talk about a real person. This week, CBC News shared the story of an Ontario senior who was charged almost $9,000 in unnecessary fees for eye surgery at a private clinic, and when she started asking questions about it, the clinic threw her out. Lois Cooper is speaking out now, after hearing the Premier and Minister of Health repeat over and over and over again that patients will not have to pay more in private surgical facilities. Her experience, and that of so many others, shows that “Just trust us” isn’t going to protect patients.

Speaker, to the Premier: Will this government stop the predatory upselling that is happening across this province?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

This government is actually making changes through Bill 60 which, if passed, will be expanding oversight and patient protection when it comes to people’s health. For some reason, the members opposite don’t seem to want to expand those patient protections. They don’t seem to want to support Bill 60, but I hope they will, because Bill 60 has a whole bunch of protections in it to address situations such as this.

For example, any community health centre, in the future, will have to post any uninsured charges both online and in person so people know ahead of time. They’ll have to have a process for receiving and responding to patient complaints. And patients cannot be denied access to treatment if they don’t purchase uninsured services. Finally, we’re also expanding oversight to the Patient Ombudsman to include these new centres.

All of these things are in place to help patient protections. I would think the members opposite would support that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: What oversight? What protection? It’s not there. That’s not right.

Mountains of evidence show that patients have been repeatedly misled by for-profit clinics that have recommended procedures people just don’t need. It’s how they make a profit. This government’s health act is going to do nothing to stop this, so we have proposed amendments to outlaw upselling in any form.

Speaker, to the Minister of Health: Will the minister accept the NDP’s amendments to protect patients?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you again to the member opposite.

The whole point of this legislation is to change the model that was a model of independent health facilities into a model of integrated community health centres, bringing the new health centres and the old ones, 900 of which have been operating across the province for 30 years under all kinds of governments—NDP, Liberal and Conservative—to change that model to make them integrated under the auspices of Ontario Health and with direction which is centrally controlled—centralized wait-list management. This is a significant improvement.

It will improve access to patient care, and this government is all about doing that—making sure patients get the care they need quickly, and making sure they get their lives back as soon as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The final supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: No, Bill 60 is going to make it legal to put profits ahead of patients in this province. That’s what it’s going to do.

It is absolutely critical for Ontarians to believe that their government is acting in their best interest.

Ms. Cooper’s experience shows us how patients will suffer under Bill 60, because private, for-profit clinics are going to upsell and cherry-pick their patients—private, for-profit clinics, some of which just happen to be major Conservative Party donors.

Speaker, to the Minister of Health: Who is making health policy in this province? Your donors? When will someone start putting people like Lois first?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you again to the member opposite.

In fact, that is what this government is doing—putting people like Lois first, putting patients in Ontario first. We know the status quo is not working, and that is why we are innovating.

There’s nothing in Bill 60 which talks about any particular model of care. For example, we had the Kensington Eye Institute come in. Kensington Eye Institute would be a model that could be—under this Bill 60, they could be the kind of place that gets established. Kensington Eye Clinic has been giving great care to patients for many years and will continue to do so. So we can continue to build out models, make sure that they are serving patients, and make sure patients are getting the care they need, in a timely way, from the best possible experts who can provide that care. That is what Bill 60 is about—patient access, quickly.

Services for seniors and persons with disabilities

Ms. Chandra Pasma: The Olde Forge Community Resource Centre in my riding of Ottawa West–Nepean provides crucial supports to seniors and people living with disabilities that allow them to lead healthy, independent lives and stay out of the hospital. They’ve been trying to survive on 2012 funding levels, while demand for services is going up. They begged this government for a budget increase, but to no avail. Now, starting on Monday, 95 seniors and people with disabilities will go without services because of this government’s inaction.

Why is the Premier willing to let such vulnerable people lose such vital supports?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply on behalf of the government, the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: In fact, it’s just the opposite: Since this government has been in place, we have been systematically revamping our services for not only our seniors, but for our most vulnerable across the province. That is why we started off by ensuring that the lowest-income-earning people were removed from the tax rolls altogether.

When you look at the improvements that the minister is making with respect to senior care, not only in this current budget, where we increased access to the guaranteed income supplement—the incredible investments that we are making in home care, the investments that we are making in long-term care.

We’ve also heard from our seniors that they also want the opportunity, where they can, to participate in the growing economy. The Minister of Labour is making that available to them, as well. The Minister of Education, through COVID, ensured that those seniors—retired teachers, for instance—who wanted to come back and help us through the pandemic could do that.

So it’s more than just looking at seniors as exiting the workforce, it’s more than looking at them as exiting their time to participate; it’s about how we can integrate them into helping us continue to build an Ontario that they left us—a thriving Ontario that they almost destroyed.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: I’m sure the seniors in the dementia day program that’s being cut will be really happy to know this government is willing to let them work.

Speaker, it’s not just the Olde Forge; 30 community social service organizations in eastern Ontario are faced with the same challenge and will have to make cuts, thanks to this government’s decisions. Hospital CEOs in eastern Ontario called on the Premier to support these organizations because they know that these organizations keep people out of hospitals, with preventive health care, and help people get home sooner, with Meals on Wheels and home care. Just $7 million would allow these organizations to maintain their service levels.

Will the Premier listen to the hospital CEOs and properly fund these organizations?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the opposition now talking about supporting the hospital CEOs. It’s just another example of “say one thing when the camera is on, and do something else.”

When the hospital CEOs, in September, asked us to do more to help those seniors in hospitals who needed to be in long-term care or other options, the opposition suggested that people would be sent thousands of miles away and that they would be bankrupted by the policies that the hospital CEOs asked for. And what happened? In fact, just the opposite. When I tour long-term-care homes, the residents there say it’s the best thing that ever happened. The quality of care is much better. Why? Because we listened to the hospital CEOs.

When the hospital CEOs told us that we had to do better on small and medium-sized hospitals’ budgets, we did that.

When the hospital CEOs in Ontario—in eastern Ontario and Ottawa and Niagara—said we needed new hospitals, we came through.

When they said that they needed more staff, the Minister of Colleges and Universities came through with a program that is hiring thousands of nurses. When they needed more doctors, the minister of the Treasury Board—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The next question.

Education funding

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: My question is for the Minister of Education.

As we know, rising inflation costs continue to impact the financial well-being of families and businesses across the province and, certainly, in the riding of Barrie–Innisfil. The upcoming increase in the carbon tax of 14% will also hinder those families. I’ve heard resoundingly throughout the riding of Barrie–Innisfil that they can’t afford the rising cost of inflation or the increased carbon tax on April 1. They’re happy to see that our government is doing what we can to keep costs low and, of course, to fight the federal government on the tax increase—and what I’m also hearing is hope from parents that finally they’re seeing direct supports for them through this government.

I was speaking to Melissa, a mom of three, who’s benefiting from catch-up payments.

I want to ask the Minister of Education: What else is he hearing from parents in terms of the direct financial supports this government is giving to families and students?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I want to thank the member from Barrie–Innisfil for her leadership in this House and for standing up for families against the aggressive federal Liberal carbon tax that is raising the costs on all families and all small businesses in this economy.

In addition to opposing that carbon tax by the federal government, we are also providing direct financial relief to parents. In fact, we have done it three times—$1.9 billion over the past three years in direct financial relief to parents, to help support them and their kids getting back on track.

We just unveiled Ontario’s catch-up payments. I’m proud to confirm that 80% of parents have signed up for this $200 payment for every child under 18 and $250 for every child with special education needs—now, there is still 20% of parents who haven’t, and I’m encouraging all members to promote this investment: ontario.ca/catchuppayments. Apply today; get the relief families deserve.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Ms. Andrea Khanjin: I want to thank the minister for really understanding the needs of families and students alike.

We know, following many years of disruption, that our students returned to the classroom in person, where we know they can best recover their academic, mental and physical health. But our students also need the right investments and supports in order to realize their recovery and prepare them for success in the modern economy. This means ensuring our students are learning critical skills and job skills that are rooted in the fundamentals and topics like math, reading and writing—something we hear a lot from parents. Ontario students need these skills to find lifelong careers and help us continue to grow our provincial economy.

I want to ask the minister, with all the work he’s also doing, how is he investing in our students so that they can be successful in the classroom and for years beyond the classroom?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: I do appreciate this question.

In budget 2023, we’ve reaffirmed our commitment to publicly funded schools. We increased investments for Ontario children by $2.3 billion overall, even on a baseline evaluation. It’s up $1.3 billion from the year prior.

Mr. Speaker, we know there’s more to do. It’s why we launched a tutoring program—$175 million focused on getting back to the fundamentals and the basics of education, lifting up reading, writing and math skills, and refocusing the system back on strengthening skills and development in our school system. We have a modern curriculum mandating financial literacy and coding and transferrable hands-on learning that we know is critical for these young people to succeed in the economy.

Finally, we’re expanding the skilled trades and technology opportunities—requiring students to now take a tech course, starting next September, opening up their horizons and their opportunities to get good-paying jobs in this economy.

Missing persons

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Premier.

Over 98,000 people have signed online petitions calling for a vulnerable persons alert. Today I’m joined by the family of Draven Graham, the Ontario Autism Coalition, and the Alzheimer’s Society of Ontario, who came here to support Bill 74. Bill 74, if passed, would provide police forces with an additional tool to bring home our vulnerable loved ones who go missing. Time is critical in these situations, and a vulnerable persons alert would provide a useful solution to help protect people.

Currently, Bill 74 has been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy. Can the Premier provide us with a date on when this bill will be studied before the committee?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I thank the member for the question.

As she acknowledged this morning in her news conference with the parents and the grandparents, the bill that was presented to the House is significantly flawed, and had it gone to second reading today, we would not have been able to make the changes that the member herself suggests need to be made in order to make the bill effective. That is why we took the unusual and aggressive step, given that there is broad-based support for this, to send it directly to committee, so that the changes the member herself acknowledges need to be made could actually be made and the bill could be supported.

I did communicate this to the member and the opposition House leader on the day we took that step to move it directly to committee.

Again, it is our intention to do everything possible to make a flawed bill—although one that is presented, I suspect, in an honest, good spirit—better so that it actually works for the parents of those who are here today and all those who are watching and want us to make an appropriate change.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question?

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you to the government House leader for that answer.

Bill 74 looks to fill a gap in our current emergency alert system. Speaker, did you know that six in 10 people with dementia will wander? A vulnerable persons alert could expand the demographic of vulnerable people—so the alert would be broadened to ensure that people who wander would be brought home, and it would save lives.

Can the government House leader commit to bringing Bill 74 back from committee after changes are made, so that it can be debated and passed into legislation as quickly as possible?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I think the member knows quite well, with respect to private members’ business, that this government, in the last Parliament particularly, and in this Parliament, has been very aggressive, ensuring private members’ business, when it is done in an appropriate fashion, when the bill is a good bill, when it does have a broad level of support on all sides of the House—that we do—

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Like mine last night—Bill 56? Really? That’s really rich.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Despite the hecklings of the Liberal Party, which does not seem to want to talk about this particular bill, you have my assurances that when the bill is fixed at committee, we will bring it back to the House because, as I said, there is a broad level of support for the bill. I know the member for Sarnia–Lambton had also talked about some things that he’d like to see in this, as well. So it is our intention to do just that.

Skilled trades

Mr. Billy Pang: My question is for the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development.

Every day in Ontario, jobs go unfilled because of a shortage of workers. One senior economist recently said, “There’s a traffic jam of employers looking to hire.”

Information from Statistics Canada shows record-high job vacancy numbers and an unprecedented labour force participation rate.

To combat the labour shortage and maintain Ontario’s economic competitive position within the global market, we need more skilled workers than ever before.

Can the minister please explain how our government is addressing our labour shortage needs?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you to the member for Markham–Unionville for that very important question.

Our government knows that welcoming economic immigrants who have the skills we need is crucial to building a strong Ontario. In 2021, the Premier and I called on the federal government to double the number of immigrants we can select. I’m pleased to share that the federal government met us at the table and, together, we got it done. Our immigrant nominee program will be doubling in size, allowing us to nominate over 18,000 immigrants by 2025. Last year, we nominated 3,900 skilled trades workers, 2,200 software and IT workers, 1,000 truck drivers, and nearly 100 nurses and PSWs.

Doubling this program by 2025 means we can select more workers with these skills to fill gaps in industries that need it most.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question?

Mr. Billy Pang: Thank you to the minister for that response. That’s good news. It’s welcome news that Ontario is getting a greater say in how we are addressing key labour shortages across the province through our immigrant nominee program. To support our province’s economic growth and to provide a foundation for the next generation, we need to do everything we can do to get the workers our province needs.

It’s also necessary to highlight that our government must consider the importance of where newcomers settle and build their lives in Ontario. Urgent labour demands are present across our province, including regions outside major cities.

Can the minister please elaborate on how our government will ensure that communities in need have the ability to fill critical labour shortages?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Thank you to the member again for his leadership and for this question.

Speaker, we know that all parts of Ontario benefit from the skills and hard work of economic immigrants. That is why our immigrant nominee program prioritizes those looking to move to communities outside of the greater Toronto area. To ensure these professionals can start working as quickly as possible, budget 2023 is investing $25 million over the next three years for security and IT upgrades.

Through our first Working for Workers Act, we removed discriminatory barriers that hold back internationally trained professionals, and we’re recognizing their credentials.

Our mission is very simple: We’re going to build a stronger Ontario for the next generation.

Homelessness

Ms. Sarah Jama: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

Homelessness is a disability justice issue. We’ve known for years that people without housing are disproportionately disabled—many with multiple health conditions.

This week, a report indicated that from June to November 2022, 22 people died in Hamilton while homeless.

Harm reduction strategies, including community mental health services, crisis supports and drug overdose supports, are all inadequately resourced.

When people end up on the street, our responses to their complex needs cannot be to criminalize homelessness and then to ignore them in death.

Mr. Speaker, the government’s budget proves that they do not understand the urgency of this issue.

When will the government take real steps to end homelessness in Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

To respond, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member for Hamilton Centre for her first question in the House.

Speaker, there are a lot of things that the member opposite has said that I fundamentally disagree with, but there’s one thing that I think she can agree with me on, and that’s that we’ve got a great mayor in Hamilton. We’ve got a great mayor in Hamilton, who has signed on to our housing pledge to build 47,000 homes in the city over the next 10 years.

Again, I fundamentally disagree with her characterization of our budget. Our budget stands up for the Homelessness Prevention Program. It stands up for those wraparound services that mayors like the mayor of Hamilton have asked for. It directly responds to the big-city mayors—that includes Hamilton.

We will continue to work with mayors like Andrea Horwath on meeting our housing target moving forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Ms. Sarah Jama: We’re receiving continuous reports in Hamilton that those who died had contact with the system just prior to their death. Of the 22 who died, five were seen in emergency rooms, two were discharged from hospital, three were released from jail, and four were prevented from accessing the shelter system.

This patchwork system does not work.

People are best supported in the long term when they have access to fixed, permanent housing as an important form of harm reduction. Affordable housing with full access to tenant legal protections is critically important, because it’s a basic human need, and it’s under the provincial jurisdiction.

Again to the Premier: People are dying. This budget won’t end homelessness in Hamilton. When will the government take this problem seriously?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Associate Minister of Housing.

Hon. Nina Tangri: It is my honour to stand up for the first time as the Associate Minister of Housing.

I’d also like to congratulate the member on her election.

All members in this House want to prevent homelessness in this province, but this is a government that has taken real action. The $202-million investment announced in the budget has been well-received by organizations right across Ontario—“Housing is a human right and everyone deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. While we work toward that goal, the Ontario Alliance to End Homelessness is pleased to see this significant investment in homelessness services from the government of Ontario.”

Speaker, I really do hope the opposition joins us and supports our investments. But do you know what? There are shovels in the ground across this province building more non-profit and affordable housing, thanks to the changes we’ve made under the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022. Unfortunately, the opposition would rather tax those—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. The next question.

Cost of living

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier.

The affordability crisis is hitting Ontario families hard. The price of everything has gone up—groceries have gone up, rents have gone up, interest rates have gone up. The price of hydro, folks, is higher than it has ever been.

Families work hard every day, and they feel like they’re falling further and further behind. They’re looking for something to make their lives just a little bit easier. And when they see this budget, they can’t find anything to make their lives just a little bit easier—in fact, there are things that the government isn’t doing in our schools and in health care that’s actually making life harder for them.

Instead of making people’s lives just a little bit easier, this government is actually making life harder. Just why is that?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Rick Byers: Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario work hard, and we understand that taxpayers are under pressure. That’s why we took action last year in many areas, when costs were rising—to keep costs down with the temporary gas tax cut that we confirmed in the fall economic statement made permanent, and yet the opposition voted against those both times. That’s why this government is taking a targeted approach, and we’re supporting people while building a strong Ontario for the future.

We’re investing in Ontario’s workers with an additional $224 million to the Skills Development Fund to get workers into those well-paying jobs.

We’ve increased health funding $15.3 billion over three years, and we’re building 50 new hospital projects—expansions and renovations. We’re doing that right now.

We have the right plan. We’re taking a responsible, prudent approach to address the economic challenges and support the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, the Premier’s message to families is, you’re on your own. If your child has exceptional needs that aren’t being met at school, guess what, folks? You’re on your own. If your child is struggling with their mental health and is falling behind in class, guess what? You’re on your own. If your child is on the autism spectrum, guess what, folks? You’re on your own. If you’re too sick to go to work, guess what, folks? You’re on your own. And if you’re one of the two million people in Ontario who don’t have a family physician or a nurse practitioner, guess what, folks? You’re on your own.

If you own lots of land in the greenbelt, guess what, folks? The Premier’s got your back.

Speaker, through you: Why is this government abandoning Ontario’s families in an affordability crisis?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The government House leader to reply.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Is the leader of the Liberal Party kidding me?

Let’s take a look. Under the leadership or the lack thereof of the Liberals, we lost 300,000 jobs, and they wanted to transition to a service economy. In fact, Fiat Chrysler said this was the worst jurisdiction in the world in which to do business, under the Liberals—the highest amount of red tape under the Liberals, inability to get transit and transportation under the Liberals, our hospitals crumbling under the Liberals.

He talks about energy prices. Are you kidding me? Under the Liberals, people could not afford—they had to make the decision between heating and eating. And this member has the nerve to get up and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Stop the clock.

It seems somewhat strange that I can’t hear the government House leader because of the heckling from the government side when the government House leader is answering the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Start the clock.

The government House leader has a few more seconds.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: If the member really wants to do something about affordability then he can join us in calling on the federal government, supported by the NDP, to at least pause the 14% increase in the carbon tax hitting the people of the province of Ontario on April 1.

Protection for workers

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development.

While it is positive and welcome news that our Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program will be doubling in size to expand our workforce, we must recognize that newcomers can be exposed to the risk of exploitation at work. Human trafficking and exploitation are horrendous crimes that often go unreported. Sadly, these crimes are still happening in Canada and here in Ontario.

Trafficking exploitation exists in many forms and takes advantage of systemic issues such as poverty, inequity, employer discrimination, unsafe working conditions, and gaps in employment policy. Regardless of the cause, the outcomes are devastating, resulting in physical, psychological and emotional trauma to victims.

Can the minister please explain how our government is protecting vulnerable workers from labour exploitation?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: I thank the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock for this very important question, but most of all for her leadership when it comes to anti-human trafficking in the province of Ontario.

On behalf of all MPPs, thank you for all the work that you’ve done.

Speaker, our government stands in support of workers, whether you are a Canadian citizen or a temporary foreign worker. We will not tolerate actions by employers who abuse workers. That is why our government introduced the Working for Workers Act, 2023, which would, if passed, continue to lead the country in providing groundbreaking protections for our workers. Part of the legislation identifies changes that are necessary to strengthen protections for vulnerable workers by establishing the highest maximum fines in Canada.

Our message to dishonest and unethical employers is, “If you’re going to deny someone’s basic human rights by withholding their passport or essential work documents, you will face very serious consequences.”

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I want to thank the minister for his dedication and tremendous work on this file.

The Working for Workers Act is a positive step toward cracking down on exploitation and ensuring that the rights of everyone who is working here in Ontario are protected.

However, we know from police reports that labour trafficking and abuse of vulnerable workers happens far too often. The reality is that the victims are often in precarious work situations and are afraid to come forward.

Under the strong leadership of the Premier and this minister, our government is committed to the safety, health and well-being of workers.

While Ontario needs workers to strengthen and grow our province, workers need our government to make sure they are protected.

Can the minister please elaborate on how this legislation, if passed, would implement and enforce measures to protect vulnerable workers?

Hon. Monte McNaughton: Again, to the member, thank you for this question.

Speaker, for employers who abuse workers, our government holds them to account for their actions. The consequences will be swift and severe. Currently, labour inspectors can levy penalties of only $250 for each passport or work permit that is withheld, but with the proposed changes, that will rise to $200,000. If an individual employer is convicted by the courts of such an offence, they would also be subject to a fine of up to $500,000, up to 12 months in jail, or both. Additionally, corporations could be fined up to $1 million.

Through these measures, all workers in Ontario can be assured that their safety is our number one priority and that we have their backs.

Home care

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier.

Barbara Savage is 84 years old and lives in London West. She recently received a sudden and shocking diagnosis of stage 4 breast cancer and underwent a double mastectomy in February. With tubes dangling everywhere from her chest, she was discharged and told a nurse would come to her home the next day. Speaker, 11 days later, a nurse finally came. When the tubes filled with blood, Barbara’s daughter had to google how to drain them herself.

Does the Premier believe that this is an acceptable standard of home care?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

No, this is an unacceptable situation. This should not have happened, and I feel very badly for that person who waited 11 days for someone to come and see them.

Our government has made significant investments into home care. A strong home and community care sector is critical to our government’s plan to end hallway health care and build a patient-centred, connected system. That’s why a few years ago—last year, we invested an additional billion dollars to improve the quality of care and keep the people of Ontario in their homes longer with the care that they need.

We like the model at the Southlake hospital, Southlake@home, which has the home care provider meeting with the person who is going to receive the care in the hospital, so they can meet the doctor, the nurse and get the discharge papers, so that person will know that the person will be there and when. We want to make sure that that’s the kind of system we have across Ontario, so people get home care which is appropriate and can stay out of hospital and get well.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, Barbara Savage’s case is not unique. The revolving door of staff in private, for-profit home care agencies has left patients like Barbara on their own.

When Barbara and her daughter frantically called ParaMed, they were told no nurses were available. Thankfully, Barbara did not develop complications, but many patients do, forcing them back into the hospital.

Will this government admit that its failure to address the home care worker shortage, its refusal to drop the unconstitutional Bill 124, is putting the health of Ontarians like Barbara at risk?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you again to the member opposite.

As this government has said many times, the only thing better than care close to home is care at home. In partnership with hospitals, primary care and our Ontario Health teams, Ontario is expanding and improving access to home and community care.

Through the 2022 budget, the government announced a plan to invest a billion dollars over three years to get more people connected to care in the comfort of their own home, but our government is now, through this budget, accelerating investments to bring funding in 2023-24 up to $569 million, including nearly $300 million to support contract rate increases to stabilize the home and community care workforce. This funding will also expand home care services and improve the quality of care, making it easier and faster for people to connect to care.

Having strong home and community care for people like Barbara is a key part of this government’s plan for connected and convenient care.

Mental health and addiction services

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: My question is for the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

The people of my riding of Niagara West have seen first-hand the devastating consequences of mental health challenges and addictions in Niagara. We’ve seen the losses from these challenges, and we know that the losses are devastating for loved ones and have a significant impact on our broader community.

Our government is committed to building awareness and reducing stigma related to mental health and addiction challenges. I know that through investments in community support, progress has been made, but the demand for services in my riding and so many others continues at an unprecedented rate, and our government must act to ensure that Ontarians are able to get access to the care they need, when and where they need it.

Could the associate minister please explain to this House what our government is doing to ensure that all individuals facing mental health challenges and addictions care are being supported here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Thank you to the fantastic member from Niagara West.

This gives me an opportunity to speak about the investments that we’re making in our new budget and how we’re going to help those who are doing the heavy lifting in the province in the fight against opioid overdoses.

With an additional investment of $425 million over three years, we’re providing the community mental health and addictions sector its first base funding increase in 10 years. By providing a 5% increase in funding across the board for community mental health and addictions organizations, we’re stabilizing the sector, ensuring staff can be retained, and making it clear to the people of Ontario that we’re treating these issues with the seriousness they deserve.

I want to end the response with a quote from the CEO from CMHA, who said that the budget is “an overwhelmingly positive sign that the government understands the strain our sector is facing as we support Ontarians living with”—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The supplementary question.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Thanks to the associate minister for that response. I appreciate hearing about the significant inflow of cash into this important sector to ensure we are able to hire more staff and address the needs of people in my community to receive the care when and where they need it. I know this is a hugely important issue and one where I’m thankful for the leadership being shown by so many in this budget to ensure that we’re funding these services in our areas.

It’s also important, though, to raise awareness about the urgent need for affordable housing in the context where we are trying to support people with mental health and addictions challenges. One of the most important aspects for health for those who are recovering is ensuring that they have adequate access to housing. I know that as a government we’re taking this need very seriously and we’re building more affordable housing across this province.

I’m wondering if the minister can please explain what actions our government is taking to address homelessness and ensure that we’re helping vulnerable Ontarians—those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

Hon. Michael A. Tibollo: Again, the continuum of care and the housing component that we need to have for it to be effective is extremely important. That’s one of the key social determinants of health. We understand that, and that’s why I’m so proud that our government is adding over $200 million to the Homelessness Prevention Program to build supportive housing units across the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, we’re making significant, historic investments to expand mental health and addiction services across the province. At the same time, this investment demonstrates the level of our commitment to ensuring critical wraparound supports exist for those seeking treatment and recovery.

This budget is a win for all Ontarians struggling with mental health and addictions issues. We see you, and we’re here fighting for you. This government is building a recovery-oriented continuum of care to meet the needs of the people of Ontario, and the investments announced last week will help ensure that those who get better stay better.

Public transit

Ms. Doly Begum: Just earlier this week, a constituent of mine, Tonoy Saha, reached out. He’s a student from York University. He was 30 minutes late for his exam. Despite coming early for the bus, he waited for half an hour extra, and then he was 30 minutes late for his exam.

That’s just a small example of the reality in Scarborough, when it comes to transit, because of the delays we’re facing. And with recent cuts to TTC bus 905 and bus 9, we’ll have more overcrowding, more wait times and more delays, and it puts so many people in Scarborough at an unfair disadvantage, unlike others. This is because of the cuts that we are seeing from our government when it comes to transit.

My question is simple: What do you say to Tonoy and so many people who feel that they’re at an unfair disadvantage—and the fact that we’re not setting these people up for success?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I thank the member opposite for her question.

What I say to the people of her riding is that residents of Scarborough deserve the same level of transit as the rest of the city of Toronto, which is why our government has put forward a plan to have a three-stop subway in Scarborough, but that member opposite and her party voted against it.

Our government has put forward measure after measure to support transit expansion and the operation of transit in the GTA, but time after time, whether it’s Safe Restart funding or whether it’s capital projects for new transit in the city of Toronto, the members of the opposition consistently vote against it. They can’t have it both ways. Either they’re for more transit and they vote with us, or they’re just against it.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary.

Ms. Doly Begum: I would like to invite the minister to come to Scarborough and walk with me, because my area that I’m talking about has six ridings, and three subway stations does not do it justice. There are members from this side and of the government side as well who are in Scarborough who could do better for their constituents.

Tonyo and many other students who wait for so many minutes, for hours for their buses, for their trains, would not be satisfied with that answer.

The experts, the advocates for transit are calling for more operating budget increase from this government. We are seeing an increase in violence in our TTC, in our transit system right now that is exacerbated because of the cuts. We need to invest and address the root causes of these problems.

My question is, will this minister and her government invest in the operating budget that was cut by the Liberals and now exacerbated by this government as well?

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: I’m very proud of the record of our government in supporting the operation of transit systems. In fact, I don’t think there has been a government in Ontario history that has done more to support the operation of transit systems.

Throughout the pandemic, under the leadership of our Premier, we put more than $2 billion into the operation of transit systems across this province. Why? Because we know that transit is essential. During the pandemic, it was essential to getting our workers to and fr