I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga–Malton for his presentation.

During the pre-budget consultations, we heard from many different organizations and individuals who were deeply concerned about the current housing allotment under the Ontario Disability Support Program. They advocated for an increase to that because the cost of living is so much higher than it has been in the past, but also—before this member answers and goes to the talking points about the paltry 5% increase—what we heard from people was that many people are struggling to afford basic necessities. Why has this government chosen to only support people living with disabilities by 5%, still leaving them underneath the poverty line?

I’d like to thank the member from Don Valley West for her presentation. At the pre-budget consultations, we had the opportunity to hear from the Ontario Library Association, and they talked about the incredible value that public libraries provide. They also almost were a stand-in for MPP offices during COVID. They offer things like job training, small business support; they have access to broadband as well as children’s programming; access to physical resources as well as digital resources.

One thing that is a grave concern is that over the past 25 years, Ontario’s public library systems have not seen an increase in their base funding. I wonder if the member would like to comment about the need to fund public libraries appropriately.

I’d like to thank the member from Carleton for her comments. I think we can all agree that the best place for seniors—the place where they are healthiest in body, mind and soul—is at home, when they are supported in their home.

Community support services presented during the pre-budget consultations for the 2023 budget and showed how early intervention is key and critical to make sure that people are healthiest at home. Presenters from community support services included such groups as Meals on Wheels. I also heard from Cheshire homes in my community, St. Joe’s hospice and the Alzheimer Society.

When seniors are cared for properly within the community, with community support services, it actually diverts costs and makes sure that people have the care that they need, because for someone to be supported at home, it costs $42; in long-term care, it’s $126; and in hospital, it’s $842.

My question to the member: Why do we not see increased investment in community support services for our seniors living at home?

I would like to thank the government for recognizing the issue of PTSD. It is one that the official opposition championed. Unfortunately, the government, at the time, left out nurses as individuals who suffer from PTSD, which is shocking. However, I think it is good that the government increased the amount the CMHA was asking for, but they only gave them 5% when they were asking for 8%.

The member from Burlington talks about mental health supports in schools. Let’s talk about more than just the curriculum. Let’s make sure that there are social service workers accessible to students when and where they need them, because unfortunately, that is not the case in schools across Ontario. We know school violence is at an all-time high. This government has chosen to disregard that, to ignore it. We hear presenters time and again feel as though this government was deliberately ignoring education and deliberately cutting and underfunding the public education system in favour of private schools.

In Kingston, we saw that the municipality there invested $18 million per year in wraparound supports. That’s something that should be supported across the province by this government—but, further, making sure that there’s investments in other mental health supports and other supports that this government talks about but doesn’t invest in.

To the member: This government, through their budget, has calculated disinvestment in many sectors. They’ve said no to students. This government has said no to hospices. This government has said no to wage parity. This government has said no to paid sick days. This government has said no to families of children with autism. They have said no again and again and again. They have chosen to ignore many of the issues that families face across this province, and it is glaringly apparent. The fact that autism doesn’t show up once and that school violence doesn’t show up once in this budget should really be a concern. It is, in fact, a message to all of those families who have these concerns. The fact that seniors right now are being evicted from their properties through renovictions that this government refuses to stand up for should be a concern to us all. That is a crisis, and this government has chosen not to support those seniors.

We also stand for wage parity so that people working within community support services—home care and long-term care—are paid as much as workers in acute care. It costs less for seniors to remain in their homes than it does to institutionalize them. It was proven by the community support services who presented at committee. A 2020 study estimated it costs $103 per day for a long-term-care-equivalent person at home in community care. It costs $201 for a person in long-term care and $730 per day in the hospital. That is cost savings and a wise fiscal investment. Make sure seniors can stay at home, where they’re healthier and happier.

It’s a pleasure for me to add my comments on Ontario’s 2023 budget bill, Bill 85. As it turns out, I had the opportunity to travel with the pre-budget committee. We went to many places. We heard from many people. I got the opportunity to know many of the committee members, and I have a great deal of respect for everyone who shared this journey.

In terms of the people who presented at committee, I heard and I felt what they said, and I believe in my heart that committee members did as well. But this budget is as exciting as a three-pair of tube socks. At best, it missed the moment; at worst, it deliberately ignored the issues. We heard time and again at committee that Ontario, despite being the richest province, spends the least amount on services. We spend, in fact, $2,000 less per resident in Ontario than other provinces. It is a shame.

When we look at many of the decisions that have been made in this budget—and let’s face it, they are decisions—there are many which are bad business decisions, ones that do not recognize the value of upstream investment, ones that do not recognize or do not pay any heed to a cost-benefit analysis, and ones that simply don’t have any consideration of return on investment. Many of these decisions include the Therme spa, the proliferation of losing court cases that this government seems hell bent on engaging in. In fact, I’ve lost count at the number; I think it’s 14, 15, perhaps even 16 by this point. We also see decisions about the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., where this government is undermining its own revenue streams.

We have seen Bill 124, a losing battle, time and again, that this government keeps throwing public money at. They’re having a party with the public purse to simply attack nurses. We heard again at committee that nurses felt humiliated, they felt demeaned, and at the time when this legislation was passed, this government claimed that there was a need to be fiscally prudent and to be restrained. Yet through this budget, they have claimed how excited they are to return the province to the black, but it’s on the backs of nurses and public workers.

We also see a government that refuses to release its mandate letters. What’s the return on investment on that? What is being hidden?

Further, rather than not abiding by economic principles, we, in fact, see disinvestment from some of the things that Ontarians require. We see disinvestment in health care. We see disinvestment in mental health.

I had the opportunity to attend a mental health round table hosted by the MP for London–Fanshawe, Lindsay Mathyssen, and MP Gord Johns, and I’d like to quote Dr. Andrea Sereda. She indicated that when we consider our mental health crisis, we also should consider that this is a consequence of a lack of investment in housing, because housing is health care. Housing, food and warmth are medicine. The government has not done its part to make sure that people are adequately housed. Poverty has a cost.

Further, if one looks at poverty as being the root cause and housing being something that the province and the federal government have denied people, that causes mental health exceptionalities. Dr. Sereda pointed out that organic mental health exceptionalities such as schizophrenia account for 5%, whereas these mental health exceptionalities have been brought upon by the conditions that have been created—deliberately created—by provincial disinvestment.

Also, I’d like to echo the voices of many of the dedicated harm reduction workers who we had the opportunity to meet on that day, who have indicated that harm reduction workers can’t afford rent and groceries because they are not being paid nearly enough. The people who are providing services to our most vulnerable can’t afford to look after themselves. They’re in jobs that don’t pay enough. They don’t have pensions. They don’t have benefits. So once people find themselves trained within these positions, they have to leave for something else, even though their heart might be in that role.

If we take a look at an economic development lens towards this budget, we also need to consider that many different organizations and different global companies consider Ontario as a wise place to invest because of our public health care. They know that they are going to have a workforce that will be healthy, that will be looked after if they become injured, if they become ill. And yet, this government chooses to disinvest from health care and continues to privatize, making it on the path towards the United States. We cannot compete with the United States in terms of their fiscal opportunities, so we have to look at the things that make Ontario unique, look at the things that make Ontario desirable—and that is our publicly funded and publicly delivered health care.

Furthermore, through education—education is an investment, not a cost. We need to make sure that we have students who are trained and understand the importance of the skilled trades, not simply in high school, but also in elementary school. Let’s remember that it was a Conservative government that removed shop classes and home economics classes from elementary school. Sometimes high school is too late. We need to give students that opportunity as soon as possible. Put shop classes back in elementary school.

As well, we look at Ontario as a viable place for investment because of the trust that Ontario has built as a partner. We’ve seen volatility from this government. We’ve seen bizarre statements. We’ve seen things that do not hold up to fact, like the claims that the greenbelt is a myth. We see these strange, bizarre performances. That undermines trust in Ontario as a place to invest.

We have also seen a culture of unfairness. We see a culture that does not recognize the importance of honest competition. We see favours for insiders. There was the 407, OLG. We’ve seen Tarion turn into yet another agency, HCRA, which is not working. This government talked, when they were in opposition, about how they would reform Tarion; they have chosen not to. We also see the favours that are being done right now for Therme, a private spa that has a lease that this government won’t release. We also see government appointments—we know that in these hallowed halls, many people who used to be Conservative candidates are now walking these halls in paid positions. Is that a culture of competition? Is that a culture of “Did that the person with the greatest experience and aptitude gets the position?” I’m not certain about that. I also would like to ask who’s benefiting from all of the housing decisions that this government has made, with the parcelling off and the sale of the greenbelt. That’s not a culture of fair competition.

Also, as we look towards some of the things that this government has done, they have not made the investments that we heard about, like making sure that nurse practitioners are able to practise across the province. They will alleviate some of the strains on our health care in the north—but across the province.

We also see a lack of investment in housing. Speaker, $124 million was cut from municipalities—and then they’re re-announcing $202 million, but that’s nowhere near enough to address the crisis. Housing is health care.

Furthermore, this government would pat itself on the back for the paltry 5% increase to ODSP and the fact that they’ve indexed legislated poverty. Congratulations. You’re going to keep people in poverty for many years to come. That’s not a success.

The 5% raise to CMHA was not the 8% that they requested.

I’d like this government to understand the importance of upstream investment, the importance of looking at all of their decisions with a cost-benefit analysis. And for heaven’s sake, look at the return on investment.

We need to make sure across this province that there’s wage parity among sectors. Whether it is in the community support services, home care, long-term care, as well as acute care, people should be paid accordingly; they should be paid appropriately. People should not be jumping between sectors because they can’t afford to pay the bills.

Furthermore, this overreliance on agency nurses is fiscally imprudent. It’s not fair to our health care system, it’s further privatization and it’s not effective use of the public purse. The party is over. Please stop. Please make sure that you’re making financial decisions which benefit all of Ontarians, not the insiders who are in the backrooms. Make sure that you’re investing in people. Invest in health care. Invest in home care. Invest in long-term care. Invest in education.

Last but not least, the opportunity to re-establish rent control, as recommended by so many stakeholders, is not found in this budget. We saw that autism was not mentioned once and we saw that school violence—an epidemic in our schools right now—was not mentioned once.

To this government: You can do better. I know you can do better.

I’d like to thank the minister for his presentation.

During the pre-budget consultations, presenters spoke about the explosion of violence in schools and were concerned that the Ontario government has continued to ignore this explosion of violence. In fact, one educator said, “It really does feel like we are being broken on purpose.” According to a recent survey, 80% of educational staff reported witnessing violence at levels they’ve never seen before.

This government and this budget have deliberately ignored school violence. In fact, it isn’t even mentioned once in the budget.

When is this government going to get its act together and invest in children, invest in smaller, safer classes, and invest in school-based mental health supports?

I’d like to thank the member for Waterloo for her comments. Listening to her comments as a whole, they were insightful, they were incisive. But I would say that it’s doing this budget a kindness to call it as exciting as a three-pack of socks. It’s disturbing because we see a deliberate and calculated way that this has ignored the issues that are facing Ontarians after the many deputations we heard at the pre-budget consultations. We see that the gravy train of this Conservative government is going full steam ahead, whether it’s bad business decisions through the privatization of the 407, the Ontario Place lease, online gambling, the greenbelt, all of the legal losses, Bill 124. My question, though, to the member is, I wonder if they could speak about the agency nurses, yet another example of privatization that this government seems in favour of.

Oh, gosh. Bill 124, again.

I’d like to thank the members from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound and Oakville for their presentation. I had the opportunity to travel for the pre-budget consultations with both of them.

Individuals living with disabilities have long been neglected by the Ontario government—and before I hear the speaking notes about a paltry 5% increase, let’s all admit that it’s not enough; indexing legislated poverty is not enough.

Individuals and organizations spoke at committee about the problems with the far-from-adequate housing benefit, as well as the fact that recipients can have benefits clawed back if they live with someone.

Can you imagine, Speaker? If you fall in love and live with someone who earns more money than you, then that person has to pay for you, according to the Ontario government.

So my question: Why does Ontario still police whom ODSP recipients love and live with?

I’d like to thank the member from Nickel Belt for her excellent comments. She’s always been a strong advocate for nurse practitioner-led clinics.

The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs heard across the province that there needs to be additional roles for nurse practitioners within communities and what a great value they provide to our health system. But, also, in this budget, there’s only been the allocation of 150 nurse practitioner seats, and those won’t graduate until 2028.

I wonder if the member could talk about the quality of care, the innovative model that NPLCs provide, and also why this government is stopping allowing them to practise within Ontario.

I’d like to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for her presentation.

School violence impacts every single person in a classroom. When a child is afraid, learning practically comes to a halt. But violence also leaves further impacts after the event. It changes the classroom culture, where trust and respect are fundamental. Budget 2023 does not address school violence, and the minister has avoided discussing it. My question to the member: What is the government doing to address the rising tide of violence in schools to make sure students are safe?

I’d like to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for her question. She is absolutely right that we are living in uncertain economic times. What I am certain of is that this government has plenty of money, but it chooses to spend it in ways that do not address the crisis.

The FAO has shown that this government, in the last quarter, failed to spend $6 billion—money that did not go out the door; money they could have spent on any number of services to make life better, especially for seniors, for young people, for people living with disabilities.

This government would pat itself on the back for the measly 5% increase they’ve given on the ODSP program, but that’s nowhere near enough to address the rising cost of living. We on this side of the House have firmly advocated for doubling ODSP as well as OW.

This government could also protect seniors by making sure that there are increased rent controls and by not allowing REITs to gobble up rental properties to redevelop them into luxury units. But this government again has blinked when it comes to the rights of seniors.

The last Liberal government sat on their hands for 15 years while social assistance rates dwindled, while they didn’t keep up with the cost of living. There were the dramatic and drastic Mike Harris cuts back in the 1990s, but the Liberals did nothing to make it better for folks.

We know that people are struggling because they’re unhoused, and they’re struggling with their mental health largely because they are unhoused.

In London, we have a whole-of-community response plan to create 600 supportive housing units. That is something that has been community-led. We also need the province to step in.

To the member: $202 million is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the need that is all across Ontario, and this government has missed the mark.

When I think about this government’s response to unions, I also need to cite the most recent court loss by this government when it comes to third-party advertising. Their legislation, which they had mirrored from the Liberals, was unfortunately something that was struck down.

When it comes to the creation of housing, this government isn’t even following its own recommendations from the housing supply action plan. The housing starts across this province are at an all-time low, and the province needs to do its part by enlisting a public builder to create those homes, to spur investment, to make sure that we are creating affordable and supportive homes—not leaving everything up to private industry, but actively engaging with the economy and not sitting on the sidelines.

I’d like to thank the member from Kitchener–Conestoga for his question. I also have a great deal of respect for that member.

I would like to remind the member that in my discussion, I was talking about the pre-budget consultations. In the pre-budget consultations, we heard from numerous delegations, all of whom were deeply, deeply disturbed by Bill 124. They cited the labour shortages that it created, how it was humiliating, and how it also caused a great deal of disparity in certain hospital departments. This government has thrown good money after bad. They are really disinvesting in our public system by allowing this focus on temp agency nurses. Within the same department, there will be a nurse who is paid twice as much as a nurse who has been there for many years.

We also had the opportunity within this budget to address wage parity between home care, long-term care and acute care, and it’s something that this government has ignored, because they don’t care about nurses.

We also know that, in London, one in four children live in poverty. With so many people waiting on an endless list for supportive housing, it is unconscionable. The government has it within their power to address this by making sure that there is a public builder, by actually creating these units and not leaving it up to private industry to create them themselves. There are many great people who are doing wonderful work within the space of providing those supports, but this government has chosen not to fund it properly.

We also heard from CMHA across the province, who are calling for an 8% increase to their services. This government blinked and gave them 5%.

It’s an honour for me to rise today and provide the voices of the great people of London North Centre, as well as offer to debate many of the submissions to our pre-budget consultations that this government has chosen to ignore. I had the opportunity to travel the province with the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, hearing many of the stories that affect Ontarians the most, and what we see, unfortunately, with this budget is a budget that has missed the moment. It’s a budget that could have been truly progressive. It could have been forward-thinking. It could have shown that this government has listened to stakeholders across the province. And yet, we see a budget that shows this government is only listening to certain groups.

People are feeling the crunch at this time, and the government has done scarce little to address the affordability crisis and the stresses on families, seniors, people living with disabilities and students.

We often hear words in this chamber such as “transparency” and “accountability,” yet this budget really seems to lack those aspects.

Transparency is a matter of being open. It’s a matter of being frank. It’s a matter of being clear and being less subject to interpretation. This government would like to use folksy, homespun language, and yet that does not mean their actions are transparent.

In terms of accountability—it should show that one can easily understand and explain what is happening within this budget. This government instead engages in pretense. They engage in a very complicated shell game in order to hide where they are cutting as opposed to where they’re pretending to invest.

Within municipal affairs and housing, they have cut $124 million, yet on the other hand, they talk about the money that they are investing in supportive housing. When we had the opportunity to travel to Kingston, the mayor of Kingston explained how the municipality had a very forward-thinking approach to the model of supportive housing that they provided within their city. That city spent $18 million in one year to provide that continuum, that wraparound model of supports. And yet, this government would pat themselves on the back for investing scarce little across the province in supportive housing.

I’d also like to turn my comments to education.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to question the Minister of Education about why this budget did not mention violence in schools. Curiously—with this lack of transparency and lack of accountability—my question was not addressed in a really logical or fulsome way. Instead, the minister decided to talk about federal responsibilities on bail reform. Again, even in his answer, he never mentioned school violence and never mentioned why it was absent from the budget.

In my area, the ETFO Thames Valley Teacher Local reported that in June 2022, there were 463 reported acts of violence; in September 2022, 687; in October 2022, 982; in November 2022, 693; in December 2022, 490; and in January 2023, 502. And this government has chosen to ignore it.

It’s shocking to think of the lack of investment that we have seen within schools. Again, with this very complicated shell game that this government would play, they’re claiming to invest in schools while they’re hiding the fact that what they are calling their investments is actually federal money in terms of child care.

I wanted to add the voices in the pre-budget submission of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association. They recommended that there would be an update to the Grants for Student Needs, that there would be funding that reflects the specialized needs of students who receive special education services. We know that the funding model has been broken for a number of years. We know that it is a mathematical model based on enrolment, not based on student needs. The government had the opportunity to stand up for families, to stand up for students living with disabilities, and they chose not to. Instead, in terms of the funding model—as I said, it is a statistical model whereby the government provides an arbitrary amount of money to school boards with the hope that they spend it on students who need it, yet there are no guarantees within this. There is no guarantee that school boards will (1) spend the money on students who need it, and (2), even if they do spend it on students who need it, there’s no guarantee that it will be spent in a way that is developmentally appropriate or addresses their needs properly. They’ve chosen not to do it.

What we also see in this budget is an increasing focus on privatization. We see the funneling of public money for publicly delivered services into the hands of private, for-profit health care providers.

I wanted to add the voices of OPSEU, who recommended ending privatization: “Public services and privatization simply don’t mix. That’s because public services are based on the core principles of equality, accessibility, transparency, and fairness. These principles stand in stark contrast to the goals of privatization—namely the ability to reward shareholders with profits by selling services only to those who can pay. Not only are quality and accessibility harmed, privatization costs more—especially in terms of the greater cost of borrowing and corporate profits.”

And yet, this government has ideologically tied their star to the concept of privatization, and it is going to erode our services across the province.

No one was in support of this government’s wage-suppression, humiliating legislation, Bill 124, yet this government is still engaged in the costly appeal. They had the opportunity within the budget of 2023 to step back, to admit they were wrong, to follow the courts and admit that they are going to continue to lose. I think it’s up to 14 or 15 cases that this government has lost in court now, and yet they are blindly and blissfully spending public money to appeal their losing court case.

Within the budget, we also saw submissions from community support services, who indicate—they do wonderful work. They are to be understood as also separate from home and community care. They cite that in 2020, the province estimated that it would cost $103 per day to provide care for a long-term-care equivalent client at home with home and community care. This contrasts with $201 per day to provide comparable service in long-term care and $730 per day to support ALC patients in hospitals. I don’t see the investment.

We heard from folks from Meals on Wheels, from the Alzheimer’s Society, and from folks with hospices.

We don’t see any funding where it needs to be to keep people in their homes, where they’re happiest, where they’re healthiest, and where it is the best place for them to be. Instead, we see funneling into private, for-profit enterprises.

As well, we see this government which has really neglected and rejected seniors. We see that they are going to provide $1,000 more per year per senior, which is nowhere near enough. If you divide that out over 12 months, that is not nearly enough money that seniors need in order to address the cost-of-living escalation.

They’re also withdrawing money from the unhoused, claiming that they are no longer going to provide them with health care services and a funding program that the government says is no longer necessary. It’s as though the unhoused and their health care needs and people who are new to Canada only counted because of COVID, and now the government is prepared to simply ignore them.

What about seniors, who are going to have to wait 18 months in order to get an eye exam? It’s reprehensible.

This government talks a lot about respecting seniors, about respecting students—and yet this budget fails to do so.

I wanted to add the voice of professor emeritus of public management at the University of Toronto, Sandford Borins. Sandford was talking about the budget consultation survey that was available online. He wrote:

“What is Missing.

“What is most remarkable about the choices” within that public survey “is that they never include the following words or phrases: climate change, environment, renewable, sustainable, conservation, green, or greenbelt. The environment is not the only priority that isn’t mentioned. The word culture also doesn’t appear, not even in the question about making Ontario an attractive destination. Higher education appears only in that question, but not in questions about improving health care, filling labour shortages, or improving community services.”

Sandford went on to talk about plausible deniability. He said, “The Ford government has often been secretive, for example”—

Thank you to the minister from Kenora–Rainy River. I listened intently to his presentation.

My question is with regard to this budget: It’s a budget that has failed to meet the moment because across Ontario, students have struggled as a result of the closure of schools, the COVID pandemic, and school violence is something that is not addressed. It’s not even mentioned within the budget, yet we know the numbers are staggering and the numbers are on the rise.

My question to the member is, why is this government sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to the safety of students in our schools?

I’d like to thank the member from University–Rosedale for her comments and for pointing out the $1-billion cut that AMO pointed out that this government has enacted through Bill 23, one that—they also promised that they would make municipalities whole and then failed to do so within the budget.

Right now, housing starts are stagnant—and I believe the member from University–Rosedale has called on the need for a public builder.

I want to ask the member, what kind of protections for renters would be responsive to the current moment that Ontarians face right now? What should have been done within this budget?

I’d like to thank the member from Don Valley West for her comments.

I had the opportunity to travel the province with the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, with the member, during which we heard from no delegation in support of the wage-suppression and wage-restraint legislation of Bill 124. In fact, it’s concerning that the government seems ideologically fixed on this costly legal battle. I believe that delegations indicated that Bill 124 was demeaning, was degrading to health care workers—and, in fact, the word that was used that will stick with me forever was that Bill 124 was “humiliating.”

Is it fiscally prudent for the government to continue to appeal legislation that has been defeated in court?