It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Ottawa Centre to talk about the government’s budget bill, Bill 180, this morning. As I do, I was hoping that you and the House would permit me a little latitude as I get started, because it’s been an interesting week for me. I had my family here for the first time in six years on Monday; that was lovely. But I also had an opportunity to eulogize in a member’s statement a great Ottawan, Voula Sardelis, who we lost, whose celebration of life I missed on Monday, but I had the opportunity to eulogize Voula, and I just wanted to talk a little bit more about her if you and the House will permit me to do that.

I also wanted to talk about another great Ontarian we lost, a journalist, John Bell, who used to actually be in the press gallery in this building. So I’m just wondering if you and the House will permit me a few minutes to do that before I get into the substance of comments I have about Bill 180—just full disclosure.

Voula Sardelis, as I mentioned on Monday, was a truly remarkable woman. What I didn’t have a chance to talk about is her story in arriving to Canada. I focused instead on the collaborative work that I had done with her and her daughter in putting forward a motion on the floor of this House, motion 129, which confirmed that we all believe that seniors and persons with disabilities who live in retirement homes, long-term-care homes and congregate care homes—group homes—have a right to see their powers of attorney, their caregivers, their families and friends. They have a right to receive visitors.

This has been a hotly debated topic, certainly during the COVID-19 pandemic but since, when there have been disagreements over the conditions of life and the conditions of care. There have been a minority—and I want to stress that for the record, a minority—of care home operators for vulnerable persons who have decided to, instead of negotiating disputes with powers of attorney and family caregivers, issue trespass act notices to keep those wanted visitors out of homes.

For all of us who have family members in congregate care facilities—I do; I’m sure most of us here do—the presentation of a visitor on any given day is the highlight of our family member’s day, week, month—maybe, if it’s a great visit, the year. So I just want to, again, for the record, congratulate Voula and her daughter, Maria, on that victory, but I also want to talk a little bit about Voula’s story because I think it tells a little bit about Canada as a country and the kind of province and country we want to build through the government’s budget bill.

Voula Sardelis arrived to Canada in 1954. She arrived at Pier 21 in Halifax. I’m sure many of our families have these stories. She was immediately head-counted, assessed by immigration officials and sent on a bus to Montreal, where, because of her training in her homeland of Greece, she became a seamstress. She worked for a tailor in the city of Montreal. She later moved to my city in Ottawa, where she was both a seamstress and a nanny. And her husband, who she knew from the old village, came to join her in Ottawa.

What is remarkable for me, Speaker, about Voula is that this is a woman who came to Canada without any family connections, without the capacity to speak either of our two official languages, who simply took a risk on herself at 33 years of age because, as she told Maria, she was tired of not having shoes. She was tired of not having shoes and tending to animals in the field and, in some cases, she talked to Maria, and related the story to me through Maria, about having her feet hurt because of walking on ice in the small amounts of frozen time in the year in that country, Greece.

It’s the immigrant story; it’s the striving immigrant story that so many of our families have, Speaker. I think those—they could be genetic; they could be learned tendencies passed from mother to daughter. When I had the opportunity to work with Maria, I just remember meeting someone with such an indomitable spirit because—think about this for a moment: If you were separated from the person who is most important to you for 316 days, if you miss Christmas, you miss her birthday, you miss Easter, you miss Thanksgiving, you miss all the important things, you’re hurting. But at the end of that 316-day period, Maria decided to defy the trespass act. She decided to defy it. She called the Ottawa police ahead of time and she said, “I will be compliant with your officers if they’re deployed to the scene, but I believe this care home operator is abusing their power under the Retirement Homes Act. I’ve contacted the regulator. I’ve had no progress.” I had worked with her, and she had had no progress.

So think about the courage it took Voula Sardelis to come to Canada without any capacity in English or French, without any family connections, to start a life in 1954, and think about how those skills were passed on to her daughter who had that same courage to take personal risk and to test the law. Let’s be gratified that we as a House agreed to support the right for Voula and every other person in a congregate care facility to receive their loved ones as guests. God bless you, Voula; God bless you, Maria. Thank you, House, for the opportunity to talk a little bit more about that.

I also want to talk about John Bell, who has got a funny story too. I don’t see any London, Ontario, members of the House here, I don’t think—oh, pardon me. My goodness, the friend from London North Centre is here, sorry. So, John comes from your city, my friend, and he’s the son of a nurse; he’s the son of a high school teacher. I met John when I was a graduate student in the city, Speaker, because he was part of the press gallery in this building, but part of the press gallery from a source that I don’t think many Ontarians know about. He wrote for a socialist newspaper called the Socialist Worker, and it was something that I had seen around York University when I was a campus member, and I thought it was a pretty outspoken publication. When I met John, he was somebody who I thought was an interesting person. He had a mind of his own.

What I remember from the celebration of life—John passed away on March 28—is that he was one of those people on the left in the early 1980s that was changed by the Polish ship workers strike of 1981, because at that time the people who called themselves the left, the Stalinist regime, was putting down the shipyard workers strike, and if you were to advocate for those Polish shipyard workers in this city or any other Canadian city, you were accused by the so-called left of being agents for the United States or some other surrogate that is supposed to be anti-left. But John had the courage, as a student in the early 1980s to say the following words, and I will repeat them for the record of this House: “Either you backed the workers or you backed the generals and their tanks trying to smash the strike. Shamefully, most of the left backed the tanks, characterizing rebellious Polish workers as agents of the CIA or the Vatican.”

John had a mind of his own. He was raised by a teacher and a nurse. He was raised also by an aunt who was a librarian. He thought for himself. He thought deeply. And he, like many Canadians, decided to back the shipyard workers in the early 1980s, despite the names he was called. I saw that same independence of spirit. He decided to devote decades of his life afterwards to writing a column—I encourage any member of this House to look up—called Left Jab. In Left Jab, he wrote about fascinating topics that were political, cultural. One of my favourite columns John wrote was about the great Charlie Sifford, who is often referred to as golf’s Jackie Robinson. He passed away in 2015. He was the apparent mentor for the great Tiger Woods, the golfer Tiger Woods.

Through John’s column, I learned a lot more about my country, I learned a lot more about major figures in history, but always from a very independent streak. This is what I want to mention about John. He was somebody who thought for himself and he wasn’t afraid to ruffle the feathers of others if it was called for. This is a guy I truly believe could have had a great career as a mainstream journalist or as a professor, but he decided to devote his life to writing for a socialist publication and working on contract.

In 2018, after a debilitating lung illness that John had lived through, he got a double lung transplant, and his productivity as a columnist went through the roof. I remember that. I remember him publishing once a week to publishing twice a week, commenting on social media frequently, and very much enjoying his work. But in November 2023, unfortunately, he had a fall, he broke his hip, he was admitted to hospital. That was the moment I remember of John’s columns when he talked about the risks persons with disabilities faced in the COVID-19 pandemic, being immunocompromised, and how getting sick could often mean the end of his life. Unfortunately, John lived out that example himself. He passed away on the 28th of this year, but he lived a remarkable life, and I’m glad that I’ve had a few moments to talk about him and what he contributed to debate in this country.

I also want to thank the Ottawa Festival Network. This is my substantive contribution for the debate—surprise, I only have 25 seconds left. I thought I had more. I do want to put a nod, because my friend the minister responsible is here. The Ottawa Festival Network has a great pitch in front of him and his ministry for the tulip festival that’s happening on the 10th to the 20th of this month, which is our opportunity to celebrate veterans’ history and the important sacrifice that 7,600 Canadians made to liberate the Netherlands, and the gift that the country of the Netherlands gives us. My pitch to the government in the budget bill: Don’t forget our festivals.

Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 9, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 180, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 180, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

I’d like to thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for recognizing the life and work of John Bell. I think it was very beautifully worded, although I am surprised that you didn’t make mention of his cat, who is known as Randy Savage.

In the obituary itself, John and his family called for donations to the London Public Library and, in particular, the A Book for Every Child campaign.

In terms of the government’s budget bill, Bill 180, I wonder if the member would like to comment about the historic omission of library grant funding as well as their postures on education funding that are not meeting the needs of libraries as well as the young people in Ontario.

It was very interesting listening to the member—even listening to the answer that he gave about the tulips. I learned a few things, so I thank you for that.

The bill and the story that you told also told a story of a health care system that did not meet the needs of John and that could have done way better at preventing airborne infections from spreading from one patient to the next, often making their health status worse.

Given the health infrastructure in Ottawa and the number of people in Ottawa who do not have access to primary care, are you satisfied that the investment in primary care will meet the needs of the people of Ottawa Centre?

I enjoyed the presentation by the member from Ottawa Centre, and any time he wants to ask me for an indulgence to tell a really good story in this chamber about people coming to this country and making good, I can assure him that he will always have my indulgence.

He did at the end of his presentation talk about tulips in Ottawa. I know a little bit about tulips in Ottawa, and I understand that that’s linked to bravery and liberation and certain things that happened in the past. I would like to invite the member from Ottawa Centre, because obviously it’s something that’s close to him, if he would like to take a moment to elaborate on this tulip festival and tell us where does it originate from, where do the tulips come from, why do the tulips arrive, where and when they arrive, and why we should all be interested in that and what it commemorates.

I thank the member for Essex. What I’ll say in response is that this is the 72nd edition of the Ottawa tulip festival. It acknowledges the sacrifice of 7,600 Canadian soldiers who lost their life in liberating the Netherlands. The gift in return that the country of the Netherlands gives our city is 100,000 tulips. If you haven’t been to our city to see the blooming of the tulips, you really should. It’s very important for Jo Riding, who is the festival director, for it to be no cost so the children can learn about that military history and the sacrifice of those veterans but also appreciate the beauty of those tulips and what they mean. You can go to the Man with Two Hats statue, which is right in Commissioners Park, which is literally geographically facing the same statue in the Netherlands. Princess Margriet of the Netherlands joined us to unveil that two years ago.

The fact of the matter is, I would love this government, in its budget, to invest heavily in libraries because it creates opportunity for people to better themselves, to learn more about their community. We should be investing in that, for sure.

No, I’m not. I’ve been on the record here many times saying that we actually have, in our city, the opportunity to cover 30,000 people with primary care through our community health centres and through some family health team proposals before the government, but we’ve had just one proposal funded, at 30% of its ask, in the downtown. I think we can do better than that.

One thing I do want to say for the record about our health care system and John Bell is that John had that resurgence of creative activity because he got a double lung transplant, thanks to public health care. So that’s important—

Further questions?

Further debate?

I appreciate the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 180, the budget bill, Building a Better Ontario. We all want and deserve a better Ontario, but I was a bit disappointed with this budget because I think it’s one that misses multiple opportunities. However, I’m one who believes there is no monopoly on a good idea. There were items in the budget that I liked, that I can support—but no time in this three minutes to list them all.

I’ll highlight the investments in municipal infrastructure, which are welcome, but I do hope that small towns and rural municipalities do see their fair share. I will be watching with interest how the funds will be allocated with respect to the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund, which, to this government’s credit, has been quadrupled. I know Haldimand, Norfolk and Six Nations will be putting forward an application for their regional water supply project.

Here’s where I felt Bill 180 could have been better: Honestly, I felt it needed to demonstrate greater fiscal restraint, with a focus on measures to getting key portfolios back on track. I’ll give you some examples.

The finance minister said the government is ready to build infrastructure like roads and bridges. The minister also pledged to build more long-term-care spaces. As we all know, that’s all well and good, but there are projects that were previously announced that still haven’t seen a shovel in the ground. Of course, everyone knows the people of Caledonia, the people of Haldimand county continue to wait for the reconstruction of the Argyle Street bridge.

An additional $2 billion over three years in home and community care—that’s great, but I am interested to see how these monies will be spent, because until the government pays those on the front line a competitive wage, I believe it’s all wasted money. A tree cannot stand if its roots are rotten. Similarly, more money for addictions and mental health—each year, more and more money being thrown at these critical issues, and yet, poorer results.

The same goes for autism supports: more money but no realignment of services that create real results for Ontario families. Sadly, no relief for those choosing between heating and eating; only crumbs for those needing an investment to base budgets in the developmental services sector; little help for the backbone of many of our small towns, our small businesses; and nary a mention of rural Ontario, our farmers or the ag sector. Many farmers were looking for a top-up of $100 million to the Ontario Risk Management Program.

At the conclusion, the document reads, “We are not stepping back from the investments that matter. Nor are we going to increase the burden on you.” This is rich, an inference of doing the taxpayer a favour when it’s our money that the government has spent, is spending and, in some cases, has and is mismanaging.

With respect to the deficit, it will more than triple to $9.8 billion despite promises last year that the books would be balanced by 2025. Speaker, I think we are headed full speed, sadly, toward a debt wall, and in the back seat sit our kids and maybe our grandkids too.

Questions to the member for Ottawa Centre?

I thank the member opposite for the question. Of course, any cost-savings measures will help our rural folks and will help Ontarians in general. But I will go back to the point that we can’t continue, when it comes to cost-savings measures—the member opposite talked about cost-savings measures. There are many instances and opportunities that this government could be taking in order to realign services, in order to put those monies that—we’ve got a $214-billion budget in front of us, the largest in the province’s history. I am a fiscal Conservative, and I’m not a believer that continuing to throw money at certain problems is always the answer, and I think that there could have been more work done in realigning services to create real results for Ontario families.

I’ll also talk about the fact that there was very little in this budget with respect to our farmers. I would have really liked to have seen the $100-million top-up to the Risk Management Program, which would have helped with succession planning for—

Good morning, Speaker. My question to the member—it’s always interesting to hear you rise in the House. We’re neighbours, and so I like to hear what’s going on in your riding.

You talked about how this government purports to be fiscal Conservatives, but, as you had noted, right now Ontario has the largest net debt per capita in the country. Right now, the debt per capita is $19,436, so every Ontarian essentially owes that much money.

So this government has the largest debt and deficit ever, and the largest in Ontario, while at the same time, they are pulling up the rear when it comes to per capita spending in health care. Can you square this? How is the government underspending in the things that matter to us—health care and infrastructure in rural communities—at the same time that they have the largest deficit in the history of the province?

Further questions?

Further debate?

I noticed that the member made reference to keeping costs down and affordability. I had the opportunity to read the budget document, and in particular, pages 71, 72, 73 and 74. I noticed that there were a host of affordability measures in the budget, including—to me, and most importantly, in my view—keeping the price of gasoline reduced. This budget commits to extending the gas tax reduction, which is an 11-cent-per-litre reduction, extending it until December. I thought that was a very important measure to be taken in this budget because it saves a person who is driving a car 11 cents per litre on the price of gasoline, and that adds up, especially when you’re from a rural area and there are no mass transit systems.

Now, I’m from a rural area called Essex, and I know the member is from a rural area. I’d like to know whether she thinks that that 11-cent gas tax cut is going to help her rural residents.

My question is about hydro access to farmers. When I was at ROMA this year, a lot of farmers complained that they don’t have access to phase 3 electricity and that for a lot of farmers, it’s hard for them to decarbonize. It’s hard for them to turn their farming enterprise into bigger business, to scale bigger business, because of their access to this kind of infrastructure. I wonder if you could speak to what that really means to your agricultural sector.

The money spent on transit has gone a long way to help those who are most struggling with affordability, because we know that affordability isn’t just for people who own cars, but it’s also for people who use transit. And so this expansion of transit is the best way to use our dollars and to reach more people.

The infrastructure money helps us build more housing. We know that this is a gap that cities are struggling with. Not only is there a big price tag on the inflation on construction, but also the cuts to municipalities have led to our municipalities facing massive financial strains and possible cuts.

But while I’m glad we’re building hospitals, I’m glad we’re building schools, I’m glad we’re building infrastructure, we can’t just spend money on ribbon-cuttings. Just like all of us who maybe have bought a home, you don’t just buy a home and then stop paying the bills. We need to fill in the gaps and make sure we fund properly the operating costs of running this province.

Things that I don’t appreciate are the $10 billion spent on Highway 413. We know that this will save a mere 30 to 60 seconds for people in their daily commutes, and we know that it’s cheaper and more cost-effective and will serve more people to expand GO, like creating a Bolton line. That way, we could preserve 2,000 acres of prime farmland and we could preserve 400 acres of the greenbelt.

There are five pages on auto insurance and a mere two paragraphs on the climate crisis. Again, the climate crisis is real, and it has devastating consequences for my kids and all future generations. I hope to see more than a mere 0.01% of the budget spent to discuss the climate crisis that is barrelling toward us.

While I’m glad to see the 2.7% increase in funding for education, that is essentially a cut, because that is below the rate of inflation. We need to ensure that we have progress in retaining and recruiting more education staff, and that we address the violence that staff and I, as a school social worker, see in schools and the mental health crisis facing young people, often due to many things—consequences from the COVID crisis.

When it comes to health care, there is nothing to address our drug toxicity and to improve operation costs for our ER departments. So while we do see money—

It’s always a privilege to take my seat on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin, and to speak to, particularly, the 2024 Ontario budget that this government has brought forward. From my seat, now, I bring a different lens. As an independent member and no longer part of the opposition, I look at reasons why I could potentially support the bill. But one thing I want everybody back home to remember is that I will never forget why I’m here, and that’s to bring the issues that matter most to people across Algoma–Manitoulin. So I will touch on the shortfalls and what’s not in this particular piece of legislation that this government has brought forward.

Having said that, I’ve looked at this budget very closely and—it’s hard to look for new things. There are things that are there that are substantial for people across Algoma–Manitoulin, like replacing the Little Current Swing Bridge, the key to Manitoulin Island, which is very important, and the investment that is required to making sure that the service, the products, the economy continues on Manitoulin Island. So it was nice to see, again, the reannouncement of this particular piece of infrastructure that’s going to be done. I think this is the fourth or fifth time that the government has announced this infrastructure fund—I think if we follow what the previous government had done, it’s normally about seven times that they announce it before it actually gets put in place. I’m hoping it’s going to get done fairly soon because people on Manitoulin Island deserve a reliable route, and this infrastructure needs to be done.

In the forestry industry, we see that there’s going to be $20 million over three years in the forest biomass program. I do know several communities that are going to be benefiting from that. Wiikwemkoong First Nation has been leading a lot of initiatives towards this, and they are looking at community projects that they’re going to hopefully be able to utilize to stimulate the economy and diversify their employment opportunity for community members there as well.

The new school that is being built in Blind River—okay, this is number four, but it’s already in the process of being built. So that was a new announcement. I have to give a shout-out to the Algoma District School Board and the Conseil scolaire du Grand Nord, who really put so much work in getting this to move forward.

There are a few other nuggets that are contained within the context of the budget, so I’ll give credit where credit is due—the $10.9 million to bring improved Internet access across the northern communities and First Nations of Ontario. Get it done. It’s long overdue. We’ve been announcing this over and over and over again. Let’s get the shovels in the ground and get this work done.

Now let’s talk about what’s not in this particular budget. Things that I wish this government would have listened to is—early in October, I found out the dire need of the hospital situation. I knew they were in rough waters, but I didn’t appreciate how bad it was in hospitals. So I took it upon myself, once I received correspondence from the 25 northern hospitals, to reach out to all 11 hospitals across Algoma–Manitoulin—and, yes, I said “11 hospitals.” Algoma–Manitoulin is a very vast area. The consensus within these hospitals is, at a bare minimum, they need, at the very least, a 10% increase to their base funding in order for them to address a lot of their financial needs that they have in order to continue to provide the services, to keep their emergency rooms open and so on. We didn’t see that in this budget. We see a mere pittance that won’t even keep the hospitals in line with the cost of inflation.

I’m not sure what this government is not grasping in regard to the dire need of our hospitals and the fact that they need some additional funding in order to meet the services and meet the demands of individuals across this province, but they’re not. And that’s frightening, Speaker.

I’ve sat with many of the administration, and I’ve asked them. I said, “What’s missing here? Why aren’t they listening to you?” And everybody just seems to step back and say, “We don’t know. We get head nods from the government, and saying, ‘Yes, we understand, but keep going.’” They’re lean. They’ve cut everything. There’s no more integration that they can do.

But again, when the ask is there, it’s falling on—there’s silence from across the table. The fact that they have to deal with the enormous costs of agency nursing, which is required—they have to have a certain level of professionals within the context of the hospital. Nothing in this budget to deal with agency nursing regulation, nothing on capping—hospitals are paying three to four times more to have this coverage done.

Nothing on enhancing the administrative wages—why would somebody in a hospital setting—if I’m a nurse within the emergency department, why would I step up in an administrative role when there are no compensations for those individuals because there are no base funding increases to their hospital?

Why did we not see the 5% increase in the base funding in developmental services, such as what we have throughout this province as far as Community Living?

The elastic is stretched so much there is no more stretch. That elastic has broken.

Over the weekend, my son and I, we enjoyed a hockey game up in Blind River—go, Blind River Beavers. I hope that you guys can pull off—you’re down 3-1. I’ll be at the game on Thursday night in Blind River.

After we had supper with my son—my son is one of the individuals that works with developmentally challenged individuals. And I’ve always said he’s a special boy. He’s got this knack of identifying someone in the crowd. It doesn’t matter if that someone is four years old, 14 years old, 24 years old, 44 years old or 64 years old; he has this ability of identifying someone that’s in need. And what he does: He zeroes in on that person and makes them his priority. He’s always had that knack. When he was a young boy, while he was in school, we often heard from teachers that, “You’ve got a special one. Don’t change him.” And it was such a pleasure for me seeing him going through high school and getting through his education up at Collège Boréal and coming out as a social worker.

The fun part for me is, as much as I love being part of this building—going into his workspace and his office and him showing to me what programs that he does and the activities that he sets up for all of his clients is amazing. But he’s limited, because those services have not been recognized by this government. And there’s no investment that has been done into that particular field. So, in developmental services across this province, the elastic is broken. I’m looking at this government, and I’m imploring this government to recognize the benefit of these services and make the proper investments that are needed.

Highway improvements across northern Ontario: I drive up from Elliot Lake every week, and I see that big billboard, bulletin board for the 413/Bradford Bypass investment, and I see the big billion-dollar investments that are coming in there. But highways such as 551, 542 or 637 going into Killarney—I don’t see that same kind of recognition or investment that is being done out of this budget from this government. And that’s unfortunate.

Highway 519 into Dubreuilville was just done, I would say, about five or six years ago. Not a stitch of additional work was ever done to maintain that road. That brand new road is washing out. What’s embarrassing to watch is, since when has it become a standard operating procedure to replace gravel from a washout with a cone? When does that become a standard operating procedure? When does the gravel go back in? It is so bad, Speaker, that there’s this one area where the guardrail posts are hanging void, with no gravel there, and this happens time and time again. It’s not only in my area; it’s across northern Ontario. We really need to look at our service providers that are responsible for returning the gravel to their shoulders.

Heck, I spent an entire day with an Amish and Mennonite group, travelling roads in a horse and buggy on Highway 17, and I tell you, Speaker, if you haven’t, I would suggest that each and every one of these members in this room experience that first-hand because that will be an eye-opener for you. There is something that we need to learn in this province: that we all need to share the road, and that road, for many of us, is only between the white lines. Well, there’s a shoulder and then there’s gravel, and there’s a lot of people that are using those roads.

Again, there’s a lot of things I didn’t get to touch on within the context of this budget, but there’s a lot of things that are missing. I take great pride in looking at why I could be supporting this bill, but there are too many things that are missing out of this budget that would be very valuable to people from northern Ontario.

Just to touch quickly on the forest fire piece, even though you may not see it in the budget, there theoretically is almost an unlimited amount that is used to fight forest fires. There’s a floor that is set by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and then that is added on throughout the year as necessary.

I did want to touch a little bit on the One Fare program. The One Fare program is available in Waterloo region. It’s fantastic. You can use it with the GRT to then connect to GO train networks to then come to Toronto and other places in the GTA. So it’s great that we have that in the region, and I was hoping that maybe the member from Kitchener Centre, my next-door neighbour, would maybe like to elaborate on a little bit more about what she’d like to see in regard to the LRT. I know that’s something that has been challenging to talk about on both sides, and just get her thoughts a little bit more on what phase 2 could look like.

I just want to thank my friend from Kitchener Centre for focusing on climate policy and just give her this time to elaborate on anything she would like the government to focus on if we were going to elevate the amount of investment in climate policy.

I would like to see One Fare come to our region so that we can go to Hamilton and it not take three hours. It’s a 50-minute drive. It takes two hours for somebody from downtown Kitchener to get to downtown Cambridge—two hours—and we live 20 minutes apart.

I would like to see investments in more light rail transit, like has been created in Kitchener-Waterloo. Let’s expand that to Cambridge. Let’s expand that to other municipalities.

To me, spending money on a highway doesn’t make any sense. We know that when people have to spend two hours driving to Cambridge, we are shoving people into their cars. A young lady who rents a room in my house, who is from India, just bought a car. It’s very unaffordable for her, but she can’t handle four hours in transit every day.

So we need to look seriously at our investments in highways and shift them over when they don’t make sense into transit options.

I am not confident that we have a good plan in place. We know that for every dollar spent on mitigation, every dollar we spend on adaptation, we will save more than $10 in both of those categories. We are not looking forward. We are putting Band-Aids on. The $5 million that’s spent right now on forest fires doesn’t even come close to what other provinces and other jurisdictions are doing to invest in prevention. Alberta, for example, can anticipate when the fires are coming. They use AI. They’re going there, and they’re investing. They’re getting new technology, not just trying to keep up.

We are behind on shelter beds, behind on climate disasters and behind on the future of climate readiness.

I was making earlier reference to certain pages in the budgetary document, and I was specifically making reference to pages 71 and 72 and 73. On page 72, there is what I would describe as a very good program that was introduced. We call it the One Fare program. The One Fare program will essentially lower costs on people using public transportation, and it means that the average user of the public transportation system here in the urban Toronto area, and perhaps the greater area as well, will save approximately, it’s estimated, $1,600 per year. And I think that’s wonderful. I think it’s so wonderful, sometimes I think to myself that I wish that there was a One Fare program in Essex county that we could use.

I was going to ask the member if she would like to comment on the One Fare program and whether she thinks that’s an awesome program, the way I think it is.

My apologies to the member. You’re out of time.

Questions?

Further debate?