It’s always a pleasure to stand in my place and represent the needs of the people of Waterloo, and now, Waterloo region, lately.

It was an interesting budget for this government to bring forward earlier this week, on Tuesday. There was a lot of fanfare, as there always is.

I will say that as the official opposition for the province of Ontario, we were looking for some tangible affordability measures that would meet Ontarians where they are right now. And counter to the commercials that we see constantly in Ontario, funded by the taxpayers of the province of Ontario—the partisan advertising that this government said that they would stop doing, and not follow in the footsteps of the Liberals. They’ve actually doubled down on these commercials, and I feel like it’s a very good metaphor for how insulting this government is to the people of the province that we are elected to serve.

Speaker, you just said a prayer as we started our day here at Queen’s Park. We actually take an oath in this House, when we are first elected, to put the needs of the people of this province first, to dedicate ourselves to public service, which is indeed a calling, I would say, because not a lot of rational people look to come into this space and have 16 hours of nonsense on many, many days.

It’s safe to say that we are disappointed with the budget that was presented, especially given what we heard at pre-budget consultations.

The pre-budget consultation process is actually a really interesting process. It’s a long-standing tradition here in Ontario that the finance committee, of which I’m Vice-Chair, will travel around the province and listen to people, give them time to share their experience, and then we in turn take that information back and we learn from it, we adapt to it, we honour it, I would say, and then, we adapt policies and legislation to address some of those problems.

For many people who came forward—I’m thinking of nurses, I’m thinking of teachers, I’m thinking of people who are committed to building affordable housing, who are in the not-for-profit sector, who are on the front lines of how people are struggling in Ontario. They came to committee in the north and the south, east, west, and they shared their experiences with us. Sometimes, from the government members, they got rhetoric like “Aren’t you happy that we gave you a penny when you asked for a dollar?”

On the whole, the people who came before us actually came to us with solutions. They came to us with solutions because they are at the tipping point on affordability.

I’m going to honour some of those voices today, and I’m going to honour the women of this province, specifically.

Our colleague from Toronto–St. Paul’s often asks us to look at the budget through a gender lens, and so we have. We’ve done some analysis of how this government, since being elected, has treated women. I would say there have been tangible reversals on progress that women were making in Ontario.

I was thinking about this as I was talking to my concierge at the apartment building that I live in here in Toronto. His name is Mohammad, and he’s actually a doctor from Pakistan. He is working security in a building here in Toronto. I’ve been trying to help navigate some concerns that he has on health care and on immigration, ironically. One of the first conversations I had with him, in 2018, was when this government froze the minimum wage.

This government talks a lot about your pockets and getting their hands out of your pockets. When you froze the minimum wage, Mohammad, who has five children—that hurt Mohammad, but it hurt women in this province even more, because we have not made that progress; we are still 78 cents on the dollar to every dollar that a man makes in Ontario, in 2024. Did this government think about how it would negatively impact people like Mohammad, but also racialized and marginalized women across this province? No, they did not. They went right into the pockets of the most vulnerable people in Ontario, and they essentially removed money right out of their pockets. If you are a full-time worker—over a two-year period, that cost Ontarians $7,000. It’s truly shocking.

I raise the minimum wage because even though the government has promised—in October of this upcoming year—to increase the minimum wage, there is no funding in the budget for that.

What we have here is more commercials, essentially. Commercials don’t pay the rent. Those “It’s Happening Here” in Ontario commercials actually cause people some stress, especially if they are a parent waiting in an emergency room for close to 12 to 24 hours. One of my constituents was in the emergency room for almost 30 hours with a mental health concern. That is not the right place—

Ontarians are not seeing themselves reflected in this budget, and that is a serious problem. It’s a serious problem, obviously, for Ontarians who are looking for some leadership, but it’s also a problem for all of us, as legislators, because if you care about the people in your riding—in Sudbury and Hamilton, in Nickel Belt—you fully understand those challenges, if you are truly connected to your community.

The health care system in Ontario has never been this painful. It is literally painful for people. People are waiting in pain in emergency rooms—if they have an emergency room that’s open. This past year, 203 emergency room closures—this has never happened in Ontario before. This is a record. This government likes to use the word “historic.” Well, I’ve never heard a government use the word “historic” so many historic times. They overuse “historic.” These are not records that you should be proud of—203 emergency room closures in Ontario.

We’ve done some analysis, as has the FAO, an independent officer of the Legislature. He has concluded that the direct connection between Bill 124, which was the unconstitutional piece of legislation that this government brought in—it was ruled unconstitutional. It capped workers at 1%—the very workers this government were calling heroes—and for those three years, this pushed health care workers and education workers and public service workers out of the field because they just couldn’t afford it. And so what did the government do, even when the court ruled the legislation to be unconstitutional? They appealed the decision, wasting more money.

Yes, they appealed it twice.

Honestly, the negative impact of Bill 124 on this province will be felt for years. And there’s no concerted effort even to rebuild that workforce.

I have to say, there are many of us on this side and many of us who are think tanks and academics and politicals who think that this is very intentional—very intentional that you have abandoned your respect for the public service workers.

I’m just going to connect this. When the finance minister got up in his place, he also mentioned the former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. This was a day here in the Legislature—I really want to say, everybody spoke so well, very emotional. I did congratulate MPP Mulroney on her eulogy to her father. In fact, her whole family, really, I have to say, showed such strength and character during this grieving process.

When the finance minister referenced Brian Mulroney, he was indicating that this budget had some sort of quality and some sort of shiny motion that had dignity, that recognized what public service used to be like.

I actually have in my office a framed thank-you note to my former father-in-law, Walter Fife, and it’s signed by Brian Mulroney, for his 41 years of service to the national service. That is how leadership shows respect for the people who work for us. And we are—yes, you guys can clap.

Interjections.

I’m happy to be helping Mohammad, the concierge at my building. I have not given up on his getting his medical qualifications. Do you know why? Because he’s a talented renal specialist, which Ontario needs.

I want to thank our deputy leader, who has really taken this call up, this charge to ensure that the people who come to this great country and this great province, who have talents—that we honour the talents. It’s not just to honour them and their dedication, but also because we need their services. What a missed opportunity.

The Bill 124 piece was still a common theme in pre-budget consultations. This government has had to make amendments—make amends, I would say. The Financial Accountability Officer said that over the next three years, the price tag for your imposing unconstitutional, one would say, illegal legislation on the workers of this province—the final bill will come to $13.7 billion. So you pushed that can down the road, causing great damage to health care.

When I talk to nurses—and I’m going to be quoting the Ontario Nurses’ Association—they describe their experiences right now in hospitals as essentially like a war zone. There’s not enough time. There are not enough resources. There’s not enough expertise, because we’ve lost some of those dedicated nurses who were looking to mentor future nurses.

The connection to the health care system, for me, is very personal. I did mention last time that the wedding is coming for my son, in August. His future fiancée—because she did say yes. She also said yes to the dress, I just want to say. It was a good moment. You have to find the joy in this world. She’s a nurse who can’t get full-time work in Ontario even though she’s top of the class—specialized in NICU, working with babies. I’m so concerned that they’re going to leave Ontario, as a parent. I want them to settle in Ontario. I want them to be able to afford a home. I want them to have some quality of life. I want them to have a doctor.

Speaker, 2.3 million Ontarians do not have a doctor, and in four years, that number is going to go to 4.4 million Ontarians.

Our entire health care system is designed so that in order to enter the health care system and access appropriate care, you need a doctor. That’s how the system is designed. So when people don’t have a doctor, where do they go? They go to the urgent cares.

The wait time at urgent cares in Waterloo region, last Saturday, was 10 hours—so 10 hours for an urgent care, or 21 hours at the emergency room. These are the choices that the government is proud of?

This is the problem that the government made a choice not to solve in this budget, and for the life of me, I can’t understand it.

Our leader and our entire caucus fully understand that if you want a strong economy, if you want to draw investors into the province of Ontario, if you want people to reach their potential, then you make sure that you have the social infrastructure, you make sure that you have the acute care, but you also have that full spectrum of care, and that includes mental health, and that includes good schools.

Waterloo region is drawing talent from around the world. But now what’s at risk for that investment and that drawing of that talent into our region is the fact that people can’t find a doctor.

That’s why the chambers of commerce from across this province also have been on this campaign to recruit. The government should also be focused on retaining the talent. This is the missing piece—that we cannot afford to lose more doctors and lose more nurses. We certainly can’t afford to lose more teachers. So that’s the retaining piece. But recruiting into that system—that system has to be greatly improved, because you cannot recruit into a broken system. It actually goes against everything that we value.

This budget bill can be amended. It can be fixed. We want to fix it. We want to make sure that the needs of Ontarians are reflected in this budget. We haven’t given up. We want people to have hope.

I just want to say to the members across the way, when we ask questions about the wait times, about the 600,000 women who are waiting for mammograms in Ontario, about the 2.3 million Ontarians who don’t have a doctor, and then you come back at us with the carbon tax, that also is incredibly insulting to the people we’re elected to serve. It does feel like a Monty Python skit sometimes here in question period. It’s astounding to me that these serious problems do not warrant serious attention and a serious response. We need a serious government in 2024, in Ontario, because people are hurting.

I did want to go through some of, as I mentioned, the gender lens for budget 2024.

We heard from Victim Services of Durham Region, and they said the government should deem intimate partner violence as an epidemic. I asked them, “Do you think the government of Ontario should recognize that intimate partner violence is an epidemic?” They said, “Absolutely. The numbers speak for itself. It is recognizing the issue for what it is, absolutely an epidemic, crisis, human rights crisis” in Ontario.

The government is stubbornly stuck and refuses to acknowledge the problem. If you don’t acknowledge a problem, if you don’t identify a problem, how will you ever solve that problem? And this problem impacts all of us. All of us have personal experiences where we have friends or family who have experienced violence or fear of violence or harassment. I personally do not know one woman in my life who has not experienced some form of violence or harassment because of her gender.

So they were actually asking for the government to treat this issue seriously, and they specifically required consideration for the creation of an inter-ministerial task force. This was a really good solution because it would incorporate the women’s issues and the economic impact, which is a good combination to have because women are often coerced and controlled away from their financial independence. It’s well-documented; the research is very clear. And then, it also would include the justice system.

To say that the justice system in Ontario is broken would be being kind to this government. For all the bluster of this government on tough-on-crime—right now, it is bluster, because rapists and people who assault women are going free in Ontario.

I talked about Emily at the fall economic statement—what courage she had to come forward and talk about her experience of being sexually assaulted, and then her experience in the court system and the lack of independent legal advice that she was supposed to have access to.

Legal aid is not even mentioned in the budget.

These are choices that this government has made.

Right now, in the media studio, the member from Toronto Centre has a panel of women and legal advisers. These two women are talking about how hostile the court system is to women when they have the courage to come forward; how they’ve been denied justice.

But they’ve got money for helicopters—four helicopters to monitor auto thefts. There are cheaper options to address auto theft, I have to say. This is the great irony for me: Even if those helicopters catch the bad guys as they’re trying to steal your car, once those people get into the court system, they will not get access to justice in a reasonable time.

The Auditor General said eight months was the threshold. Emily’s rapist went free after 18 months. The court case was dismissed; it was stayed. Justice was denied to Emily, but one could also say her accused never got their day in court, as well. The system and the backlog is preventing justice, and we all know that justice delayed is justice denied.

So I applaud our member from Toronto Centre for bringing these voices right here into the House. This is seriously what we have to do, because the stats on the court system are not so transparent, and that’s also very intentional, I would say.

The fact that bail reform was not funded in this budget, even though we hear the tough talk from the Premier; the independent legal advice, which was piloted in Thunder Bay, Toronto and Ottawa during the pandemic—then it was extended to the whole province, but the funding allocation was not? This is a do-more-with-less sort of initiative.

Those women who have come to Queen’s Park to share their experience—this is an opportunity to learn. And this is what the pre-budget consultation was also about—an opportunity for us, as legislators, to learn and to apply solutions.

So I want to applaud Victim Services of Durham Region for making this recommendation.

We also heard from Bethesda House and Laura Burch from Sault Ste. Marie. She was talking about domestic violence in the Soo and Whitby, and she cited the 62 femicides that happened in 52 weeks—62 women were murdered by their partners in 52 weeks. She talked about the fact that they served 123 clients over the course of the year. They received 3,000 calls. They have funding for only one staff member, 18 beds. They had to turn away 1,063 women and children. When you turn away women who are fleeing violence because you’re not resourced to take care of that situation, that’s a sign for that woman and for the children—often, women who are fleeing violence have children—that the system as a whole does not care. It needs to be prioritized in the budget. It was not prioritized in this budget.

They also made a really good case that prevention is the path for eradicating violence against women. I have to tell you, there is a lot of truth in that statement.

Speaker, 15 years ago, I was a researcher at Camino, and we did a course for high school students around what a healthy relationship looks like. I remember a young man saying to me, “I didn’t know that when I called her such-and-such a name”—he said, “I’ve heard that all my life from my parents, from my home. I didn’t know that it was even demeaning.”

Education is the key to eradicating violence, and this can be incorporated into the education curriculum. There needs to be political will to incorporate what healthy relationships look like. It should start really early. Now that we’re going back to math and science in kindergarten, why not throw some healthy relationships in there too?

YWCA Toronto really made a case, because the YWCA here in Toronto and, actually, across the province—I’m thinking of what is happening in Kitchener right now. They said they must not just provide shelters but must give more supports to those fleeing violence, including wraparound, culturally sensitive, trauma-informed supports. This is really hard work—when you are on the front line and you’re working in a shelter and you’re dealing with a lot of issues. In fact, we now know from the brain injury society of Ontario how many women have concussions, and that impacts decision-making. There’s a research project going on right now—also another good opportunity to learn. I like learning. It’s fun.

The YWCA said, “Our ability to provide support is directly tied to our funding.” They also said that intimate partner violence must be declared an epidemic. Why the resistance to this from the Ford government? What is the harm? What would you lose from identifying and naming a problem?

Moving on to health care: The Charles H. Best Diabetes Centre—Lorrie Hagen is the executive director—made a compelling case around community care. I’m going to quote some of their submission. They said that their care, as a diabetes organization, keeps people out of the hospital. Do we want to alleviate the pressure on the acute-care system? Of course we do. They are asking for $3.5 million to do so, and they made a financial case to do so. They said, “The acute-care system that currently sends type 1 patients to us would be forced to take on this care in a very expensive and inefficient way. The cost of patient care in hospitals is up to $1,800 a day,” versus “our interdisciplinary community-based preventive care that provides exceptional value at $3.50 a day.” This is a good solution. It is a smart solution. It’s not going to get any of the private health care corporations that go to your events any additional funding, but it is community-based, not-for-profit, where every single dollar goes into the care of the clients. That is the system—

Interjections.

Yes, you guys can clap.

I also want to talk about wage parity in the community. I want to thank our labour critic for really talking about the discrepancy between workers who work in the caring sector—health care workers, mental health, social workers—versus what’s happening in some of our institutions.

The Ontario Community Support Association was asking for $533 million for the home and community care sector, to keep pace with inflation and to eliminate the wage gap between home and community care. The wage gap in their sector poses a challenge in recruiting and retaining—“Sector struggles to recruit a robust workforce.” The pre-pandemic vacancy rates were 7%; they have now risen to 20%. We are losing the talent in community because the nature of the work is so emotionally laborious. It is hard, hard work, with fewer people and an increased workload, and then the wage has not kept pace.

Keeping on health care, I just want to say that the Ontario Nurses’ Association—Erin Ariss presented. ONA has been so strong on the health care file, not just because they’re defending their members; they’re actually defending public health care.

Interjections.

For sure.

This is what they said today—and they quoted the Financial Accountability Officer, as well.

I just want to say, every time the FAO comes out with a report that is critical of the government or has looked at the expenditure, has revealed the Expenditure Monitor—the Expenditure Monitor actually keeps, in real time, what the government has spent or is planning to invest. We fought for the Financial Accountability Officer back in 2013. It was worth the fight, I would say, because now we have an independent, non-partisan research office that can track where the money is going, or where the money is not going.

So they quoted the FAO, and the FAO is still predicting a shortage of 30,000 nurses by 2028.

They also cited the 203 emergency room closures in Ontario.

Where are these emergency room closures happening? Primarily in rural, northern, smaller communities.

I’m thinking particularly of Minden, who lost their emergency room suddenly. It happened so quickly—right, France?—in two or three months. All of a sudden, there was a financial crisis that was completely predictable, based on Bill 124 and underfunded funding models for hospitals and acute care, and the government just decided to close it. They did leave a little phone in the ER. I don’t know if you saw that. There was a phone on the wall; if you needed help, you could call somebody. That phone is even gone right now. And Minden, who are still fighting for their hospital, they’re still fighting for their emergency room, they’re still tracking all the finances and the deficits—they see a very clear and intentional path towards their forced closure of their emergency room and hospital.

The impact of a lost hospital or a lack of access to an emergency room on a community is profound. It impacts job creation. It impacts housing. It impacts education. Health care resourcing, when you do it wrong, impacts the entire community and the health and well-being of the people we’re elected to serve.

Minden is still fighting, and God love them. When I was there in the summer, I know some of our other members—the member from Oshawa was also there. Those people voted Conservative.

And the case is there for community-based hospitals. They may not be huge institutions, but they’ll have a nurse practitioner, a doctor and a nurse, and when your child falls down or gets into an accident, there’s a place for them to go. We think that is worth fighting for—don’t you think? Why this government is letting these emergency room closures become normalized is beyond me.

As I said at the beginning of these comments, to be in the emergency room and to watch these fancy commercials saying how great Ontario is, time and time again, at a minimum cost of $8 million—well, there are a lot of places where $8 million could go.

And when we brought forward the motion, which, ironically, was first introduced by the Conservatives, and in fact, the Minister of Health, today, to reverse the Liberals’ partisan advertising policy, where they watered down the Auditor General’s powers, to allow this partisan advertising to continue—when we brought forward the very same motion, word for word—and we supported the Conservatives when they brought forward that motion against the Liberals. Then we brought it forward and quoted the members who had talked about how egregious this advertising policy was, how it was a breach of trust, how the people of Ontario are not buying it—quoted them back to themselves. It was kind of an awkward moment, I have to tell you. But at the end of the day, they voted to maintain this partisan advertising policy. It really defies logic. It really compromises trust in politicians and public servants. It hurts everybody. When people see politicians doubling back on their own principles, doubling down on a policy that doesn’t meet any service to Ontario—these commercials are not serving the people of Ontario; they’re making them angry.

I guess on some level we should be thanking them. But at the end of the day, those dollars should be going into public service, not partisan advertising.

The Ontario Nurses’ Association and the registered nurses’ association have countered the Minister of Health’s numbers. And I have to focus on health care, because it really does underpin our values as a society. When people have equal access to health care, it is actually our strength—or it used to be our strength. But if you’ve seen the advertising on the subway and the lack of doctors—you’ll know that you can now buy access to a doctor for $450 a year. This is a slippery slope, something that we are so committed to fighting against.

Our caucus did a town hall on the budget last night, and one fellow from, I think, Pelham said, “I don’t have $450 to buy access to a doctor. That’s not what I paid taxes for my entire life. I’ve invested in this province. I expect access to health care, and I should not have to buy it.”

The registered nurses’ association have countered this nursing movie that plays in the head of the Minister of Health—that all of these nurses are coming into Ontario. The Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario says that 10,000 nursing vacancies in the province—this is real. They said that 75% of nurses are burnt-out, 69% are considering leaving the profession, and 73% are over capacity.

So I ask you: All of these nursing vacancies in Ontario—why are hospitals not hiring full-time nurses? Why, last year, did this province condone and permit $1 billion to be spent on agency nurses—$1 billion on agency nurses? Remember, with those agency nurses—I have got nothing against the nurses themselves—they’ve actually fled the system because the system was so broken. I don’t hold anything against those nurses. I do hold something, though, against the nursing agencies that are skimming 30% of the money for profit, for shareholders. That’s 30% on $1 billion. That money could be going to Minden. It could be going to those emergency rooms to keep them open. It could be going to retraining and retaining. It should be a priority in this government.

So they asked to invest in mandated nurse-patient ratios as it will assist in nurse retention. Our health critic from Nickel Belt has been talking about nurse-to-patient ratios for years now; I would say, higher than a decade.

This is an important thing that the government could legislate. I’m going to say that it’s actually happening in BC right now, under an NDP government. Now our Ontario nurses are going to BC, because do you know what’s really important to nurses? Being able to nurse, being able to provide that care that they’re trained to do, to share their expertise with their colleagues in a team environment. And you can’t do that when you have 26 patients on one floor per one nurse.

I met with RPNs, who are probably one of the most disrespected qualifications in Ontario. These are experienced—primarily women. Their stories ended in tears almost every single day because nobody wants to go to work and feel like they’re failing the people they are supposed to be helping. So that is pushing more and more nurses into the agencies.

Now, those agency nurses, they drop into an open shift, and what nurses tell me is that that nurse doesn’t have the continuity of care of the team, is not connected to what has already happened to the patient, and is being dropped in, really, as a temp nurse. To add insult to injury, he or she—primarily she—is making three times as much as the nurse who came every single day prior to work on that patient. On a quality-of-care perspective, how does that make sense? But also, how is it is fiscally responsible?

I said this to the finance minister in committee one day: “Why are you voluntarily actually advocating to pay 30% more for health care services? How can Ontario afford that? You are out-Liberaling the Liberals on debt.”

There is a parody going around, I must say, and it is kind of funny, about all of the rhetoric that we heard from government members on deficits: “Deficits, basically, are stealing from future citizens. Debt is putting those costs on future credit cards of your children.” Ironically, that’s exactly what this government is doing. This government projected a $200-million surplus last year. Last year’s budget predicted a $200-million surplus. We have a $9.8-billion deficit in this year.

Yes. How did you manage that? I’ll tell you: You are spending more to get less, and you are intentionally doing that on the health care file.

I have to say, I view budgets as moral documents. I totally buy into it. Budgets should reflect the priorities of the people we’re elected to serve. I totally believe, 100%, in servant leadership—that you come to the table and put the problem and the person in the centre, and then you build resources around that and you find solutions. I totally, 100%, buy into that.

What this government has been doing is almost worse than what the Liberals used to do. The Liberals did have a pay-for-access policy, and after the Auditor General identified it, the Integrity Commissioner investigated some of the cash-for-access—if you have cash, you can buy legislation. That was the problem that the PC Party, at the time, countered very strongly. We were also aligned with them. So we brought in this policy around the per-vote subsidy, so that would sort of get this cash-for-access and union donations and corporate donations off the books.

This government has steadfastly reversed those policies one by one, so we’re in a whole heap of trouble around ethics in politics in Ontario right now.

We have an RCMP investigation into the greenbelt scandal, which was never about housing. Thank goodness we have the Auditor General, who did a thorough investigation into the insider trading of land. It’s true there were no bags of money, but the money was the land. It was worth $8.3 billion.

At the end of the day, we have a party that is really blurring the lines between the partisan party and the government, and this has been identified by several media experts.

Registered nurses wanted to make this really clear to the government: You can build a bed, but you will never be able to open it without human resources. The direct quote is, “I am emphasizing investment in human resources, not just infrastructure.” The bricks and mortar obviously matter, but the bricks and mortar were open in Minden—but without the people, it’s a closed hospital. So we really are going to try to push the government on this.

The Ontario Nurses’ Association—I’m going to go through their recommendations really quickly, because I want to move on to another issue: Legislate safe staffing ratios—absolutely, fully support this; drop the appeal of Bill 124—this was before you guys got caught with unconstitutional legislation, but the fact that you were appealing Bill 124 was incredibly insulting; close the wage gap—this is a huge issue for retention of nurses and health care workers; close private clinics, which undermine public health care—absolutely, 150%, shut it down. We can’t afford it. It’s not delivering service.

Interjection.

And then: Make all nursing placements paid. This is an interesting idea. There’s a cost to going through the health care system. You’ve made training and education for police officers free. Why are you not valuing nurses in the same way? Why are you not making sure that they have a clear pathway to becoming a registered nurse? Oh, I know you’re shaking your head. Is it because they’re women?

I can tell you, when I go through my list of everything that you’ve done to women in the province of Ontario, many of you will leave.

“Since 2018, 35,000 nurses have left the profession.” This is true. And once again, they say that ratios are the only way to address retention. We totally agree.

The other piece, around the doctors: The Ontario Medical Association has been coming to these budget consultations for a number of years. I know there’s a little bit of a complicated relationship, and it’s not just with the OMA; it’s with other organizations as well.

There is a new culture here at Queen’s Park, I’d like to say, and I want to put it on the record: If you speak out against the government, if you criticize the government, if you’re not thankful enough or grateful enough, there’s punishment. It’s a punitive culture here at Queen’s Park, and we’ve seen it on several files.

The not-for-profit sector right now—even the Alzheimer Society. They were promised $1 million in 2020, 2021, 2022. The money never flowed.

That’s how you got the $5.1-billion contingency fund. You created a slush fund on promising money and then not delivering it, which is completely unethical, I have to say.

As I said on The Agenda on Tuesday night, one good thing is that the contingency fund is down to half a billion dollars. I like to think that we shamed you into doing your job and investing.

I really hope that the Alzheimer Society gets the money that you promised for three budget cycles. I hope that money gets into the community, because what we learned at budget committee is that, on the Alzheimer’s and dementia file, the tsunami is already here. What we heard last year and what we heard again this year is that, in the space of five years, every hospital room down University Avenue will be occupied by someone who is suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s. You can’t pretend, in five years’ time, to be surprised by this. That’s the value of learning from the organizations that actually do the real work in our province.

The Ontario Medical Association came to us with a solution last year. They tell us that they spend 19.1 hours on administrative tasks every week. That is time that they could be seeing patients, and this is time that they want to be spending with patients. We heard from a small-town doctor—and God love him, he’s 74 years old. He said, “It is daunting to be the only physician in a community”—because he feels that he cannot retire.

Interjection.

The mental health piece: Phil Klassen from Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences said the challenge is mounting—also not news. Mental health and addictions visits to the Lakeridge Health emergency room have gone up. Mental health apprehensions have increased over the same period of time. Emergency departments struggle to triage these cases. It is not uncommon for these emergency departments to have numerous patients strapped in gurneys. This is a health human resources challenge. They presented last year, and they asked for $1 million. They have not received the funding. These are choices. Budgets are about choices. So you are choosing to not address a problem for $1 million in a $214-billion budget, the biggest budget in the history of the province of Ontario. Budgets are about choices.

On the mental health front: What’s happening to children right now, how they suffered through the pandemic, has to be addressed. Children are waiting 2.5 years for treatment—this is from Children’s Mental Health Ontario, CMHO. In the life of a child, two and a half years is a lifetime—some receiving no treatment at all. They said, “For the first time, we are facing a health human resources crisis, especially in northern regions.”

I have to say, this budget almost ignores the north altogether. It’s like the north doesn’t even exist. There was a reannouncement of $1 billion for the Ring of Fire. This announcement was made in 2014—it’s the same money every single year for the last 10 years. We should just call it the ring of smoke and call it a day.

The wage parity, also in mental health—huge issue for retention. Wait-lists for kids were already lengthy before the pandemic, and now the situation is even more dire. They asked for $140 million over four years to “stabilize, sustain and system build.” This year’s price tag would be $35 million for community-based child and youth mental health services.

Again, these are choices that are being made by this government.

This government also talks a lot about infrastructure, like Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass—and now, because we have a by-election in Milton, a $3-billion dedicated GO train service. That’s almost as good as the Liberals’ bullet train that we were promised by the former Minister of Transportation. That’s actually a really good example of how this government is making decisions—to be kind, on the back of a napkin. Because there’s a by-election in Milton, now we have a promised GO train, with no business plan, no costing—a random $3 billion. I have to say, when you drop a GO train into a transportation plan that has never been costed, never been talked about—no environmental assessment—we don’t even know if it’s possible.

I would say there are some real challenges in a dedicated line from Milton down to Union, based on our experience in Kitchener-Waterloo, where, for 10 years, we’ve been waiting for the long-awaited 15-minute service—we’re still at an hour and 47 for the GO train, every couple of hours, if you’re lucky. Brampton is getting some increased service, so we’re happy for Brampton to get increased services. But it’s called the Kitchener line for a reason. Kitchener should also benefit from GO service—never mind that our station was built in World War I and nothing has been changed to it.

Because there’s a by-election in Milton—a dedicated GO train, at $3 billion, which will bump down other transportation projects. And that’s actually what has happened with Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass, for people who are waiting for Highway 7—those plans get bumped down the list. There’s only so much that can actually happen.

So you drop in these little pet projects that just happen to benefit some developers along the course, to the tune of billions and billions of dollars, which—they just happened to buy the land, and now we have a highway.

That’s how things are proceeding right here in the province of Ontario. And that’s why the RCMP is investigating this government—a criminal investigation.

That’s why justice matters. That’s why the law matters.

That’s why legal aid should be mentioned in this budget. Legal aid should be funded. Legal aid is an important part of ensuring people have access to justice.

That’s also a good reason to ensure that criminals who hurt people in Ontario, or even steal cars—because now carjackings are a serious issue. I’m sure the helicopters are going to solve it. I’m sure that will happen. Once they get into the justice system, if they don’t get access to a judge within that 18 months, then they walk. And let me tell you, those numbers are pretty alarming—who is walking. And I thought this government was the tough-on-crime kind of government.

Going back to the infrastructure piece: Good Roads. God love Good Roads, Scott Butler. They’ve made the case for safe infrastructure investment as a cost-saving measure for health care. This is what they said: 50% of the fatalities occurred on rural and northern roads. This is good information for the government to have. Good Roads wants to leverage the lessons learned in other jurisdictions to address this risk—cost-effective solutions like guardrails, paint and lights. He described this as really simple, low-hanging fruit. This is a good solution—to the members who are still here in the Legislature. He said, “Right now road safety in northern Ontario is ‘thoughts and prayers’—we hope for the best.” I know our northern members have experienced this as they commute back and forth to Queen’s Park. Sometimes they’re stuck there for hours.

He made a really important point on health care costs. Those accidents that are happening on poorly designed infrastructure in Ontario—listen to this—resulted in 43,000 days of hospital stays, due to accidents on these roads. They are looking for a program for five years where they will look into what is actually happening on the roads. This has been tried in other jurisdictions. It has impacted where investments happen. I’m sure it would benefit Ontarians across the entire province. So that’s something that we were looking for. Also, as Good Roads points out, this is low-hanging fruit. This is stuff that is not super-costly, but it has benefits. It also improves the lives of Ontarians who are travelling on these northern roads. This makes sense on many levels.

We heard from so many other folks around the dismantling of the social safety net in Ontario. Ontario used to have a very strong social safety net, if you were experiencing poverty, if you had health issues, if there were mental health challenges, if there were addictions.

All of us know somebody who is struggling with addictions. This government has solutions around safe consumption sites. They have made choices not to grant those licences for those safe consumption sites. You are basically saying that this is not a priority—keeping people healthy. These are sons, daughters, uncles, fathers. It’s a really important piece to catching the people who are faltering, who are struggling. I think it’s a very callous move, in my estimation, to not grant those licences, even though the health care sector and your own ministry have said that this would save lives and would save health care costs. Fewer people would be in emergency rooms.

I’m going to circle back right now to how this budget really is a lost opportunity to reflect on what people in Ontario said to us.

Going right back to that gender lens—taking action to ensure women and children are better able to access culturally responsive care to strengthen the health of their families, with investments. Even the Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program—these are programs that people care about.

Preventing gender-based violence—the $13.5 million over three years to enhance initiatives that support women and youth. This is one part where it looks like new money, but we have to actually dig down and pull back the layers on that.

The Independent Legal Advice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Program, which the government expanded without expanding the budget—there’s a small increase in there. We’re going to be looking at evaluating that. I think that if someone has the courage to come forward after being assaulted, that justice system should be there, and that legal advice and guidance should be proactive. They shouldn’t have to go looking for it.

I do want to say, just to end on education—because education actually pulled me into politics. When you have kids, you see that the system is being broken. I used to sit over there, as an audience member, when former Premier Harris and Snobelen—I think it was Snobelen who was the Minister of Education—created a crisis. It was such an effective policy that it’s still in place today. They created a crisis so that they could create their own made-in-Ontario solutions, and those impacts on our education system are still being felt today.

If you don’t get education right, a lot of other things don’t fall into place. When I was here protesting, 25 years ago, the cuts to education—a serious government views education as a solution, as, really, an equity policy, because when you get education right, a lot of good things can happen.

I hope the Minister of Education was listening carefully to the voices of informed people, because the word “teachers” is not even mentioned in this budget. I think we should be listening to and learning from the front-line people who have the experience to share with us, as a province.

It is 10:02, and I will end my one-hour lead. Thank you very much.

My question is for the Premier.

As I continue to review this Conservative government’s budget, I’m left with very serious questions.

Does this budget make rent affordable for renters?

Interjection: No.

Interjection: No.

Interjection: No.

Speaker, bragging about doubling down on failed policies is definitely not leadership.

I know who this budget is not made for. This budget wasn’t made for post-secondary students or educators. This budget wasn’t made for teachers or nurses or 1.7 million renters.

Funding in this budget is not going towards making life more affordable. It won’t improve wages for workers. It won’t keep post-secondary institutions afloat. It won’t make $10-a-day child care a reality for so many struggling families in this province.

Since this budget was not made for struggling Ontarians, Premier, tell us which corporations and private companies are set to benefit from this government’s budget. That’s your priority.

I do want to say that this government says that this budget is fiscally responsible. In reality, the government projected a $200-million surplus and instead delivered a $10-billion deficit. They have slashed post-secondary education by $425 million while almost half of Ontario’s universities are running deficits. The justice system is broken in Ontario—just ask Cait and Emily—and there’s no mention of legal aid anywhere in this budget.

Speaker, to the Premier: What will it take for this Conservative government to listen to the people of Ontario and fund the services that they rely on?

Interjections.

This petition’s entitled “Mental Health Services in Ontario.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there is currently a lack of consistent mental health intake policies and care across Ontario when people seek assistance at hospitals;

“Whereas staff training and readiness to support patients with mental health issues at Ontario’s hospitals lacks consistency and is not sufficiently trauma-informed or evidence-based;

“Whereas current discharge procedures often leave vulnerable people without access to adequate care or support;

“Whereas ... 4,500 people” have died “by suicide each year in Canada and suicide is the second leading cause of death among youth and young adults ages 15 to 34; and

“Whereas the experience of Waterloo’s Roth family in the death of their daughter Kaitlyn has brought to light serious flaws in mental health discharge procedures;

We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to earmark funding for dedicated training for staff providing mental health services with a focus on evidence-based, trauma-informed approaches, to review intake and discharge procedures to ensure consistency of care, and to provide funding for alternative destination clinics in communities across Ontario.”

It’s my pleasure to support this petition in honour of Kaitlyn Roth and sign my signature.

Thanks to my friend from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. We serve on the committee, and we agree to disagree on many things, unfortunately.

You mentioned infrastructure spending in your comments. We’re unpacking some of the infrastructure spending that is in this budget. One of the items is really questionable. It’s the production of a new media studio over in Whitney Block—in the bunker, I call it, in the basement. It’s where the budget announcement happened yesterday. It was a cost of $300,000. Nobody called for it. There’s no rationale to have a separate media studio where reporters can only ask one follow-up question.

How was this decision made? Who made this decision? We have a media studio here in the building. We have the cabinet room. There was no reason for a second media studio which actually limits journalists asking the government questions.

I serve also with this member on the finance committee, and I need more than a minute and a hot second to talk about their financial record, but I’m going to focus on what we heard at committee.

Region of Peel Chair Nando Iannicca said the dissolution of Peel would have delayed housing in Peel by three, five, seven years. What would it take to make Peel whole? Some $1.5 billion. Since the revoking of the Hazel McCallion Act, Peel has been sent into a spiral, essentially, and that is how this government makes decisions or establishes legislation.

Can the member please talk about why it is so crucial to have strong partnerships with our municipalities and not create chaos, as they did with the Hazel McCallion Act?