I thank the member for the question. I very much agree with her about this program, ODSP, and how important it is and, more particularly, the changes that we have made to make it a much more effective program, particularly three: number one, having increased the overall amount, which hadn’t been increased in a decade or so; number two, pegging it to inflation, starting next year—that is a fundamental change to the program; instead of year-by-year arbitrary changes, we’re pegging it to inflation, so when CPI is rising, that program matches; and number three, a fundamental change to the income test, raising that threshold from $200 to $1,000 a month—it’s such an important structural change to the program; we’ve heard first-hand from employers what a big change that makes.

So there are many, many important and fundamental changes to make this program better.

You’re right; we did hear from committee members across as we were doing our travelling in the lovely months of the winter. One thing that struck me—I think there are two points in response to your question. Again, I get back to the structural change to raise the income threshold from $200 to $1,000. No, that doesn’t affect everybody, but for those who are impacted, it was a fundamental change. But more importantly, on the broader program, ODSP is not the only program, typically, that applies, and we have made so many other changes to the tax system for low-income seniors, for a working tax credit—on and on and on—so that these programs work together.

On the household income point, I take the member’s point. That may be an area we want to look at and see whether we can adjust the program going forward.

I look forward to being in Owen Sound tomorrow and talking about the importance of Georgian College and the role it’s having in the community.

So many of the educational measures begin on page 93 in the budget, and for the health care—it’s too many pages to mention.

What is great, I’d say, and what struck me most when the Georgian College program opened—I mentioned this in my remarks in passing—is the fact that it is attracting local students. One of the biggest challenges we’ve had in rural Ontario for many, many years is that people had to go away to get their education and often they didn’t come back. It was then a hunt to track down these doctors, nurses and PSWs. What’s great about this is that we have local students who will get educated in our community and stay in our community. It’s very, very exciting.

I’ll start with the overall comprehensiveness of the infrastructure spending. As I mentioned in my remarks, sector by sector, it’s a major, major investment, and not only in the near term but in the long term, because this kind of commitment anchors a government’s thinking for many budgets to come. And that’s the perspective I very much like.

I acknowledge the point that the member is making about investments on-reserve.

I think the other thing that I like about how this funding is designed is that we will be listening to communities in the future and sectors in the future to identify their priorities and look forward to dealing with them. So, hopefully, that addresses the member’s comment at some point in time.

The programs and the impact we’re seeing in the community is absolutely extraordinary. Bruce Power management made the—

I appreciate and I thank the member for her comments. I want to start by thanking her for mentioning the ODSP changes as well as the GAINS changes as elements of Bill 36 that, if I heard correctly, she could support.

I want to ask, though, about health care funding, because she commented in her remarks about it being a resource issue. On this side, we acknowledge that and would say that we’re spending more on health care in Ontario than has ever been spent before. The budget increased by a whopping $5.6 billion year over year, which is about 7%. Doesn’t that allow the member to say, “Yes, we have the resources here,” and support Bill 36?

I thank the member for his question. A lot has been talked about ODSP, and we on this side of the House are very proud of three major measures we’re doing to this program:

(1) We’ve increased it by 5%, as you well know. That’s a major change, something that hasn’t been done before, and that’s now in the books.

(2) Indexing it to inflation, beginning in July of next year, and that again will connect ODSP payments to inflation—a fundamental change.

(3) The measure in this fall economic statement of increasing the income threshold from a monthly level of $200 to $1,000 is a game-changer. We heard from committee representatives in the finance committee first-hand how powerful that will be, and we’re looking forward to seeing that as an effective change, if this bill is passed.

I thank the member for his comments this morning. I respect his views on a whole range of subjects, but I would offer the consideration—and you said that we all know there are substantial issues in many areas, but I would say, with respect, that this bill does look to address many of them. On the funding side, in health care, we’re increasing it by $5.6 billion; education, up $3.6 billion—major numbers. On ODSP, a very major change—to increase the monthly income threshold from $200 to $1,000. That’s a very big change and may allow up to 25,000 people who can work, to work. That’s a big structural change to the program. And infrastructure investing—I say there are all of these positive items in the bill that I hope the member will consider.

I thank the member opposite for his considered remarks and for his significant work in the community. I know you asked a question to me this morning about homelessness.

I wanted to ask you, though—and as you’ve heard on the issue of ODSP, firstly, the increase that has been proposed is very important, and linking it to inflation as well is very important. But as the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services has also offered, there are many other programs that I understand typically are offered to, potentially, ODSP recipients as well.

My question to the member is: Is that your experience? Because as we as a government look at this, we can’t only look at one program in isolation, but look at all the other programs combined. I’m curious to hear your thoughts, member.