Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to speak to Bill 146. A fall economic statement is a chance for the government to take stock and to think about what’s going on in the province—what the economy is looking like, what the people of Ontario are experiencing—and yet we have a government that has doubled down on things like an underground parking lot to fuel the profits of a foreign spa, an Austrian spa. We have a government that has doubled down on not helping the people of Ontario who are struggling with their rent, with putting food on the table.

A new report that came out yesterday speaks about one in 10 Torontonians visiting food banks. Just think about that: On your own street in Toronto, one in 10 of your neighbours could be using food banks. It’s a very troubling statistic for what has been in the past one of Canada’s most wonderful provinces to live in, and we want it to stay that way.

Speaker, we know that a $3-billion infrastructure bank is something that has been questioned. People are saying, “Look, Ontario’s problem with infrastructure isn’t getting it financed; the problem with Ontario’s infrastructure is getting it built on time.” Certainly in my riding we have the Eglinton Crosstown, which is billions over budget, and it’s so far behind that the government can’t actually give residents of Toronto a new date for when that line will actually be put into service. I would suggest that that’s the kind of thing that would actually make a difference in the people of Ontario’s lives.

We had talked about giving an increase to the Ontario Child Benefit. My colleague mentioned that. That would actually put money in the pockets of Ontarians to help feed their families as they struggle to pay rent and deal with double-digit rent increases.

We know that people are continuing to struggle with mental health. We know that we have an addiction crisis. We know that people are living on our streets and that shelter systems are full. This would have been an opportunity to provide some funding for that, to make sure that those people do have a roof over their heads, especially as the winter approaches.

Just today, we were visited—many of us—by the librarians of Ontario. We heard from them about how, certainly in the last budget consultations, they talked about the need for public funding for Ontario digital libraries. They have yet to get that funding. Just $15 million would give Ontario libraries the start to a digital library, and that would give live, online tutoring to students from K to grade 12. That is the kind of support that Ontarians need right now. We know that our schools are suffering. We know that our teachers are feeling stressed by both the demands from COVID that students are still facing, learning challenges, and that they need those kinds of supports.

Madam Speaker, we know that we have a government that has also doubled down on privatization. As you know, in the standing orders, we are not recognized as an official party, and so we have to ask for unanimous consent to speak to ministers’ statements. We asked for that last week, regarding the fall economic statement, and we were denied. And so, while I didn’t have a chance then, I did have a chance in the media studio to talk about the infrastructure bank.

Basically, what that infrastructure bank will mean is that private money will be looking for returns. They will be looking for returns that are greater than the returns they get on debt. The government can go to the market today and issue debt, and investors or people in the markets can invest in Ontario. What this infrastructure bank is about is giving an even higher rate of return to investors. We have pension plans that invest in these kinds of things, and they make returns of about 11%, but those are from for-profit companies. So what this infrastructure bank is really about is privatization.

When I listened to the minister in the media studio, he was asked that question exactly: Does this mean more privatization in Ontario? He shirked the question. He didn’t answer it directly. I certainly know that that is really what we will be facing in our health care system: more privatization. It could be in transportation, and it could also be in education. Those are things that certainly are worrying to the people of Ontario.

When I look at this bill, there are a couple things that are positive. We’ve heard about a couple things from members. Certainly the idea that there will be a tax on vaping—that is something that could discourage young people in particular from taking vaping up, and so that is something that we certainly welcome.

Related to the student debt that was talked about: I think that is quite troubling. Again, this is a time when we know that we are facing a period of potential economic slowdown in 2024, and so it seems a particularly cruel time to be basically telling students that you are going to call their debt without giving them any notice. Those kinds of things actually will hurt the people of Ontario, and I think those are the kinds of measures that show that this government really does not understand the affordability crisis people are facing.

As has been pointed out, the word “affordability” does not appear once. The government seems to be more focused on building million-dollar homes and enriching their friends in the greenbelt. They only retracted that decision when the Auditor General and the Integrity Commissioner basically told the people of Ontario what was really going on. Now we have an RCMP investigation into that. That’s the kind of thing this government seems to be focused on, rather helping the people of Ontario who are, again, struggling with rent, struggling in our health care system, struggling in our education system and struggling with mental health. Those are the things we should be focused on, Madam Speaker, especially as we think about recovering from the pandemic.

The other thing I’ll talk about is productivity. Productivity in the economy is really important, and one of the things that can drive productivity is getting more people into the workforce. We all know that working parents are struggling to find daycare. While the government has opened up a new daycare, as they were proud to announce, we can’t hire the people. The YMCA has talked repeatedly about how they are unable to fill the spots that they have. Of the 35,000 spots that they have, I think 19,000 are empty because they can’t hire ECE workers, and that’s because of the government’s Bill 124, which restricts the pay to those workers.

Madam Speaker, people who want to go back to work need a place for their children, and actually paying our ECE workers a fair wage, getting those spots staffed would help people get back to work. That would help our economy. Those are things that could have been talked about in this bill instead of simply some measures around the tax act, which again—that will help some wealthy Ontarians, people who can invest, who have investable income, but we know there are many working families who are not in that situation and are struggling today.

I would ask that the government side think about what true debate is. True debate is when we can listen to one side of an argument—or you have a view of one side and you listen to another side, and you say, by listening to the other side, you learn something new and you think about a better way to do something. I would certainly like the government side to think about the motion that was mentioned this morning by my fellow member from Orléans about reducing the provincial portion of the HST on home heating. That’s the kind of thing that could actually, again, put money back into the pockets of Ontarians. That’s an idea that could be a positive amendment to this bill that would actually help people who are struggling to pay for housing and pay for food.

That’s the kind of debate that I want to make sure we have here, where the government brings forward a bill and there’s a sufficient chance to debate that bill, for that bill to go to committee, have hearings that are fulsome, where people and stakeholders can come and talk about that bill, and then we see real improvements made. That, I think, would be a real sign to getting all members of this House to vote for this bill. That is something that could happen if the government side would listen to some of the ideas that are coming from those of us on this side of the House who also want to make this province a better place for the people of Ontario.

What I will say is that balanced budgets are something—you have to look at the economy at the time. You’ve got to look at the situation you’re facing.

When you think about the recession in 2008, that was a global recession, right? Yes, it was a global recession, and at that time there was some investment required to make sure that people were able to keep food on the table and survive those challenging times. Basically, we need to look at the situation around us to decide whether or not a deficit budget, balanced budget or surplus budget is the right answer.

Continuing where I left off yesterday—we need a government that invests in young, high-potential companies. An innovation hub told me that a government contract is more valuable than a grant because it gives them credibility when they go to sell in other markets. We need a government that sees that opportunity and does what it can to support these companies. But we’re not seeing that kind of creativity with this government.

Canada’s productivity is lagging far behind other major economies, with the OECD ranking us last for future economic GDP per capita growth amongst advanced economies. Ontario plays a role in that. It has been an economic engine for Canada, and we are not keeping up. We must keep firing on all cylinders to make sure that Ontario does its job to be the roaring engine of the Canadian economy. That could include continuing to drive work to remove barriers in freer interprovincial trade. Ontario should be leading these conversations, yet there was no mention of this opportunity in this latest budget document. As Stephen Poloz, former governor of the Bank of Canada, said at an initiative led by the Minister of Economic Development in 2021, “Politics is the art of the possible. I see no reason why this isn’t possible.” Unlocking this potential would create thousands of dollars per person in GDP in this province.

Speaker, let’s talk about the $4 billion this government has once again put in contingency funds. This government has a predilection for squirreling more away for a rainy day than any other government before it. Clearly, they have no plan to use that money to invest back into our economy and the people of Ontario. Maybe that’s why the Premier said, last year, “The worst place you can ever give your money to is the government.” That $4 billion would go a long way in making a difference in people’s lives. If the government repeals their unconstitutional Bill 124, they could use this money and the millions they are spending to fight it on paying our health care and other public workers more than a 1% raise. It could go toward the construction of new affordable housing, so that we can provide safe housing to the thousands of homeless people struggling across this province. It could go towards restoring the universal basic income pilot. It could help address the school repair backlog and the surgical backlog. It could go towards addressing the shortfall in municipal budgets and helping municipalities large and small to meaningfully address the opioid crisis. It could go towards key transit projects like the Eglinton East LRT in Scarborough or the waterfront LRT. It could go towards restoring OSAP funding to the more inclusionary levels under the previous Liberal government, and to supporting arts and culture to enrich our lives. It could go towards advancing employee ownership trusts, digital health innovation, and helping drive climate resilience and the energy transition.

There’s a long list of unmet needs under this government, and spending our money wisely to support the people of Ontario and drive growth in our economy would help lift everyone up.

Instead, individuals, families, health care and education systems, Ontario productivity and our future economy will continue to struggle under this government’s latest budget. If people can no longer afford to live in Ontario, and this government is not investing in people and real solutions to make Ontario the roaring engine of our economy, why would people choose to stay?

Unfortunately, for a lot of Ontarians, this budget means more housing unaffordability, more suffering from the increased cost of living, and more long wait times for care—more unmet needs.

The families of Ontario will not feel any balance from the budget, and that is nothing to celebrate.

As I mentioned, I do believe that those things drive productivity but that those aren’t the only sectors in our economy that we need to pay attention to. As I also mentioned, those companies in the manufacturing sector will only benefit from that credit if they actually decide to invest, and investing takes confidence. Business confidence is at an all-time low right now under this government.

I think what we need to be doing is focusing on the things that can build up investor confidence, business confidence. That includes making sure that we do have a strong health care system, a strong education system; that we’re investing in our post-secondary education institutions and driving advancement towards a clean economy, a green economy, so that those businesses are here and willing to stay.

I think the member has made a very good point—that, of course, it’s not fiscally prudent. The government is very likely to lose this court battle; it has been deemed unconstitutional. In addition to that, we know that it’s driving workers out of this province. We heard that in the pre-budget consultations. We heard how it’s forcing people who have full-time jobs to seek support in food banks. So we know that it’s not only unconstitutional, but that it’s damaging our economy, and spending probably in the tens of millions of dollars, if it’s consistent with what they’ve spent on other appeals, is really throwing good money after bad.