I’d like to thank the member from London West for her excellent comments. I want to thank her for bringing forward the concerns and requests from front-line officers, especially with regard to permanent, stable funding for the COAST program.

This government ignored recommendations from budget consultations earlier this year, and they really missed the opportunity to commit to support front-line officers by funding COAST within this bill.

My question to the member: Why does COAST make sense from a mental health perspective as well as a fiscal one?

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 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?

—“that unsuccessfully bid on P3 projects up to $2 million per bid to cover some of their costs.” That is an amazing consolation prize.

So these few companies that bid on these projects can actually receive a cash windfall for simply putting in an application—not even for being successful, for just simply putting in an application. Toby calls it “a cozy fraternity of lucratively paid P3 companies and consultants getting wealthy at the public’s expense.” That is not fiscally prudent. That is not good business.

Back in the day, the Conservatives, as opposition, were quite critical of this sort of spending, yet now that they’ve changed to the other side of the House, they’re quite happy with the status quo. In fact, they have become the status quo.

I’d also like to take a look at some of the Auditor General’s report on real estate services. Now, the Auditor General states—

Interjections.

The Auditor General said that the agreement, the enterprise realty service agreement, between Infrastructure Ontario and the Ministry of Infrastructure—here are the problems: “The agreement does not set out any mandatory, minimum standard of performance for managing the costs of capital projects. It does not set out timelines for meeting.” And it does not make sure that government properties are being “used efficiently.” These are all the buzzwords that we hear from this government all the time, and they’re not doing it. It’s abundantly clear that this is not being upheld. They are not doing their due diligence. They are not participating in what is a good business model.

So if we take a look at the request for proposals, the RFP approach, the Auditor General pointed out that that attracted only a few bids for the management of 7,500 capital projects. These were projects worth about $900 million over five years. There was not a broad range of companies that bid on this. It’s very curious.

She also criticized—it says, “Better oversight of external projects—

Interjection.

She also states, “Better oversight of external project mangers’ procurement methods for capital projects is needed.” She goes on—she believes in competition. She believes that things should be fair. And on the side of the official opposition, that makes sense. She states, “Infrastructure Ontario does not track how many vendors bid on capital projects and which vendors are winning the bids.” They actually don’t track what they are responsible for—wow. Where’s the accountability? Where’s the transparency?

The Auditor General talks about the vendor rotation process, which is supposed to be an electronic bidding service that’s supposed to provide these contracts in a more fair manner. “However”—this is where it’s interesting, Madam Speaker—“since 2013-14, Infrastructure Ontario has allowed its external project managers to select vendors from its ... list and manually add them to the list of bidders.” So they cherry-pick the ones they wanted to get the contracts to make sure they got the contracts.

Speaker, as we look at Bill 69, the Reducing Inefficiencies Act, there is far more that this government needs to do in terms of reducing inefficiencies. On the side of this official opposition, we hear this government with all of their buzzwords, we hear them with all of their rhetoric and their language, but we’d like to see actual action that is reducing inefficiencies. We’d like to see a better business model where there is true transparency, accountability and actual efficiency.

Let’s see the government do this. Let’s not hear them talk about it; let’s see it reflected in legislation. I look forward to the briefing, and I want to thank the Minister of Infrastructure for providing that.

This program showed great promise. It cost about $18,000 per person per year, rather than the cost of a mental health bed. It was great cost savings. It was efficient. It was amazing. And it was also something to be prescribed by a doctor. The device and the program would be prescribed. It was to be added to the Assistive Devices Program. I heard lots from this government about how ADP is 30 years old and it’s for mobility devices and sensory aids and that’s it. They had the opportunity to modernize ADP and they chose not to, so I’m tired of hearing—

It’s an honour for me to rise today on behalf of the great residents of London North Centre to discuss Bill 2, the Plan to Build Act, for its third reading in this House.

Last time, I discussed some items that were good in the budget—I’m very much in support of moving WSIB to London—but today I would like to discuss some of the elements that are missing. It’s often been said that if we do the same thing again and again and expect different results, it’s the definition of madness. But also, in nature, the tree that is unyielding will eventually break, whereas the one that will move with the wind is the one that will thrive and persevere. This budget is an example of unyielding, of unchanging, of not learning the lessons over the past number of months.

You see, Speaker, we have a budget that was tabled in April that has not undergone significant modifications. We’ve seen the affordability crisis explode—inflation at 8.1%. We’ve seen ERs closing across the province. We’ve seen nurses walking away from their jobs, retiring in droves. And this government has not done enough to address that in this budget.

The budget, as well, is a statement of priorities. We discuss values often in financial terms, but a budget also includes a government’s values in terms of principles. In short, the budget is a statement of values as guiding principles; it is both an ethical and a moral document.

In this Legislature, we ought to enforce equity to ensure those who are pushed to the margins are heard, respected and strengthened. We have to affirm as a Legislature that those at the beginning of their lives and at the end of their lives, with some exceptions, need more support than the rest of us in between. We ought to ensure as well that every single dollar that is spent by this government achieves its intended result. If expenditures are ineffective or compromised by outside forces, we should similarly adjust our approach.

We have this opportunity to learn the lessons from COVID, and we have the benefit of retrospection and clarity to see what worked and see what did not. Seniors, children, those living with disabilities, social services and small businesses were all pushed to the brink. At the same time, we saw others profiting from these disastrous conditions. We have yet to see this government stand up to pandemic profiteering and do the right thing, do the honourable thing.

As I mentioned, inflation has hit a staggering 8.1%. In this budget, the government has 2.5%. It’s less than half the current level of inflation. It’s even been called wishful thinking by some. It’s delusional. It’s unresponsive. It’s unrealistic to our current fiscal climate.

Additionally, the budget’s $1-billion rainy day provision is far, far too low. That amount is just one half of 1% of the total spending. If there are going to be spending hiccups, overruns or any other difficult or problematic decisions, this government is going to be in grave difficulty. And I worry that it’s going to be an excuse for further privatization and further cuts to our public spending if this government doesn’t do the right thing.

Furthermore, we hear a lot about this ridiculous and unnecessary highway, Highway 413, which is going to benefit many wealthy developer friends of this government, but in this budget there is no detailed costing for it and other highway spending. It’s not itemized. That’s disturbing, Speaker.

As well, with inflation being as high as it is and not being addressed thoroughly by this government, it means working people and families have lost almost one tenth of their buying power. It could mean taking on more household debt to put food on the table. People are having to make difficult decisions. To actively combat this affordability crisis, the government could raise minimum wage. They could focus on ensuring good jobs have equally good pay.

In health care, we’ve seen that Ontario has 5,400 fewer nurses than one year ago. They could repeal Bill 124 and show some respect for our front-line heroes, who have worked tirelessly, made tremendous personal sacrifices, put their families at risk. Instead, we see them plowing forward with this cut to nurses’ wages, because 1% is a cut with inflation being at 8.1%.

We also do not have wage parity across sectors. The Victorian Order of Nurses cannot respond to the number of requests that they have for service, and part of that is a direct result of wage parity, because in the community care setting, PSWs earn $3.57 per hour less, whereas nurses earn $11 less per hour. That’s a gap that needs to be addressed by this government.

I also am deeply surprised that, in terms of seniors’ care, this government has not yet learned that—having profit off of someone’s ill health or someone’s old age is something that they’re content with. When we saw that the army came in and saw the conditions that they did, this government should have been incentivized to act to make sure seniors were treated with respect and dignity, but instead we see rewards going to the worst of the worst, multi-million-dollar contracts, 30-year contracts going to homes that do not deserve to care for yet more seniors. It is a moral horror and one that is on this government’s conscience. I wish they would listen to their conscience.

As well, when we look at young people, students do not have enough supports. We see that this government has frozen tuition, but they’ve cut from the university sector. We also need to see greater further mental health supports for students, as referenced by OUSA and Eunice Oladejo. Unfortunately, we don’t see enough investments in mental health, either for the province or for children. The two-and-a-half-year wait time for children for mental health supports is unconscionable and something that needs to be acted upon.

There’s so much to discuss in this budget. Ontarians with disabilities are hardly even mentioned. We take a look at this government and their investments in hospital infrastructure, but not in the people who support that infrastructure. There’s no mention of the AODA whatsoever. It doesn’t mention the goal or the fact that they’re not going to achieve it by 2025 as promised.

I see that I’m running rather low on time, Speaker, but I also wanted to mention something that the last Liberal government let southwestern Ontario down on for a number of years, and that would be rail connections to southwestern Ontario. It’s something that was promised, and we still have yet to see shovels in the ground.

This crisis that we have in health care and long-term care and privatization should be a wake-up call for us all that privatization steals money from the public purse. It siphons tax dollars into the pockets of insiders, and how Conservative governments can justify not spending the entire health care dollar on front-line care is beyond me. It goes against the fiscally prudent values which they claim to espouse. No one should profit off of someone’s ill health or old age.

I cannot accept this budget as written. It needs to be improved.