I rise today to debate Bill 85, the budget measures act.

The people of Ontario really want one thing from their government: to do the right thing for the people of Ontario, the people they are elected to serve. Today, we are debating a budget that this government’s Minister of Finance says is about investing in people and the economy of Ontario to support our collective well-being and prosperity. I have to say, I beg to differ. Let me give you some context.

Before this government came to power, the Liberal government invested in health care, reducing the shortage of family doctors and significantly reducing emergency wait times.

The Liberal government built transportation, including the Union Pearson Express, GO train expansion service, the Yonge subway expansion as well as the resurrection of the Eglinton line following the irresponsible and short-sighted cancellation by Conservative Premier Harris. And we resurrected the Finch subway line. We started the Eglinton Crosstown and built Highways 412 and 418.

We created the greenbelt to protect our environment, to protect our agricultural lands, to protect our water.

We ended the burning of coal, turning Ontario into one of the most environmentally friendly jurisdictions in the world, with clean energy at 96% in 2017, which has indeed attracted manufacturing jobs the Conservatives brag about. What will happen to those jobs under this Conservative budget, which sees Ontario’s clean energy shrink to under 90%? That remains to be seen.

While jobs were lost during the global financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, the Liberal government steered the province through that crisis. In fact, from 2004 to 2018, during the Liberal government, the number of jobs in the province increased from 10.3 million to 12.5 million.

Most significantly, our Liberal government introduced all-day kindergarten and brought up high school graduate rates from 67% to 87%.

Fiscal responsibility is making good decisions for the people of Ontario, investing in our greatest resource: the people of our province. Yet that is not what the people of Ontario see when they read this budget bill.

In 2018, this government came to office promising to fix hallway medicine and the cost of housing, heralding a new era of fiscal responsibility. And this government continues to brag about their record on that, so let’s do a reality check. Five years into a Conservative government, and the Conservatives brag about record investments in health care in this budget—but spending record amounts of money and seeing our health care system fall apart at the same time is nothing to brag about. With ERs closing and the number of patients receiving hallway health care 20% higher than it was in the last year of the Liberal government, I think it’s fair to say that this money is not being spent responsibly. One example I’ve spoken of before is spending three times as much for a nurse through a private agency instead of paying that nurse what she deserves in our public system.

Let’s talk about housing and the government’s disappointing results on that. In 2019, the median rent for an apartment in Ontario was $1,200; now it’s $1,400. The crisis is worse in our major cities—and those numbers include apartments still protected by rent control. The average list for a one-bedroom is $2,523 a month, in Toronto, and $3,347 for a two-bedroom.

Let’s talk about spending and provincial debt. We have record spending and debt in this province right now under this government. In fact, we have the biggest spending spree in Ontario history, a budget of $204 billion and a record $406 billion in debt, with priorities given to a twin highway, the 413, for the 407 because they sold it off at a bargain basement price.

So while this government likes to deflect from their own record of broken promises and propensity to do backroom deals that benefit their friends more than Ontarians, the numbers tell the real story.

Spending on the people of Ontario is a good investment. It’s investing in the health and education of our people, in the infrastructure that supports life and commerce in this province. And spending has indeed ballooned under this Conservative government, to over $200 billion, as I said, and $406 billion in debt—the highest it’s ever been.

That’s right. The Conservatives—not the Liberals, not the NDP—take the prize for the biggest budget in Ontario history. And what indeed is there to show for it? Plans for new highways at the expense of our health care, housing and social programs that support the people of Ontario. While there are some positive investments in jobs and retraining, is life for the people of Ontario better after five years of a Conservative government?

As I mentioned, health care and housing are worse. The opioid crisis rages through our communities, with a 56% increase in emergency department visits and a 52% increase in deaths from opioid overdoses—not one new cent allocated to that in this budget. Farmland is disappearing at a record rate of 319 acres per day, threatening our food supply and worsening affordability.

In regards to people experiencing homelessness, we can’t easily find the total number because the government cancelled their own recordkeeping on that matter, but our eyes don’t deceive us. It is clear in cities large and small that the homeless population has skyrocketed, with tent cities and people sleeping in transit stations. The $202 million announced in the budget for supportive housing and homelessness programs is a start, but underfunding agencies like CMHA is not supporting those who offer support to the homeless and others suffering from mental health issues and addictions. To end homelessness, we need to end the housing crisis and ensure that every person in the province can have a roof over their heads.

But the budget shows that housing starts have slowed and that the province is behind on its housing goal. This is because inflation and labour shortages are making it too expensive to keep building, especially affordable homes. That means it’s time for this government to step up and build homes instead of highways, to put meaningful taxpayer money into the construction of housing, supporting not-for-profits that are asking to do just that instead of asking the federal government to pick up the whole tab. Just today, in my meeting with CIJA, their housing not-for-profit executive director said, “I have been in housing for 35 years and I have never seen things so bad.”

Similarly, high office vacancy rates, particularly in downtowns, could be converted into housing for cheaper than new builds. This would create new housing in areas served by existing infrastructure. The Alberta government is doing just that, and this budget was a missed opportunity to do so here in Ontario.

Let’s talk about health care in rural areas. The announcement of the emergency department closure in Minden is a punch to the gut for that community and a canary in the coal mine for other rural towns. The government’s laissez-faire attitude in regard to this is equally disturbing. Rural hospital departments will continue to close as they lack staff and funds, and this government needs to take serious action to ensure this does not happen.

Let’s contrast that with what the government is going to spend taxpayer money on: half a billion to build an underwater parking lot for the mega-spa project, more than double the new investment in housing supports. That is not a good trade-off for the people of Ontario.

This budget invests $27.9 billion in highway projects over the next 10 years. While this government stands in the House and spreads misinformation about the Liberals being opposed to highways, let me remind the government that a Liberal government built Highways 412 and 418. What I and the people of Ontario are concerned about is the process in which these highway projects were selected, as the Auditor General found that political staffers cancelled highway projects approved by the Liberal government in favour of projects deemed low priority by non-partisan public servants. This includes Highway 413, which the Auditor General estimates will cost more than other high-priority projects, including highway-widening projects in the north. This is not a transparent way to decide how to spend billions in infrastructure, and it’s the opposite of fiscal responsibility.

Perhaps most concerning of all is the lack of transparency in the budget, like with contingency funds and legal fees. The government refuses to tell the people of Ontario how much they’re spending on legal fees to continue their fight to appeal decisions like the one that found Bill 124 unconstitutional, and their refusal to disclose cabinet mandate letters.

Similarly, the budget provides for almost $4 billion in contingencies, a completely un-transparent form of accounting that flouts all the best practices of fiscal responsibility. The budget does include a placeholder, though it’s not specified, for the Therme spa and new parking lot underwater at Ontario Place. While the government provides no details themselves, there are reports the province has given this company a 95-year lease of our public lands, yet the details have not been disclosed—more non-transparency.

While the government says this is a typical lease, I would say it’s more of a bargain for Therme. Even if they spend $500 million, that is less than $5 million in amortized expense per year. With a facility of, I think, 236,000 square feet, that’s a cost of $21 per square foot. Speaker, given the market price for space in downtown Toronto is $42 a square foot—half of what Therme is paying—I would say Therme is getting a pretty good deal on the backs of Ontario taxpayers. And let me just add: Therme’s owners are also not known to the Ontario public. We know it is their CEO and a company called A-Heat, but we do not know who owns A-Heat, so we do not know who stands to profit from this deal.

The government budget shows spending of over $200 billion, a record sum, yet the people of Ontario are being left behind: left behind in hallways of hospitals, left behind with dismal options for housing, left relying on food banks even though they have full-time jobs, left on the streets to face—

Thank you to my colleague for the question.

Yes, the latest budget showed that this government’s plan to build 1.5 million new homes is not working. They’re only at half the target. Their plan seems to be, as I say, all about tall or sprawl.

In my riding of Don Valley West, we continue to see applications for 35-storey condo buildings get approved at the OLT, despite the objections of the city, because the infrastructure isn’t there.

There are lots of opportunities to build that missing middle, to build those six-storey buildings, to build walk-ups and other options for people who don’t want to live in tall condos.

So I think there are lots of other opportunities this government could be taking to increase density in our cities and our towns without going into the greenbelt and causing further environmental harm.

Thank you to the member from London for the question.

I would say no, that is not good business practice, of course. I think that was a nice friendly question over here, so thank you.

Again, that’s the crux of some of our questions about this bill.

Certainly, the Auditor General had some strong recommendations for Infrastructure Ontario and how it does its procurement, how it manages its suppliers—and that their tenants are not getting the services they need on a timely basis or perhaps in a cost-efficient way.

I’m still trying to understand why this bill is specifically only focusing on one particular recommendation, which was number 10, where the Ministry of Infrastructure says they will undertake a review of the realty operating model and associated financial model in order to study and implement improvements to the management of government properties, and that they will work closely with Infrastructure Ontario and all ministry tenants to examine different options for effective service delivery and the management of government properties—so again, I would say that that is really what the focus should be, as opposed to a recommendation to immediately seize control over these properties.

I appreciate this government’s goal to reduce red tape. If a regulation is unnecessarily burdensome, then we should consider amending or removing it. For example, I am supportive of changes that allow businesses to submit information to the government digitally when possible.

But I have to say that I and others on this side of the House still have a lot to learn about the goals and outcomes the government hopes to achieve through this bill.

I was very confused upon reading schedule 2, because while this bill purports to reduce red tape, it may in fact actually add to it. As it stands, Ontario’s crown corporations are able to manage their own real estate. Often, they rent space in an office building, as many small and medium-sized organizations do. But if this new legislation is enacted, these crown corporations will have their real estate authority stripped from them and placed in the hands of the mega Ministry of Infrastructure.

For example, today the EQAO can decide for itself, within its approved budget, where its couple of dozen employees will work. If they needed help with that decision, I expect the Ministry of Infrastructure staff would be happy to offer advice; instead, now the ministry will decide. So if I understand correctly, the EQAO will have to go to the ministry to say that their lease is up for renewal, and a decision will have to be made by the minister whether the lease is renewed or they will need to relocate. It seems to me this could in fact add layers to this decision. For example, an employee in the ministry will consider the issue and go to their superior, who will go to their superior, who will go to the deputy minister. Because of possible bottlenecking, this decision could actually take longer than it does today, and if there is a bottleneck with approvals and decision-making, I can envision a scenario where the deputy minister will have to hire a contractor who may even end up making the same decision the EQAO would have in the first place. Instead, this decision will have taken longer, will have cost the taxpayers more money, and will have been done with less transparency.

This government does have a clear track record of making decisions without consultation and without being transparent with the voters of Ontario about their rationale—for example, the strong-mayors legislation; reducing conservation authorities’ ability to protect the environment; invoking the “notwithstanding” clause; and, of course, opening up the greenbelt after saying that they wouldn’t.

When I say here today that my constituents have become skeptical about decisions like this one that come from this government, I hope the government will listen and be more transparent about the rationale for this bill. The only explanation provided is that it stems from an Auditor General report. The member from Oakville could not say if the Auditor General had been consulted in advance of this legislation being developed.

The Auditor General did indeed recommend that Infrastructure Ontario work with ministries and agencies on how to more efficiently use their real estate. She did not recommend this heavy-handed approach of seizing real estate powers.

I am keen to hear more about how this bill will reduce red tape, what the financial business case for this bill is, and what actual dollars and efficiencies the government hopes to achieve.

I will also be looking to learn more about whether or not they did consult the crown corporations affected and the relevant public sector unions that may also be affected, to see if this really is the best course of action. Perhaps this is an opportunity to move these organizations to locations that are lower-cost, but it may not help them fulfill their mandate.

Speaker, I also have requested a briefing from the Minister of Infrastructure. I’m happy to say that I’ve been told I will be meeting with him next week, and I look forward to learning more about this legislation.

I don’t really see this legislation as being about red tape. It seems to have a different rationale, and I do hope we get transparency on that.