Tuesday, November 3, 2026

Mr. Ted Hsu

As I thought about how to talk about the fall economic statement and Bill 143, it was very hard to avoid thinking about the election in the United States today. It is very consequential, and what’s happening in the United States has influenced much of the policy focus that we’ve been talking about in the last while here in Ontario. I just wanted to take a moment to remember that we do have some allies in the United States who share our values, and many are working hard at this very moment on getting out the vote today, and I want to salute them. We are at a critical time, Speaker, because of this global situation, and yet I find that this government doesn’t have a long-term plan or a broad vision for this province. I know that we’re just talking about an update in the fall economic statement, but we are now, since the budget, in a full-blown tariff war with the United States. As a nation, Canada is standing up to Donald Trump and taking the pain instead of going down this slippery slope of doing another deal. The fall economic statement was an opportunity to lay out this longer-term plan and a broader vision. I’m going to point out a bit later some ways in which we missed an opportunity to do that, but first I want to talk about some policy changes in the fall economic statement—some I will call technical corrections. But I want to acknowledge them before I talk about this government’s lack of broader vision, because there are some things that I agree about. There were more details for the reporting of beneficial ownership in the fall economic statement. Historically, that’s been weak in Ontario and in Canada. It’s hard to trace the ultimate owner if you want to root out conflicts of interest or people trying to hide behind this complicated “companies owning companies owning companies.” I know that the government wants to make sure that we have some sort of control over foreign ownership of agricultural land, so these kinds of improved reporting requirements are going to be needed. I think that’s a good idea. The development of a standardized truck driver training curriculum, I think, is important. It’s welcome as a part of reform in the training and regulation of truck drivers. I’ve heard complaints about that as much as I’ve heard complaints about the need to upgrade the Trans-Canada Highway in northern Ontario. More regulation is therefore welcome. I just want to mention that in October 2025, the chairman of the Truck Training Schools Association of Ontario told the House of Commons that certain carriers have bought or influenced schools to fast-track them through bare-bones programs, undermined the provincial licensing standards and shift the training liability away from those carriers. So more training to make our roads safer is always a good thing. I will likely support schedule 2 of the bill. This is an educational property tax exemption for university student housing. I definitely think that’s something we need more help with. Next week, I’m going to attend a session at an open house at Queen’s University to ask—you know, we’re creating some extra STEM seats in universities, but I want to ask where they are going to live, because that’s an ongoing issue in Kingston. Buy Ontario: I think it’s a good thing to think about. That’s going to be extended to municipal procurement, fleet vehicles and how we design infrastructure projects. I will just mention one thing, which is that we are not succeeding in getting companies who use cold-rolled aluminum to use cold-rolled aluminum that’s made in Canada. They buy it from the United States. They buy it from China. Hopefully there will be some measures to encourage—I don’t want to force companies to do something that will increase costs by too much, but I do hope that there will be some measures to incentivize companies to diversify their supply chains in cold-rolled aluminum, because we do make it in Canada, but a lot of consumers do not buy it from a Canadian source. I do agree with the changes in the Ontario Electricity Rebate. Starting in May of next year, the Ontario Electricity Rebate will be limited to the first 1,200 kilowatt hours consumed monthly, and farms and small businesses are going to be excluded. This is what costs $3 billion in subsidies every year. I had an exchange with the Minister of Energy in committee at the estimates, and I think we both agree that it’s not sustainable. I asked in estimates about means testing, like, “Why do wealthy people need this Ontario Electricity Rebate, this subsidy?” I know it’s hard, because introducing figuring out what people’s wealth or income is and then coordinating that with the utility bill can be hard. So I’m glad to see this 1,200 kilowatt-hour cap in the Ontario Electricity Rebate. I think it’s a good proxy because it’s simple for a means-tested rebate. I think it’s good to try it. Now, one thing that is not explained—that I can’t find the explanation for yet—is how multi-unit dwellings without individual metering will be treated. That is still to come. Maybe it’s 1,200 kilowatt hours multiplied by the number of units, but I’d like to see that stated very clearly. Another thing that happened in the fall economic statement is something that seems to happen over and over again with this government. I’ll just give you some numbers, Speaker. In the 2023 Ontario budget, they had a projected year of budget balance of 2024-25. In the budget the next year, the 2024 Ontario budget, this was pushed back to 2026-27. In the 2025 Ontario budget, the projected year of budget balance was pushed back again to 2027-28. And in 2026, the next budget, that projected year of balance was pushed back yet another year to 2028-29. And in the fall economic statement we just got, the year of budget balance was pushed back yet another year to 2029-30. This is a pattern I just want to point out for the people of Ontario: The government seems to have this phantom, ephemeral projection of budget balance, because they never reach it. It keeps going back further—in fact, it goes further into the future faster than we’re going further into the future. We have to watch out for that. The biggest policy change in the budget, I would say, is that the province is following the lead of the federal government in introducing this so-called productivity mega deduction. I think this is a good idea to try out, because Canada, historically, has been a laggard in what’s called business expenditure on research and development. It’s a statistic that’s compiled by StatsCan, and it’s something where Canada is a laggard compared to other countries. It’s a key reason why the productivity of our workers has lagged behind those of other countries, and that’s directly connected to long-term affordability, cost of living and standard of living. It’s a key ingredient of productivity growth and long-term economic and social benefits. One thing that’s missing, I would say, in this government’s way of looking at things is how to have an overall strategy. The funding for graduate programs in STEM is still far below what was recommended by this government’s own blue-ribbon panel. I know that they’ve created some STEM seats, but that actually doesn’t affect the funding for graduate programs. What that means is the key people that you often need to turn business investment in equipment or buildings, to turn that into what we really want, which is innovation, competitiveness, entry into new markets, increased sales, profits and good jobs for Ontarians—often you need those key people to turn money into the final success. You have to have a strategy, and I think the strategy should include making sure that we are producing those key people in Canada to turn business expenditure in research and development into a stronger economy. This is something that is an example of how the province doesn’t have a clear strategy. I want to talk now about what a vision for Ontario could be based on, and I want to look at it from the point of view of young people, which is something I would recommend to this government. I was very fortunate to grow up in the 1960s and 1970s, a time of great prosperity in Canada. I had many opportunities. It’s like saying previous generations, like my generation, we got a ladder. There were ladders all over the place. We had a lot of opportunities. Today, young people don’t seem to have a ladder. What they’re being handed is the bill for everything that we’ve accumulated, a lot of debts that we’ve accumulated—financial, environmental, social. So today there’s a lot of intergenerational unfairness, and it’s very much related to the economic and social challenges we are facing. I believe that the government should be targeting a plan for Ontario, a vision which makes us stronger and addresses the unfairness to younger Ontarians. What sort of things does that entail? Young people’s education was disrupted by the pandemic. We should be making sure that we have a world-class education system, but this doesn’t seem to be a priority of this government. The first rung of the employment ladder, that first job that gets you into the workforce, is getting hard to reach. Youth unemployment still hasn’t recovered to what it was before the pandemic. Housing costs aren’t merely preventing home ownership; they’re delaying independence. So 40% of young adults between the ages of 20 and 34 in Ontario were still living with at least one parent after the pandemic. Today, the economy is facing a big transition with artificial intelligence and automation, and young people are bearing most of the risk of these technological changes. AI and automation may ultimately boost productivity, but right now, if you are an entry-level worker lacking experience, lacking training, you’re not going to benefit from AI and automation; you can’t make use of it. If you’re an experienced worker, an established worker in whatever place you work, you’re in a really good position to make use of AI and automation to increase your own productivity first. So a lot of entry-level jobs are at risk, and that’s what young people are facing. We have record historical levels of debt-to-GDP, so young people will inherit less fiscal flexibility to solve their problems. Young people are inheriting an environment where inflation is back like it was in the 1970s. Young people are also inheriting a big public infrastructure deficit that will require an enormous catch-up investment that they will have to pay for during their working lives: everything from housing infrastructure, roads, bridges, transit, hospitals—which we just talked about in this debate—schools, electricity infrastructure and climate adaptation. All of these things young people have to pay for, but we should be thinking about them in a long-term plan and a broader vision for Ontario. Young people are not only facing climate change, but the world they are inheriting is less safe. They are coming of age in an era when liberal democratic institutions around the world have been damaged. Autocratic governments are rising, and this long period after World War II of relative peace, international co-operation and shared prosperity seems to be coming to an end. I believe that we owe it to young people to make the sacrifices so that they can have opportunities equal to what we, the older generations, were able to have decades ago. I want to turn now to the bill, Bill 143, and I’m just going to talk about some of the schedules. It’s got a lot of schedules, so I can’t talk about all of them, but I’ll talk about a couple that I wanted to draw the attention of this House to. Schedule 23, the Securities Act: I agree with this schedule. Canada has provincial and territorial securities regulators, a whole bunch of them rather than a single national securities regulator.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

That means that when a company is raising money, an investment firm seeking registration or maybe some sort of financial institution operating internationally, they face all sorts of different requirements from different regulators. What’s been set up is a regulatory passport system for Canada, and this schedule makes it easier for Ontario to participate in this regulatory passport system. Access to capital is very important. It’s important for prosperity. I know that for technology start-ups, it often happens that the second-best technology, maybe even the second-best people win, and they win because they have better access to capital. From what I understand, there are a lot of examples of this, and Ontario cannot afford to have self-inflicted barriers to capital. Suppose a Kingston technology company wants to raise investment from funds in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. That often happens because you need to search far and wide for capital because the expertise and understanding, the experience needed to de-risk a new venture is often geographically dispersed. You’ve got to go travel to find it. If you need to travel to different jurisdictions in Canada, under a fragmented system, which we would have without the passport, a company faces all sorts of separate regulatory filings, wait times and processes. This regulatory passport system is going to be really important. It’s going to result in lower legal costs, less administrative work and also faster access to financing. The speed of getting financing is a critical factor in the success of businesses, especially new businesses. I want to talk about schedule 18, the land transfer tax exemption. Now, this is just a technical exemption from the land transfer tax when the crown acquires beneficial ownership of land without an official registration of ownership transfer. But I want to discuss something related to this, which is something that the government could do right away to help build affordable housing without spending any money, and that is to grant an exemption to the land transfer tax when land is bought or sold, or when there’s a lease of 50 years or longer that would ordinarily trigger the land transfer tax. If we had an exemption to that, we would have more money available for affordable housing. There’s a great example in my riding in Providence Village, which is the legacy of the Sisters of Providence of St. Vincent de Paul. They want to build affordable housing. They have to pay this land transfer tax because of the ownership structure of this land, but if they didn’t have to pay—because they have to pay the land transfer tax, they’re going to be much less competitive when it comes to getting funding from the CMHC and so they may not be able to build affordable housing at this site. It would be a shame. I hope the government will reconsider the idea of giving a land transfer tax exemption when a transaction occurs for the purposes of building affordable housing. Last thing I want to talk about it schedule 7 and that gives more retroactive freedom-of-information exemptions and this time, it’s to the CEO of the Ontario Financing Authority. The Ontario Financing Authority are the people that take care of Ontario’s debt; the debt that we take on when we have a budget deficit. The activities of the Ontario Financing Authority are rather technical. You don’t hear, in the public discourse, debates about what’s the average maturity of Ontario’s debt, but I think it needs more scrutiny. It would be disappointing if freedom of information were limited for the Ontario Financing Authority. I would like the minister to tell us why this is needed because I think it’s important. During the pandemic, I asked myself that question—I made a video on social media—“Why don’t we extend the maturity of our debt as long as we can because interest rates are so low?” And right now, a lot of governments around the world are selling less long-term debt and financing short-term. How should we adjust our debt profile in the face of that global market condition? There should be a debate about that, and so I don’t see why we should be shutting off freedom-of-information requests.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Questions?

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

I heard the member talk about the 1,200 kilowatt hours monthly limit on an electrical rebate cap. I wanted to share with him that I represent 33 small northern communities. In most of the communities, including where I live, there is no natural gas; propane or oil furnaces are a no-go because the winter roads are not good enough for the big trucks to come and deliver through the winter. For many people in Nickel Belt, the only way to heat your home is to have an electrical furnace or electrical baseboards and wood. Is it reasonable to ask an 80-year-old to get up twice a night to put wood in the stove so that she stays warm? In the winter months, we all go above the 1,200 kilowatt hours. Does that make the member change his mind?

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

That’s a very good suggestion for an amendment to this policy. Yes, I know that there are many cases where people heat with electric baseboard heating. I know that there are cases in southern Ontario where they should probably have some incentive to convert, but I think it makes sense in certain areas, defined by climate, to change the numbers. The government has proposed 1,200 kilowatt hours for all of Ontario. Looking at my own electricity bill, it makes a lot of sense in southern Ontario, but I do understand that in places where heating is primarily with baseboard heating or other electric means, not heat pumps, that we should perhaps have a different number for northern Ontario.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Questions?

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

I heard my colleague from Kingston and the Islands talk about how this bill doesn’t have vision, it doesn’t have a view for young people and how young people have been handed the bill for our debts and intergenerational unfairness, as he called it. What do you think this government could have done—some ideas to have made this more of a level playing field, more fairness. You talk about education being disrupted by the pandemic. That’s not a priority. They’re missing that first rung on the ladder of the job—youth unemployment hasn’t recovered—so ways you think that could have been more inclusive and boosting the futures for young people in the province.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Well, we know that today’s young people are going to be paying throughout their whole working lives. They’re going to be paying more for flood protection. They’re going to be paying more for wildfire suppression. They’re going to be paying more for disaster recovery. They’re going to be paying higher insurance costs, because insurance companies are not stupid; they know what the real risks are from climate change, and they will charge accordingly. The young people today are going to be paying more for adapting our electricity system to climate change, and they’re going to be paying more for stranded infrastructure, because we can’t keep burning fossil fuels at the rate we are now for the rest of the 21st century. So what I would say is that any kind of plan should recognize that we should be paying more for that now and not forcing young people to pay for all those things later on.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

I recognize the member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Thank you to the member for Kingston and the Islands for his remarks on the fall economic statement this afternoon, and I want to thank the member for mentioning some of the things he supported in the bill at the beginning of his remarks. But I was interested by his comment about record debt-to-GDP. Last year, we had a 13-year low in debt-to-GDP, and it was under the previous Liberal government in 2014-15 where we saw net debt-to-GDP of over 40%. That’s actually one of the reasons why I got involved in Conservative politics: because I was concerned about young people, our future and the debt. It’s very important to me. That’s why our government is attracting record investment to this province to create jobs. That’s why we’re expanding transit. That’s why we’re cutting the HST and development charges on housing. That’s why we are having skilled trades funding, like Landscape Ontario in my riding, to train up young people to have the good-paying jobs of the future. This is what our government’s plan is; it’s what’s in the fall economic statement. So I just want to ask the member if he supports the fall economic statement.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Thank you for the remarks from my honourable colleague. What I would caution my colleague about is, sometimes there are gimmicky things that make people think that you’re dealing with the cost of living when you’re really not, because you have to pay back that money. I think the best example of that is the $200 per person that this government paid out just before the 2025 election. So forget about the fact that it seemed to be a bribe for votes in 2025, given the timing, but just think about where that $200 per person comes from. It comes from the same people, so you’re just adding to debt and giving people a cheque without thinking, really, about what matters in the long term. If you want to deal with affordability, cost of living, productivity, economic growth in the long term, you’ve got to focus on productivity gains. That’s what we’ve got to focus on going forward.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Further questions?

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

Thank you for your presentation. I feel for the Conservatives in your riding who went out there to the polls to vote and voted for a government that believed balancing the budget and fiscal responsibility was nothing more than a stretch goal. We are at a deficit of $16.9 billion. The debt of this province is approaching half a trillion dollars, and yet this government continues to spend. When you ask the people of your riding, my riding, the ridings here, “What are we getting out of it?”—you mentioned there was that buyback of their own money, where they basically paid people back their own money, $200 a person, and said, “Here you go. Hopefully you’ll remember that and thank us for it.” When you have to console Conservative voters in your riding, what do you have to tell them, considering what has happened?

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

I don’t know if I would use the words “console conservative voters in my riding.” You know, I serve the conservative voters in my riding, and there are often a lot of things that we work on together. I think what I would say is, if you’re going to spend money, just make sure you’re spending it on something that’s going to give you a positive return in the future. When I talk to small-c conservatives who are very interested in making sure that we don’t waste money, I think there’s a lot of common ground here. I just feel that some of the things that this government has decided to spend money on have not produced a good return. I think the biggest, most recent example would be the money spent on advertising. It’s hard to understand what the return on investment has been for some of this government’s $100-million-plus in advertising this past year.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Further questions?

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

I would like to ask my colleague about schedule 7. I’m always intrigued when we’re talking about freedom of information, and the retroactive freedom-of-information exemptions and the Ontario Financing Authority. We were just talking about freedom of information earlier today as it relates to KPMG, a report that we will never see thanks to the freedom-of-information laws passed by this government. I know you’re scratching your head trying to figure out why this is needed. Could you maybe offer up some ideas as to why this is so important that they had to put a schedule in this bill for it?

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

There are times when you need some secrecy when you’re doing trades in the global market. You don’t want anybody to front-run your trades, so I can see that there needs to be some secrecy when it comes to what operations you’re going to do in the capital markets. But the freedom-of-information process is so slow, I cannot believe that anybody could be front-running or taking advantage of that kind of information that comes from the FOI process, to make money off knowing what the government of Ontario is going to do in the capital markets. So it has got to be something else, then. So I would like the finance minister to tell us what kind of information needs to be protected and why, because I don’t get it, and we haven’t needed to do that until now. It was working in the past.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

There is no more time for question and answers. I will move to further debate. I recognize the member from Guelph.

Official source

Mr. Mike Schreiner

It’s an honour to rise today to debate Bill 143, the government’s implementation of the fall economic statement. It comes at a time that’s critical for so many families in Ontario who simply can’t afford to live in Ontario. People are struggling: homes not affordable, a whole generation of young people wondering if they’ll afford a home, groceries through the roof. We shouldn’t be surprised today when we learn that one in eight kids in Toronto go to a food bank to access food. Hospitals are overflowing and wait times are at unprecedented levels: 2,000 people a day now in Ontario experiencing hallway medicine. Kids are crammed into crowded classrooms. In special education, students are being sent home because schools can’t serve them. OSAP cuts: I have single moms reaching out to me right now due to the freeze in OSAP, wondering how they’re going to pay November rent and continue their studies. People with disabilities are forced to live in legislated poverty. It probably doesn’t surprise us today that we learned one in four food bank users in Ontario pay 100%—think about that; 100%—of their income just on rent. Electricity prices are going up. You think of all that pain, and the government is still going to have a budget deficit of $16.9 billion. Everyday people are struggling. The rich are getting richer, but everyday people are struggling. It’s not fair; it’s not sustainable. People are asking themselves, “How can they pile up so much debt and we get so little?” Speaker, I’m going to give you one answer: That is exactly why the fall economic statement should have contained a wealth tax on the super-rich in this province, so we would have the financial resources to actually make life more affordable and easier for people. We could raise $26 billion with a one-time wealth tax of 5% on wealth over $100 million and 10% on wealth over $1 billion. Think about that, Speaker. What would $26 billion allow us to do? We could reduce the deficit, and we could actually start building homes people could afford. We could afford to invest in health care and education and reverse the cuts to OSAP. We could make life more affordable and easier for people. I’m going to say that if you look at this government’s spending pattern since 2018, almost every government category has failed to keep up with the rate of inflation. As a matter of fact, post-secondary education has actually seen real cuts, even in this year’s budget. But there is one item that has gone up by 63.2%. Do you know what that is? Interest on debt. If we asked the rich to pay their fair share, we could reverse that and actually invest in the things people need. And that starts with housing. I have a lot of respect for the housing minister over here, but I’ve got to tell you, housing starts are actually going to go down again next year, according to the fall economic statement. This is exactly why we need to legalize multiplexes and mid-rises in Ontario. That’s why I appreciate that the housing minister came to Guelph and toured a building site that took 15 single-family homes and turned that into 280 homes for people through a mid-rise development, multiplexes, stacked townhouses and single-family homes. Those are the kinds of developments we need in Ontario, so people can have homes they can afford in the communities they know and love. Speaker, we now have over 62% of hospitals in the province of Ontario taking out a line of credit just to meet day-to-day operational needs—think about that—and we have a $16.9-billion budget deficit. Imagine what a $26-billion revenue from a wealth tax on the super-rich would allow us to do to reverse that and actually improve health care. We could also reverse the $6.5-billion cut to education, so we could actually, properly fund special education, so students could learn in classes that are not overcrowded. If we had a tax on the super-rich, we could actually start investing in made-in-Ontario, low-cost, renewable energy and attract our share of the $2.3 trillion that are being deployed in the green energy transition to help lower people’s energy bills, create generational jobs and make Ontario a global leader in the fastest-growing sector of the global economy. But the government will tell you, “We don’t have the money to do that.” They will tell you, “We don’t have the money to do that.” Well, I’m going to tell you, we are a wealthy province. We have wealthy people in this province, and I appreciate their contribution to our society. But by gosh, they should pay their fair share in taxes, so everyday people can afford to live in this province.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Now is the time for questions and answers.

Official source

Mr. Andrew Dowie

I want to thank the member from Guelph for his statement. I just wanted to better understand some of the position on taxes. I understand the income tax proposal put forward, but we at home—certainly back home in Windsor and Tecumseth—many of us rely on our vehicles to get to work, take our kids to school and attend appointments. So our government is proposing to make gas and fuel tax cuts permanent and reduce those costs on businesses transporting goods. I’m wondering if the member opposite plans to commit to those tax breaks for those that live in rural and urban communities alike.

Official source

Mr. Mike Schreiner

I appreciate the member opposite’s question and love to have conversations about how to make life affordable for people. Do you know how we can really make transportation affordable for most people in this province? Help them afford to drive an electric vehicle, which saves them, on average, $3,000 a year in fuel costs. I will compliment this government for their investments in a mining-to-manufacturing EV supply chain in Ontario. I support that. I support the government doing that. What the government has failed to do is make electric vehicles affordable for urban and rural people or to have the charging infrastructure we need so people can rely on them so they can save, on average, $3,000 a year in their fuel costs.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Further questions?

Official source

Ms. Chandra Pasma

Thank you to the member for Guelph for his comments on the fall economic statement. The member mentioned special education. We know that the Auditor General tabled a report in the spring saying that there are shortcomings in the special education system, that school boards are spending hundreds of millions of dollars more than what they’re actually getting from this government to pay the costs of special education, that there are many children who are waiting a year or more for assessments. Does the member feel like this fall economic statement adequately responded to the concerns that were raised by the Auditor General?

Official source

Mr. Mike Schreiner

I appreciate the member’s question. The short answer is no. The longer answer is, it breaks my heart meeting with so many parents and students who come into my constituency office—and I assume all of our constituency offices—who know their schools do not have the resources to adequately fund special education and as a result their children are not getting the education they deserve. Due to lack of funding in our schools, the disruptions that happen, especially by students who aren’t getting the services and supports they need, affect the quality of education for everyone. And we know that if we’re going to be successful economically, we need an educated workforce, and our children deserve better.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Further questions?

Official source

Mr. Guy Bourgouin

You talked about the 2,000 people who are in corridors or in hallways. In fact, I was one of them about a year ago when I had appendicitis. I can tell you it’s not pleasant to be in a corridor. In the middle of the night, you hear the guy washing the floors, you hear people coming in and screaming. If that’s dignity, I don’t know—if they consider that dignified, for government to accept 2,000 people a day in hallways. I want to hear your perspective, because you talked about it real quick. I want to give you the opportunity to expand on this.

Official source

Mr. Mike Schreiner

I appreciate the member’s question. It’s tough to walk through the hallways of our hospitals and see people in beds in hallways. I remember when I was elected in 2018, the CEO of Guelph General Hospital told me that she was done with hallway medicine—no more in this hospital. Now we’re in a situation where in Guelph, like many other communities across Ontario, they’ve made hallway medicine a permanent feature of the hospital, where the room is literally some bedsheets covering up somebody. They have trouble sleeping, they don’t have privacy, they don’t have an opportunity for their families to come visit them. We’re a wealthy province. People deserve better than this. That’s exactly why the super-rich in this province need to pay their fair share: so everybody in this province can afford to live and receive the services they need—

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Thank you very much. Further debate?

Official source

Hon. George Pirie

I am pleased to rise today in support of our government’s fall economic statement. This update arrives at a very important time. Around the world, economies are facing uncertainty. Trade relationships have been upended. Supply chains have been disrupted. At times like these, governments face a choice: They can wait and hope conditions improve or act with confidence and work towards solutions. Ontario will continue to move forward. This fall economic statement focuses on the future—a future that we know will be prosperous if we strengthen the assets that make Ontario unique. From my perspective and, I am sure, from many other members’, few assets give us more strength than those in northern Ontario. I may be biased, Speaker—in fact, I am biased—but I believe that northern Ontario has some of the most valuable real estate in the world. That is because the north has what the world wants and needs. I have spent my life in northern Ontario. I have seen communities overcome challenges and grow. I have seen industries adapt and evolve. I have seen what is possible when governments, communities and businesses work together. For generations, northern Ontario has helped build this province. Our mines powered industrial growth. Our forests built communities. Our workers helped make Ontario the economic engine of Canada. In today’s world of uncertainty, we are continuing to build on our strengths. Our allies are looking for secure supply chains and reliable partners. Investors are looking for jurisdictions that can provide certainty, stability and opportunity. I say, look to Ontario and look to the north. Our resources are second to none. Our people are second to none. And together, they are helping build Ontario’s future. Speaker, when people think about Ontario’s economy, they often think first about our largest urban centres. Advanced manufacturing, financial services, technology, health science—we are the leaders in all these fields, but many of these things that make them successful begin in northern Ontario: the minerals used in advanced manufacturing, the resources that support construction, the energy that helps power our economy and the workers and communities who have supplied them for generations For too long, governments viewed northern Ontario as an afterthought. Today, Ontario has a government that values the strengths of the north—the north that is home to so many world-class mining operations. If there is a project that demonstrates the economic potential of our province, it is the Ring of Fire. For decades, people talked about the opportunity. Studies were written. Reports were commissioned. Promises were made. Our government is focused on delivering. The Ring of Fire contains some of the most significant critical mineral deposits anywhere in North America and, I would argue, significant mineral deposits anywhere in the world, not just North America—minerals essential for batteries, for advanced manufacturing and for the technologies that will drive the global economy into the future. The world needs these resources, and our government is committed to ensuring they are developed responsibly—not only for today’s economy, but for the next generation across this province. This is not simply a northern Ontario opportunity. This is an Ontario opportunity; this is a Canadian opportunity, a nation-building opportunity and, increasingly, it is an opportunity the world is paying attention to. Across the north, we are seeing growing interest from investors. Exploration activity is increasing. Communities are preparing for growth. That means jobs for workers and contracts for local businesses. It means a chance to build domestic supply chains and strengthen Canada’s economic sovereignty. The question before us is whether we are prepared to develop these resources and seize the opportunity. Our government believes the answer is yes, because resources that remain in the ground create no jobs. They create no business opportunities. They generate no economic growth. Responsible development creates those opportunities. It supports workers, it supports communities and it helps ensure Ontario remains competitive in a rapidly changing world. Speaker, for young people looking for exciting careers, I encourage them to look at the opportunities that we have in the north. When future generations look back at this moment, I believe they will see a turning point, a moment when Ontario chose to build and a moment when Ontario chose to unlock the potential that exists in the north. But none of this happens without strong partnerships. None of this happens without working alongside the Indigenous communities. Nothing will happen without the Indigenous communities’ partnership across the north. Speaker, Indigenous communities are leaders in this economic transformation. One of the things I hear most often when I travel across northern Ontario is that communities want to be part of the opportunities being created around them. They want local jobs. They want local businesses to succeed. They want young people to stay in the north and families to build a future close to home. They want to know that the prosperity being generated is shared by the people who live there. That is why our government is committed to ensuring that the benefits of growth are shared broadly through workers, businesses, municipalities and Indigenous communities. When communities are true partners in development, projects move forward more successfully, opportunities are shared more broadly and long-term prosperity becomes possible. The success of the north will depend on the relationships we build today—relationships built on respect, relationships built on trust and relationships built on shared opportunity. Speaker, as trade uncertainty continues to affect markets around the world, we must do everything possible to strengthen Ontario’s economic resilience. Ontario has shown that uncertainty is not a reason to stop investing; it is a reason to invest wisely. It’s a reason to strengthen our economic foundations. The answer to uncertainty cannot be standing still. The answer must be growth. The answer must be investment. Our government has consistently believed that economic growth comes from creating the conditions for investment, job creation and business expansion. Since 2018, we have not raised any taxes. Instead, we have focused on making Ontario a more competitive place to invest, create jobs and do business because prosperity is not created by asking families and businesses to carry a heavier burden; prosperity is created when people have the confidence to invest, build, hire and grow. That approach continues to guide the decisions contained in this fall economic statement. Our government will continue investing in infrastructure, in resource development, in energy and in the services that support our communities. In times like these, governments have a responsibility to provide confidence—confidence that Ontario remains open for business, confidence that Ontario remains competitive and confidence that we are prepared for the challenges ahead. That begins with a clear economic plan—a plan that supports investment, a plan that supports job creation. Speaker, the reality is simple: Opportunity without infrastructure remains only potential. That is why our government is making historic investments in roads, highways and energy infrastructure. Projects like the Webequie supply road are about far more than transportation. They’re about connecting communities. They’re about unlocking economic opportunity. They’re about ensuring future development can move forward. When communities are connected, businesses can grow. When businesses grow, jobs are created. And when jobs are created, families and communities prosper. The same is true for the Greenstone transmission line. Reliable energy is essential for economic growth. Manufacturing depends on it. Mining depends on it. Communities depend on it. Investment follows it. Investments in roads, bridges and transmission lines may not always generate headlines, but they do build up Ontario. Without them, nothing happens. These critical pieces of infrastructure also support sovereign supply chains. At the end of the day, this is all about sovereignty. As you know, as we pivot quickly to reduce dependence on US markets, we know that sovereignty is really what this is all about: preserving northern Ontario, preserving Ontario, preserving Canada. Every action in the fall economic statement is all about preserving our sovereignty. Through this fall economic statement, our government is continuing to make these investments needed to keep Ontario competitive: investments in infrastructure, investments that help communities grow, investments that support workers and attract new opportunities to our province. I’ll go back to the Ring of Fire. A billion dollars has already been committed by the province to build that infrastructure around that historical opportunity in the mineral belts in the Ring of Fire, and they were joined last week with the federal government that matched that billion dollars. Both levels of government are fully committed to develop that region, because they know it means growth, it means jobs, it means opportunities for generations, investments that support workers and attract new opportunities to our province. These investments are not simply about today’s global economic uncertainty. They are so we can stand strong in the face of future uncertainty as well. We know that we’ve been battered in the forestry sector by tariffs. We know that we’ve been battered in the automobile sector by these tariffs. So we’re building a future that will be tariff-proof by these investments in infrastructure. This is what Canada must do through northern Ontario to ensure that we remain sovereign. The decisions we make now will determine whether future projects can proceed, whether future investments come to Ontario and whether future generations are able to benefit from the opportunities being created—because economic growth is not built overnight; it is built one investment at a time, one project at a time and one community at a time. This is all about Canada. It’s all about our sovereignty. Speaker, the fall economic statement recognizes a reality that has become increasingly clear. The resources, energy, talent and opportunity needed to strengthen Ontario’s economy are already here, and we know that. They’ve been here for generations. And now is the time to crystallize the opportunities that exist in northern Ontario. We know we’re well endowed with precious metals. We know that we’re well endowed with base metal assets. But we know also that we’ve got the rare earths. We know we’ve got scandium in Kapuskasing. We’ve got cesium just west of Lake Abitibi. We know that we have the rare earths that Canada Nickel is going to use to build specialty steels. And we know that scandium matched with speciality steels mean that we’ve got the opportunity to build world-class steel—specialty steel—right here in northern Ontario. Scandium that’s been discovered in Kap Minerals will be used with aluminum foam, and aluminum foam with scandium—they will put it underneath the tanks that are being used in battlefields to protect the armed forces in those tanks. That’s what scandium can do: Scandium strengthens aluminum. We know that we’ve got what the world wants right now for the aerospace and the space industry and the defence industry right here in northern Ontario, across the north, from Kenora to Kirkland Lake, from Winisk to Windsor. They’re all here. They’re in our backyard. Ontario has and northern Ontario has what the world needs right now, and the fall economic statement will realize and capitalize on that wealth. The question is whether we are prepared to invest in them. Our government believes we must. We must build infrastructure that connects and supports communities.

Official source

Hon. George Pirie

We must develop the critical minerals that power modern industries. We must strengthen partnerships with Indigenous communities—we know already that we have got phenomenal partnerships with the Indigenous communities. All across the north, we have got willing partnerships with all of the new projects across northern Ontario. The relationships are there; we have to grow on them. And we must ensure Ontario remains one of the most competitive places in the world to do business and invest. We know capital is mobile. We know that it will go to the next best opportunity. We know that there’s a global fight between the US and China for these very resources, and we know Canada has what the world wants. Now, are we prepared to seize the day? By building a strong economy, we can generate far more opportunity, far more investment and ultimately far more revenues than raising taxes ever could. Our government believes in growth. It does not believe in taxes. It believes in creating the table so that the investment capital can be mobilized across the world into the wealth projects in Ontario—especially in northern Ontario, because that’s what the world is looking for: the rare earths, the critical minerals that are here in northern Ontario. This is exactly what this fall economic statement aims to accomplish. This is a statement that will build confidence: confidence in our workers, confidence in our communities and confidence in the future of our province. Because if you’re not growing, you’re dying, and our province will never die. We’re committed to growing. We’re committed to the future. We’re committed to our sovereignty. We know that Ontario is the source of Canada’s economic power, and we’ll ensure that it always will be because of the resources we have in the ground. I am proud to support the fall economic statement and encourage all members of this House to do the same.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Questions?

Official source

Mr. Sol Mamakwa

Meegwetch, Speaker. I was listening to the minister talking about resources, about the minerals. But what I heard in there is “our minerals,” “our resources.” Can the minister elaborate on what that means?

Official source

Hon. George Pirie

When I say “our,” I mean everybody, every citizen of Ontario. These are our resources, Canada’s resources. That’s what we’ve been doing, and that is what this statement is all about: to ensure that these resources are developed responsibly, ethically, morally and economically so Canada grows, Ontario grows and northern Ontario grows by capitalizing our resources that are in the ground to be developed for all of Canada.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Further questions?

Official source

MPP Susan Lahey

Ontario’s forestry sector is an important economic driver that supports thousands of workers, families and communities, particularly across northern Ontario. With ongoing trade uncertainty and increasing global competition, our government recognizes the importance of protecting this industry and supporting its long-term success. The 2026 fall economic statement highlights more than $90 million in investments to strengthen forestry competitiveness and innovation, alongside over $86 million to support forest biomass projects and improve wood utilization. Can the minister explain how our government’s investments are helping Ontario’s forestry sector remain competitive, protect jobs and create new economic opportunities?

Official source

Hon. George Pirie

Thank you very much for that question. I’m very confident in the future of the forest sector. The forest sector that we have in Ontario is, by definition, the largest single asset the government owns—by definition. By definition, that forest across the northern stretches of Canada is Canada’s largest asset. I’m very confident about the future of the fibre basket in northern Ontario because it’s the best fibre basket in the world. By that, I mean it’s the strongest fibre basket in the world. It is the best fibre basket to create tissues. So yes, I’m very confident in the future of the forest basket here in northern Ontario.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

I recognize the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Official source

Mr. John Vanthof

I listened intently to the minister—he’s my neighbour—and I respect his knowledge of the mining industry, 100%, but the mining industry has a long legacy, as he knows, and not all of it good. In my riding, we have the Cobalt refinery, which still has a licence, which the Ministry of the Environment has acknowledged there are toxins migrating off the site, and the reason no action is being taken is because the ministry doesn’t think it’s harming anyone. Does the minister think that’s a good demonstration of the legacy that mining could leave?

Official source

Hon. George Pirie

You know my background. My dad was born in 1920, and I was behind the mill. I’m old enough to have seen and experienced every single mistake done by the mining industries across the north, but we have learned from every single one of those mistakes because now we are the best mining people in the world. Our discharge water is cleaner than the intake water. There is nothing better than that. Take a look at the Victoria mine in Sudbury and see what they’re doing. The water is so clean they have to add impurities to it because it’s so clean. That’s the type of legacy that we have: best in the world.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Questions?

Official source

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy

This question is for the minister. I appreciate his remarks in this House—very capably delivered with passion and experience. He’s a minister of the crown, a member of provincial Parliament elected twice, a mayor of Timmins and had a long career in the private sector. We often hear the Premier talk about creating the conditions for success. Governments don’t create jobs; governments don’t build mines. Government creates the conditions for success in that regard to get the critical minerals out of the ground. What would be the most important aspects of this fall economic statement that help to further the conditions for success in mining in northern Ontario?

Official source

Hon. George Pirie

A successful future in the mining industry in northern Ontario that’s demonstrated in the fall economic statement is all about one thing: attracting capital. If you can’t attract capital, you can’t grow. You can’t build the mines. You can’t build the resources. You can’t get the minerals out of the ground. That’s what this statement does: It reduces taxes. It invests in infrastructure to ensure that the workers, the families and the companies can get into those reaches in the province to ensure that those resources get out of the ground.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Questions?

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

There are lots of mines in my riding. You’ll remember that Elliot Lake had uranium mines. The dump for the mine is in between my riding and his riding actually. The Canadian nuclear industry has told us that, since 2016, there are high levels of nuclear radioactive radiation coming out of that dump. There are people in my riding who are sick and wondering if it’s because they had a trapline, they camped etc. The provincial government is responsible for that mine dump, yet since 2016, they have not fixed the cover. There are three areas of that mine dump that are radiating radioactive radiation, and it has not been fixed. What do you figure that does to the confidence of the people of northern Ontario about nuclear energy?

Official source

Hon. George Pirie

Thank you very much for the question. I’m very familiar with the Elliot Lake mines that were a real triumph for the province at the time that they were built. You talk about levels of radiation in the tailings. I would like to check your facts on that. The Canadian Nuclear Society has got the highest regulations associated with those types of emissions. I would like to check the facts of what you said. There was a solution, and it was to move the tailings from an old deposit close to Lake Nipissing, and it was going to cover the ground in Elliot Lake. Your communities refused that solution.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Questions?

Official source

Ms. Natalie Pierre

Thank you, Minister, for your remarks. My question is around respecting taxpayer dollars. Ontario families work hard for their money, and they expect their government to manage public finances responsibly while delivering the services we all rely on. Our government remains committed to ensuring every taxpayer dollar is spent effectively, particularly during a period of heightened economic uncertainty. Can the minister explain how the fall economic statement will help our government respect taxpayer dollars while protecting important public services in the province of Ontario?

Official source

Hon. George Pirie

Again, thank you very much for that question, Speaker. That’s exactly what this fall economic statement does. It respects taxpayer dollars. We know that if you continue to abuse the taxpayer and you force them, perhaps—we will never do it anyway, but we know that the opposition parties would love to raise taxes. We will control the system so that it will be sustainable. We know that Trump’s tariffs can be overcome through the development here in northern Ontario. We’ll grow the resources and we’ll not only just survive; we will thrive.

Official source

M. Guy Bourgouin

Écoute, quand j’ai écouté l’énoncé économique de l’automne—puis c’est sûr, à toutes les fois que j’écoute un énoncé, je me demande ce qu’on va voir pour le nord de l’Ontario? Aussi, les dépenses provinciales doivent être évaluées en fonction des services offerts à la population et des possibilités de l’économie réelle. Monsieur le Président, lorsque nous examinons un énoncé économique, nous devons regarder au-delà des chiffres et nous demander ce qu’il signifie réellement pour les gens que nous représentons. Je vais parler de quelques points, mais je vais élaborer beaucoup plus à mesure qu’on avance. Que signifie cet énoncé pour un travailleur forestier qui s’inquiète de l’avenir de son usine? Que signifie cet énoncé pour les jeunes familles de Kapuskasing, de Hearst ou de Moosonee qui peuvent à peine trouver un logement abordable? Que signifie cet énoncé pour une personne âgée qui doit parcourir des centaines de kilomètres pour consulter un médecin spécialiste? Et que signifie cet énoncé pour les communautés des Premières Nations qui continuent à faire face à d’importants défis en matière d’infrastructure et de logement, ou d’aéroports sur la réserve? Comme vous le savez, monsieur le Président, ils sont la responsabilité de la province. Je veux parler de quelques principaux chiffres budgétaires tirés du document d’information : dépense totale des programmes, c’est 247 milliards de dollars; un déficit prévu pour 2026-2027 de 16,9 milliards de dollars, soit une augmentation de 3,1 milliards de dollars par rapport au budget du printemps; un taux de chômage prévu de 7,2 %; le retour prévu à l’équilibre budgétaire a été repoussé à 2029-2030, puis on sait qu’ils l’ont repoussé. Ce n’est pas la première fois qu’ils le repoussent. Ça, c’est des chiffres énormes. Parce que là, comme c’est là, la manière qu’on s’en va avec ce gouvernement-là, c’est qu’on va effacer les 500 milliards de dollars en province. C’est la plus grande dette qu’on a jamais vue en Ontario. Notre reconnaissance que l’Ontario traverse une période d’incertitude économique—mais l’énoncé économique doit faire plus que présenter des prévisions financières. Il doit démontrer comment le gouvernement attend protéger les emplois, améliorer les services essentiels et répondre aux pressions financières auxquelles font face les familles ontariennes. Monsieur le Président, on ne peut pas mettre de côté ce que le gouvernement a fait—reculons un peu dernièrement. Toutes les questions qu’on peut se poser avec l’abus de l’argent des contribuables—on vient encore d’apprendre pour le RAFEO. Comme c’est là, on apprend qu’il y a, quoi, près de 1 milliard de dollars qui était donné à trois collèges privés. On a vu que c’est un gouvernement qui se dit tellement responsable des payeurs de taxes qu’ils se sont permis d’acheter un jet privé pour le premier ministre dans un ministère des Richesses naturelles qui n’a même pas rapport avec ça, puis qu’on a eu les feux qu’on a vu tout l’été. Ils nous disent que, « Oh, non, » une fois qu’ils se sont fait pogner les culottes à terre, si je peux user le terme, « on leur a retourné puis ça nous a coûté près de 200 000 piastres. » Ça, c’est ce qu’ils nous disent, Monsieur le Président. Mais on est certain que ça a coûté beaucoup plus cher que ça. Ils sont tellement responsables qu’ils ont fait certain que l’accès à l’information est rendu beaucoup plus difficile pour les Ontariens, beaucoup plus difficile pour des députés comme nous. Mais ils n’ont rien à cacher; il n’y a rien à voir là. On a vu dans le ministère du Travail qu’ils ont donné 10 millions de dollars à un centre de danseuses, un salon de danseuses. Puis on se dit responsable des fonds des contribuables. On se dit qu’on fait un bon travail. On a le Cabinet le plus gros qui a jamais existé. On a des députés qui se permettent de prendre des chambres de motel, faire la grosse vie sur le dos des contribuables. Mais on est responsable financièrement. Voyons donc, il n’y a rien à voir là. Je peux vous dire que ce n’est pas si rose que ça. C’est bien beau dire que vous êtes responsables, on fait la bonne chose pour la province—tout ce que je viens de décrire, ce n’est pas la bonne chose. On a vu un gouvernement au Québec qui vient de se faire élire. Ils ont fait un petit Cabinet. Il y a des députés qui ont deux à trois portfolios. Il y a-tu du mal avec ça quand on est dans un temps difficile? C’est bon dire que oui, on a les États-Unis. Oui, Donald Trump, c’est problématique. It faut le reconnaître que c’est problématique, en passant. Je le reconnais que c’est problématique. Mais tu ne peux pas mettre toute la faute sur le dos. Ce que je viens de nommer, c’est de l’abus du pouvoir d’un gouvernement qui est majoritaire puis pense qu’il est blindé puis peut faire ce qu’il veut. Puis il se faire pogner, puis après ça il dit qu’on est responsable—je m’excuse, ce n’est pas de la responsabilité, ça. C’est de l’abus du pouvoir puis c’est géré avec l’argent des contribuables. Puis ils disent : « Oh non, on ne lève pas les taxes des autres. Mais non, on ne mettra pas de taxes supplémentaires sur les Ontariens. » Eh non, ils se virent de bord, puis ils prennent les responsabilités de la province puis ils les donnent au municipal. Puis les municipalités qui ont de la difficulté à y arriver, à mettre les deux bouts ensemble, les autres, qu’est-ce qu’ils font? Lever les taxes des contribuables. Monsieur le Président, chaque personne, on est des contribuables. On paye des taxes; que ça soit provincial, que ça soit municipal ou que ça soit fédéral, c’est la même personne. La province dit : « On ne lève pas les taxes. » Mais on prend nos responsabilités de la province, puis on les donne aux municipalités. L’affaire que je ne comprends pas, monsieur le Président, c’est que c’est plein d’anciens maires de l’autre bord de la Chambre. Quand ils étaient maires, ils disaient qu’il faut que la province reprenne leurs responsabilités provinciales. C’est la bonne chose à dire, absolument. C’est ça qui devrait arriver. Ce qui appartient à la province devrait rester à la province. Mais maintenant qu’ils sont rendus des ministres ou maintenant qu’ils sont rendus des assistants parlementaires et maintenant qu’ils sont au gouvernement, on n’en parle plus. Mais c’est encore un problème pour les municipalités. On a vu Fauquier, une petite municipalité qui a de la misère et qui a été quasiment en banqueroute, puis M. le ministre a fait sa job. Il les a sortis de la misère—puis ce n’est pas sorti encore de la misère. Mais il y en a d’autres municipalités qui en arrachent aussi, puis les services continuent à être coupés, puis continuent à être coupés, puis les taxes continuent à monter. Parce qu’elles sont obligées de payer pour la police, obligées de payer pour les ambulances, obligées de payer pour le « DSSAB », sont obligées de payer—toutes des responsabilités qui appartiennent à la province. Mais qu’on dit, nous autres, la province : « Bien non, bien non, on gère bien la province. » On est capable de faire des scandales financiers, puis on est capable—on ne lèvera pas les taxes. Des centaines, des millions, des milliards de dollars qui ont été contribués, qui ont été mis, qui ont été pris, puis qui se sont fait pogner, puis qu’encore c’est une controverse. Puis, ils disent qu’ils gèrent bien? Mais je m’excuse, on n’a pas la même définition. On n’a pas la même définition de gérer l’argent des contribuables, parce que c’est une honte de traiter les contribuables de la façon que vous le faites. Puis là on met ça sur les États-Unis ou on met ça sur l’ancien gouvernement. Ça fait quoi? Vous êtes à votre troisième mandat; vous êtes majoritaires. Puis, c’est scandale après scandale : la ceinture de verdure; on l’a vu dans le ministère du Travail; là on le voit dans le RAFEO, et ça continue. Puis, on a 2 000 personnes qui sont dans les corridors pour se faire soigner. Puis, vous dites que ça va bien en Ontario, qu’il n’y a rien à voir ici. Ils ont fait un travail exemplaire; il n’y a rien à voir. « Non, non, on gère. On ne montera pas vos taxes. » Moi, j’ai une de mes soeurs qui a perdu un rein à cause qu’elle n’a pas été capable d’avoir un appointement. Elle a demandé pour son appointement; c’était repoussé. Elle a demandé un spécialiste; c’était repoussé. Quand c’était le temps de son opération, ils étaient après de l’opérer et ils ont été obligés de lui retirer un rein à cause qu’il n’y avait pas assez de temps. Elle n’a pas été capable d’avoir un appointement au temps nécessaire. Puis on lui a dit : « Écoute, je n’ai pas été capable de sauver ton rein. Ça a trop pris de temps avant de te faire opérer. » Est-ce normal, ça, en Ontario? Quand je dis, là, j’ai été une personne qui était dans le corridor, là. Je l’ai vécu, ça. Je ne sais pas si vous autres vous l’avez vécu, mais moi je l’ai vécu. J’ai pogné une appendicite à Toronto; je me suis ramassé dans un lit dans un corridor. J’ai demandé à l’infirmière de prendre une photo, parce que je lui ai dit : « Je suis un député et puis je veux faire certain que Doug Ford va le savoir. » Non, mais, dans quelle province? On est la province la plus riche. Puis on a des étudiants qui vont faire—et en passant, la jeunesse et les étudiants sont notre plus grande richesse. Ce n’est pas l’or. Ce qu’on entend, quand le ministre parlait, le plus grand c’est les minéraux—ce n’est pas les minéraux. C’est notre prochaine génération qui est la plus importante, parce que notre prochaine génération, c’est eux autres qui vont s’occuper de nous; qui vont s’occuper de notre province; qui vont faire certains que notre province ait du succès, qu’elle soit profitable et puis qu’elle va être capable de soutenir—la province qu’on veut. Mais ce n’est pas en coupant dans leurs services ou en coupant dans leurs prêts qu’on va faire ça, monsieur le Président. Je suis encore parti, là. J’aurais dû continuer à lire mes notes-là, mais c’est plus fort que moi. Quand je m’embarque là-dedans, je pars et puis j’oublie de suivre mes notes. Mais pour le nord de l’Ontario, ces questions sont particulièrement urgentes. Un des exemples les plus frappants, c’est celui de l’industrie forestière. Moi, je viens de l’industrie forestière, un peu comme le ministre vient des mines. Mais moi, je viens de l’industrie forestière, qui constitue le fondement économique de nombreuses communautés du nord de l’Ontario. On ne le réalise pas, mais l’industrie forestière engage près de 154 000 emplois à travers la province. C’est 3 milliards de dollars par année de revenu en taxes. L’industrie paye à peu près de 110 millions de dollars à 270 millions de dollars en « crown dues », comme ils s’appellent. Ce sont des frais à la province. Le monde ne sait peut-être pas ça, mais l’industrie forestière gère 28 millions d’hectares. Il faut reconnaître que l’industrie forestière que nous avons est la meilleure au monde. Je suis convaincu que nous avons la meilleure industrie au monde. Ils font un travail exemplaire et il faut le reconnaître. Mais aussi, notre industrie est surtaxée. Comme c’est là, vous ne le savez peut-être pas, mais 3,5 milliards de dollars, ou bien donc 47 % de tous les produits de l’Ontario qui sont exportés sont sujets à des mesures de tarifs, et de longue durée, en plus—des disputes de longue durée sur notre industrie forestière en Ontario. C’est le secteur qui est le plus impacté par tous les tarifs—plus que les mines, plus que l’aluminium, le fer ou l’automobile. C’est le secteur qui est le plus surtaxé et le plus impacté avec les choses. Mais, c’est drôle, elle n’est pas supportée pareillement comme l’industrie des mines. C’est dur. On l’entend de temps en temps; ils vont mentionner l’industrie forestière dans leurs discours. Mais ce qu’on entend, c’est l’automobile, les mines, les produits des minéraux critiques et le fer. L’industrie forestière, des fois, rentre dans le portrait. Pourtant, on parle de—j’ai dit quoi—150 000 jobs.

Official source

M. Guy Bourgouin

Puis ça, très souvent, ce sont des industries qui sont dans des communautés où c’est la seule industrie qu’il y a. Écoute, je ne suis pas pour dire qu’ils n’ont rien fait, là; ce serait injuste de ma part. Ce serait, je pense, irresponsable de ma part de ne pas reconnaître qu’ils ont fait des choses. Dans l’énoncé économique, ils en ont mentionné, mais c’était du réchauffé—des annonces qui avaient déjà été faites. Moi, je cherchais ce qu’ils vont faire à partir de là, puis ce qu’ils vont faire pour qu’on puisse avancer l’industrie forestière. Je sais que l’industrie forestière demande—ils disent : « Écoute, c’est beau ce que vous faites. On reconnaît ce qui est fait. » Nous aussi, on reconnaît ce qu’ils font, mais ça en prend plus parce que, comme c’est là, on a une industrie qui souffre pareil. On a une industrie qui a besoin de plus que ce qui se passe. Écoute, on a vu le gouvernement faire la biomasse, ce qui était la bonne direction où aller. J’étais un supporteur de la biomasse. Ça aurait dû être fait de belle lurette; ça aurait dû être fait il y a bien longtemps. On voit qu’il va y avoir de l’énergie qui va sortir de là, mais il y a aussi de la chaleur pour réduire les coûts de l’usine qui va avoir une certaine biomasse. Je sais qu’il y a un nouveau projet de loi qui s’en vient, mais on traversera ce projet de loi-là mais qu’on en parle, parce qu’ils veulent changer la définition de la biomasse. Mais ce qui manque dans ce portrait-là, c’est le « power purchase agreement », d’être capable de vendre le surplus d’électricité que ces usines-là vont faire sur notre réseau d’électricité. Puis ça, parle à n’importe qui qui connaît l’industrie forestière. Il va dire que si tu veux avoir une nouvelle usine de pulpe—puis on en a besoin, parce qu’on a perdu tellement de papier puis de pulpe—ça prend un « power purchase agreement ». Si tu veux avoir un investisseur, il va te le demander : « Ça nous prend ça pour être capable de survivre, pour être capable de revendre. » Parce que ça te donne encore plus un moyen de générer de l’argent, puis on sait combien ça coûte, bâtir une nouvelle usine de pulpe. On a une fibre—puis M. le ministre l’a dit dans son discours avant moi, que c’est une des meilleures fibres qu’on a au monde, puis il a absolument raison. Ce qui fait qu’on a la chance de faire de nouveaux produits. Tu sais, qu’on aille dans les miettes—on a de la fibre de bois. Dans les écrans de télévision qu’on prend, il y en a, de la fibre de bois. Fait qu’il y a toute sorte de nouveaux produits qui sortent—du biodiesel. Écoute, il y a plein de choses qu’on peut faire maintenant, et il faut investir dedans et il faut développer. Mais, ceci dit, j’entendais l’industrie—comme l’industrie leur parle, ils me parlent à moi parce qu’ils savent que je viens de l’industrie et ils savent qu’on a tous les mêmes intérêts quand ça vient à ça. Mais la mondialisation, tiens, ils disent ici—je vais le lire en anglais, ça va aller un petit peu plus vite, ça va m’aider : « Over $5 billion of private capital investment since 2018 » qui a été investi. Donc 5 milliards de dollars qui ont été investis dans l’industrie—les investissements privés qui étaient investis depuis 2018 pour avancer la robotique, aussi les avancées des « aerial vehicles », des véhicules qui volent, puis aussi du « bioproduct », des produits de bio. Fait que, c’est sûr que l’industrie demande certaines choses. Puis ce qu’ils demandent aussi, c’est qu’on a besoin de défendre notre chose. Ça fait trop longtemps que notre industrie forestière est sous la pression des États-Unis, comme le « softwood lumber dispute » —la dispute sur le bois d’oeuvre ne peut pas être restée derrière. On doit faire certain que—même s’ils négocient avec le Canada—le bois d’oeuvre ne soit pas oublié dans le débat. Parce que ça va être trop facile de vouloir régler l’automobile et que l’industrie forestière, encore, se ramasse—que le problème des tarifs ou le problème des surtaxes ne soit pas réglé. Il faut le régler une fois pour toutes pour que l’industrie soit stabilisée et qu’on puisse avancer avec—ce qui appartient au Canada appartient au Canada, puis on sait qu’il y a de l’abus là-dedans. Il ne faut pas oublier l’industrie forestière. Les surcharges sur la forêt, c’est encore « a funding committed scale in line with those of the steel ». Fait que, ils demandent au gouvernement : « On veut que l’industrie forestière ait le même support que l’industrie de l’acier. » Parce qu’on sait qu’ils n’ont pas eu le même support financier. Il faut le reconnaître. Ils l’ont eu, mais pas au même niveau. Puis pourtant, ils sont plus taxés que les autres industries. Mais on est l’enfant pauvre. L’industrie forestière, c’est l’enfant pauvre. Mais ce qu’on oublie, c’est que l’industrie forestière—puis c’est ça qu’ils veulent mentionner, qu’ils vont aller plus loin un peu, qu’ils vont en parler, puis je vais le mentionner—mais c’est de demander le même support que les autres industries ont eu, qu’on devrait l’avoir. Parce qu’il y a tellement d’investissements qu’on pourrait faire, que ça soit de la biomasse ou que ça soit de l’énergie qu’on pourrait faire, mais aussi j’ai parlé du « biofuel » et tout le reste. « Fully restored »—ils disent de réinstaurer le fonds, puis d’indexer—parce que je pense que depuis 2018, ça n’a jamais été changé—la construction des chemins. Parce que l’industrie forestière—si vous ne le saviez pas, c’est eux autres qui construisent les chemins pour accéder à leurs produits. Tabarnouche, j’ai manqué le temps. Fait que, monsieur le Président, je vais répondre aux questions.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Question and answers?

Official source

M. Stéphane Sarrazin

Merci à mon collègue le député de Mushkegowuk–James Bay, pour avoir discuté de plein de points dans son débat. Je dois dire qu’on comprend très bien que ce sont des temps difficiles. Vous avez parlé de croissance du déficit, mais j’imagine que vous comprenez très bien que, justement, il y a beaucoup de secteurs dans l’économie ontarienne qu’on doit aider. Vous avez parlé aussi des investissements dans le côté municipal. Moi, j’étais maire avant d’être député, puis je peux vous dire que j’aurais bien aimé ça travailler avec le gouvernement présent, parce qu’on voit des investissements records avec les municipalités. Puis dans certains cas, si les municipalités ne veulent pas embarquer avec la province parce qu’on a offert des rabais pour les frais de développement—donc je pense qu’il y a plein, plein d’initiatives pour les municipalités d’embarquer avec nous là-dedans. Puis je pense qu’il y a des investissements records—

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

I recognize the member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay

Official source

M. Guy Bourgouin

Il n’y a pas de problème d’investir—il n’y a pas de problème avec ça. C’est tout le reste qui est en arrière dont tu n’as pas voulu parler et dont j’ai parlé dans mon discours puis, tu sais, des millions de dollars qui ont été donnés aux personnes qui sont proches du premier ministre. On n’a rien qu’à parler des « MZO ». Écoute, on peut en parler. Mais pour les municipalités, vu que ta question est plus sur les municipalités—c’est drôle, les associations demandent que vous repreniez l’OPP, que vous repreniez l’ambulance, que vous repreniez toutes ces surcharges-là, parce que s’ils reprennent ça, tout d’un coup, on va avoir de l’argent pour faire beaucoup plus d’infrastructure et bâtir plus de logements. Il y a une pénurie de logements en Ontario—que vous avez réduit, en passant. On a le bois d’oeuvre pour construire. On est capable de tout faire. L’industrie vous demande de le faire. Vous avez échappé le bâton; vous avez échappé la balle, et, encore, c’est l’industrie qui paye, mais les municipalités—

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Further questions?

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Merci beaucoup, monsieur le Président, et merci aussi à mon collègue de Mushkegowuk–Baie James pour son discours. L’année passée, le premier ministre a acheté un avion privé qui a coûté 30 millions de dollars, mais son avion ne peut pas atterrir dans un aéroport du Nord. Il a retourné l’avion, mais il a oublié les coûts aux « taxpayers », qui sont de 200 000 $. Meanwhile, dans chaque ville de l’Ontario, il y a des personnes sans abri, et le coût des loyers a toujours augmenté. Pour mon collègue, pourquoi est-ce que le gouvernement n’a pas les bonnes priorités?

Official source

M. Guy Bourgouin

Pourquoi ils n’ont pas les bonnes priorités? Parce qu’ils écoutent seulement les gens qui sont près d’eux. Parce qu’ils ont oublié, honnêtement, qui ils représentent. En tout cas—je sais qu’il y a du bon monde dans tous les partis et de tous les deux côtés, mais je pense que vous êtes rendus au point que vous pensez que vous êtes tellement blindés que vous pouvez faire ce que vous voulez avec aucune condition ou conséquence. Des millions de dollars, des milliards de dollars de dépensés, que ce soit l’avion que vous avez acheté, le jet privé—quand on était dans une crise de feux de forêt? Et après ça, vous virez de bord et vous dites : « Oh, OK. On va le retourner. On pensait que c’était correct. » Depuis quand est-ce que c’est correct quand on est dans une crise économique? Depuis quand est-ce que c’est correct de faire de l’abus de l’argent des contribuables, d’avoir le plus gros Cabinet—

Official source

Le Vice-Président (M. Ric Bresee)

Réponse, s’il vous plaît.

Official source

M. Guy Bourgouin

—le plus gros Cabinet, et on pense qu’on ne peut pas réduire ça pour sauver de l’argent? Je ne sais pas, moi; vous ne vivez pas sur la même planète que moi.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Further questions?

Official source

Mme Lucille Collard

Je n’étais pas pour poser une question, mais je suis trop motivée de continuer en français, et je veux te donner une autre opportunité peut-être de compléter ce que tu n’as pas eu la chance de compléter. On sait que l’énoncé économique et le budget du gouvernement sont une expression des priorités du gouvernement. Je pense qu’on est d’accord de ce côté-ci de la Chambre qu’on n’est pas tout à fait d’accord avec les priorités que le gouvernement a prises et qu’on aimerait voir des investissements importants dans des secteurs qui ont vraiment un impact dans nos communautés. Pour ta communauté de Mushkegowuk–Baie James, monsieur Guy, ça veut dire quoi, ce manque d’investissement-là dans les secteurs qui sont importants?

Official source

M. Guy Bourgouin

Ça représente quoi? Ça veut dire des routes fermées, encore. Ça veut dire des gens qui vont avoir peur de prendre la route. Ça veut dire des gens qui sont obligés de se déplacer encore plus loin, monsieur le Président, pour aller voir des médecins et des spécialistes. On veut un « CT scan » à Kap. On a demandé pour un « CT scan » parce que le monde est obligé d’attendre six mois, des fois jusqu’à deux ans pour avoir un « CT scan ». Imagine-toi si tu as un cancer et que tu es obligé d’attendre six mois ou un an ou deux ans pour un « CT scan ». C’est quoi cette affaire-là? On mérite mieux. On n’est pas l’enfant pauvre. Bien, on part—les ressources vont sortir du Nord, puis on est l’enfant pauvre de la province. Explique-moi comment la priorité du gouvernement peut être tellement à l’envers qu’ils peuvent se permettre des dépenses frauduleuses et qu’ils se permettent—

Official source

Le Vice-Président (M. Ric Bresee)

Réponse, s’il vous plaît.

Official source

M. Guy Bourgouin

—sur le payeur de taxes pour être capable de le faire. C’est inacceptable. C’est un manque de jugement de la province.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

Questions?

Official source

L’hon. Todd J. McCarthy

Merci, monsieur le Président, et je remercie le député de l’opposition pour ses remarques. Je parle français un peu, and so, en anglais, s’il vous plaît. The member’s party often thinks of itself as a party of the working person. I’m not sure that’s the case anymore. But given that this fall economic statement, this proposed bill, builds on our $30 billion in tariff relief and support to protect jobs and workers by helping businesses, our $1 billion in working capital loans to eligible businesses to protect Ontario, to protect our workers—does the member, based on that, plan to support this fall economic statement, building on the support and protection for workers and small businesses in particular?

Official source

M. Guy Bourgouin

Il y a 27 000 emplois perdus dans la province, monsieur le Ministre. Si ce n’est pas protéger des emplois, qu’avez-vous fait avec ces emplois-là? Vous allez les regarder partir? Comme vous avez fait, de redire : « Oh, that ship has sailed. » Some 27,000 jobs lost in Ontario, and you’re saying you’re doing a great job? Trust me, I come from labour. Labour did not abandon us. Just because you may have a couple, doesn’t mean you have them all. OFL supports us. CLC supports us. And how many do you represent? You know the numbers. But they do support us; they don’t support you. Remember that: 27,000 jobs, so no lesson taken from you, Minister, on job losses that you didn’t protect.

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

I will remind the members to address the Speaker. I recognize the member from Nickel Belt.

Official source

Mme France Gélinas

Le membre a parlé un peu de ce qui se passe avec l’accès aux soins de santé dans le nord de l’Ontario et le fait que ça fait des années que l’hôpital de Hearst demande un tomodensitomètre—c’est « CT scan » en français. Les femmes qui sont enceintes ne peuvent plus accoucher dans le nord de l’Ontario. Elles doivent voyager 300 kilomètres pour se rendre à Timmins ou pour se rendre ailleurs. C’est très, très difficile pour les familles. Est-ce que vous avez vu quelque chose dans la déclaration économique qui a été faite et dans le projet de loi 143 qui va améliorer l’accès aux services de santé pour les gens du nord de l’Ontario que vous représentez?

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

I recognize the member from Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

Official source

M. Guy Bourgouin

Merci, Monsieur le Président. I’ll try to go through you. C’est sûr que, quand tu parles des femmes enceintes qui sont obligées de se déplacer, c’est inacceptable, surtout avec les conditions des routes qu’on a. Mais je vais vous donner un autre exemple de ce qui se passe dans le Nord. Les communautés comme Kapuskasing, c’est une communauté accueillante pour les Premières Nations qui se font évacuer. Ils sont bienvenus là; ce n’est pas ça qui est le problème. Mais on a, peut-être, des fois 150, des fois 200 nouveaux personnes qui rentrent dans la communauté, mais aucun argent supplémentaire pour l’hôpital de Kapuskasing pour être capable de desservir cette population-là. Ça fait que, là, on est déjà à 100 % de capacité. On ramène plus de personnes, puis ils n’ont pas le droit de refus—puis c’est avec raison qu’ils n’ont pas le droit de refus. Mais la province devrait être capable, quand on fait ces situations-là, de donner un surplus pour être capable de desservir la population qui vient, puis être capable de donner des services qu’ils méritent—puis ils méritent ces services-là. Le reste de la population les mérite. Ce n’est pas en sous-finançant les hôpitaux qu’on va donner cet argent-là ou qu’on va donner un service aux Premières Nations—

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

This brings us to the end of the questions and answers. There is time to start the next debate. Further debate?

Official source

MPP Andrea Hazell

Good evening, everyone. We’re almost there. Speaker, it’s an honour to rise in this House on behalf of my beautiful constituents of Scarborough–Guildwood to speak to Bill 143, Plan to Protect Ontario Act. After eight years of this government, the 16 million people who call Ontario home are paying more and getting less for their hard-earned tax dollars. Listen to this, Speaker: More than 95,000 people left Ontario in just one year in search of a better life, and over 41,000 young people also left Ontario for a better life, because they cannot afford to live in this province called Ontario. People should be able to afford to stay here, to work and build their futures right here in Ontario. This government has given no reason to believe they can. Speaker, this budget is all about making the rich richer—when I review this budget—while the hard-working people of Ontario continue to fall further and further behind. Most of what is behind this fall economic statement has already been announced. For people who are already struggling, I’ve got to tell them, unfortunately, there is nothing in this budget to help families all across Ontario that are experiencing hardship with this affordability crisis. This government always finds money for their vanity or legacy projects—whatever you want to call them—that do nothing to relieve the pressures that the families of Ontario are experiencing. Let’s look at this government’s priorities because I’m trying to build the case here: —a $28.9-million private jet was returned, but nearly $200,000 in associated costs remained; —at Ontario Place, a luxury spa costing taxpayers $2.2 billion; —the new science centre, when the Auditor General reviewed it, was estimated at nearly $700 million; today, the contract alone is over $1 billion; —a parking garage at Ontario Place with a $198-million price tag; —a Lake Ontario billboard—$25,000 to print and put up a sign—while families continuously struggle to put food on the table, to pay their rent or mortgage or to buy groceries so their kids don’t go to sleep hungry; better yet, seniors on a fixed income have to choose between paying their rent and buying their medications; —a record spending of $117 million in one year for the government to advertise itself. Who does that when people in Ontario have been suffering under this government for eight years? Let’s go to the transportation projects. I’m continuing to make the case of the mismanagement of these files and the waste of monies that are going into the wrong priorities. We want investment in transportation, but my gosh, all the transportation projects are delayed with overrun budgets. The Scarborough subway extension went from $5.5 billion to now $10 billion. The Ontario Line at $10.9 billion tripled; it’s now $34 billion. The Hazel McCallion Line is over $400 million. The Finch West LRT closed at over $300 million. The Eglinton Crosstown LRT closed at over $1 billion. Another fantasy project that this government is working on is building a tunnel under Highway 401. Taxpayers are going to be on the hook for that, but I hope that never comes to fruition. The feasibility study alone is $9.1 million to hear the same case outcome: that it’s dangerous to build a tunnel under Highway 401. My question here to the government: Who is benefiting from all this? Who is really benefiting? Because if you look at the people in Scarborough that I serve in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, they’re not benefiting from all of this. All these projects that I’ve spoken about that overrun budgets—the people of Ontario are not seeing those in this fall economic statement. We have shortchanged our health care system. We have shortchanged our education system. We continue to not work for the people of Ontario that elected us to this House to represent them. Speaker, do you know that mental illnesses—

Official source

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee)

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time is now 6 o’clock. It is time for private members’ public business.

Official source

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Official source

Speaker 00

We know that many of those seniors end up in long-term care when they don't want to go, when they'd rather be aging at home. A direct benefit for caregivers would greatly reduce the burden on long-term care, retirement home system, and make it easier for workers to be at home. We also know that women are most impacted with the caregiving. We know women are 50% more likely to report caregiving than men. We know it impacts their work more than men. This motion to create a paid benefit for re- caregivers is a real way for us to promote equality in the workplace and at home. I'm now going to read a statement from a mother in Niagara that reached out to me after our last debate for a caregiver motion. She is now the board chair of the Ontario Parenting Advocating for Children with Cancer.

Speaker 00

Her name is Emily Hammond. "In 2011, my son Griffin was 22 months old-

Speaker 00

and was diagnosed with a rare and aggressive cancer. My role changed in ways I could never imagine.

Speaker 00

I became his primary caregiver through 48 weeks of chemo, 25 radiation treatments to this tiny, innocent face, countless scans, MRIs, hospital visits. I was his mom, but I was also his nurse, medication manager, appointment coordinator, and advocate. I also had to step away from my f- full-time job. The financial and emotional stress was crippling. We needed support from everyone around us, our loved ones, our parents, but most important, our government. But at that time, there was little caregiving leave and financial support. It took us, think about this, it took us over 10 years to pay off our debt we accumulated from Griff- Griffin's sickness. Families shouldn't have to spend the next decade recovering from financ- financially for trying to get healthcare for their children, not in Canada, and certainly not in one of the richest provinces in Canada. Today, Griffin is cancer-free.

Speaker 00

I want people to know that he's grown into an incredible young man. I'm proud to be his mom and grateful for the people and organization that did what they could to help. But now,

Speaker 00

it's the government's turn to acknowledge the need to help caregivers. It's why I support this motion, and I hope all parties step up and do their part.

Speaker 00

We can all send messages to Emily. It's possible to work together and create a caregiver benefit, a program similar to the one in Nova Scotia, PEI. Nova Scotia could, could replace, listen to this, it's incredible, up to 7.8 of Ontario's long-term care beds at a time when we have 50,000 on a wait list to get a long-term care bed. Each dollar represents a benefit that caregivers can replace by up to $2.69 spent subsidizing long-term care. This benefit would immediately save close to $500,000. What is this? I say to my colleagues on the other side, "This is a win, win, win." Easy. It's the right thing to do for our moms.

Speaker 00

our dads, our grandparents, our aunts, our uncles, and our kids, giving them a chance to age in a place like Lake Home. It's the right thing to do for Ontarians living with a disability who too often fall through the cracks of our service, social service programs. It's the right thing to do to advance the cause of gender equality in the province of Ontario. It's the right thing to do for our healthcare system, our long-term care system, our retirement homes, our social service sector, who are really struggling right now. And it's the right thing to do for caregivers who are there for us when we need them. My suggestion, Speaker, that we pass this motion, and we're there for our caregivers today, tomorrow, and in the future. Because you know what? Anybody can end up being a caregiver at any point in time in your life. It can happen like that. I'm gonna finish by telling a story about my daughter. In her early 40s,

Speaker 00

about nine months ago, she had a heart attack. It's called a SCAD heart attack that only happens with women between 40 and 50 years old. It's a blocking of the blood vessel. And just like that, it changed her life. She was a schoolteacher,

Speaker 00

but she needed a caregiver to help her get better, and that was her family. She had three, she's got three beautiful daughters. They were the caregivers.

Speaker 00

She had family members that would help her. That can happen to anybody. So I'm saying to my colleagues on the other side, support the motion. Send it to committee. Listen to the stories that are out there. We can all do better in the richest province in the country. Thank you very much.

Speaker 02

To further debate, I recognize the member from Kingston and the Islands.

Speaker 03

thank you, Speaker. And, I wanna thank my honorable colleague from, Niagara Falls for bringing forward this motion and giving recognition to those who, to give up their lives to take care of their, loved ones. and I wanna say that I'll be supporting this motion. I want to structure my, my remarks in, in the following way. I wanna salute one of my constituents, Guy Paquette, who's an unpaid caregiver for his parents in Kingston. And he wrote a petition-

Speaker 00

a 24/7 caregivers, support for 24/7 caregivers. He wrote a petition, that has been circulating, and continues to come in. I just presented, another, batch of, of, petitions in earlier this week. and it's a petition asking for support for 24/7 caregivers, including, some kind of, financial support, for them. And these petitions just, they just keep coming in. But I wanna tell the story of Guy Paquette because he's, he's a perfect example of somebody who would make very good use of a caregiver support benefit, somebody who's very deserving, and, somebody who just has a wonderful, I think, story to tell. So the story starts six years ago. Guy Paquette owned a store in Kingston called Bag It Leather. Bag It Leather was, was a great business. it was in downtown Kingston a few years before it was in the, in the mall out west. And, I, I remember, when I first went there, it was over twenty-five years ago. I bought some,

Speaker 00

high-quality luggage for the first time in my life. It was guaranteed for life. This luggage was guaranteed for, for life. And, the store, Bag It Leather, Guy Paquette and the store, they have repaired that luggage several times, and I still own that luggage. In fact, when, when I come to Queen's Park from Kingston, I, I use one of those, pieces of, of luggage. he had a great business. But then c- but then COVID came. COVID came, and businesses had to make a decision. And Guy decided that he was-- would keep his employees on just in case, because he wanted to treat them well, so he didn't just lay them off. He thought, "Okay, well, I'll just pay my employees for a few months, while we ride out, COVID." And he thought it would be short. But I think, you know, he had in his mind that he should take care of his employees. unfortunately, COVID, the shutdown lasted longer than his business could, and Bag It Leather, went out of business because of that. And the main thing, you know, a lot-- I think a lot of businesses, tried to do right by their employees and guessed wrong, and selling luggage was, was, was not a great business when, when travel, was cut down by so much. But Guy was optimistic and, and being a business person, he thought, "Okay, you know, I went out of business, but-

Speaker 00

no problem. I'll just start, I'll just start another business."

Speaker 00

very optimistic, entrepreneurial guy, but then his elderly parents' health deteriorated, and he had to take care of them. So, the new business never started. Savings were depleted, but he still had to take care of his parents, and he couldn't... You know, he's a business guy, so he couldn't start another business to, to replace his income. Guy is taking care of his parents twenty-four seven, and he's doing a job that the public system does not have to spend money on because he's taking care of his parents. A little support for somebody like Guy would go a long way because he's capable of s- and he does spend so much of his time, providing care which would otherwise come at public expense. I have encountered so many people in my riding who, give up their own lives to care for family members, and they just need a little help. They need a little help for extra respite. They need a little extra help to prevent burnout. They need a little extra help to reduce financial, anxieties. A little help which would save the public purse a lot of money, when it comes to care. And so I think, I, I'm glad that my, my colleague talked a- about some, some dollars because if you think about it, allowing caregivers to stay as caregivers and just helping them out enough so they could stay as caregivers, it's a tremendous return on investment and a savings because the public system is not paying for the care that they're providing. And for this reason, I support this motion.

Speaker 01

Further debate?

Speaker 01

Further debate? I recognize the leader of the opposition.

Speaker 02

Thank you. Thank you so much, Speaker. it is really a pleasure to be here this evening, and I want to thank my colleague, the MPP for Niagara Falls, for continuing this absolutely critical fight for caregiver benefits in Ontario. this is a fight that's been going on for some years now. And I wanna also thank all of the people who are here with us today who have been leading this fight- from the community side. it has been extraordinary. And I would say, Speaker, there's not a person in this room, I would imagine, who hasn't experienced both the privilege and also the burden of being a caregiver at some point in your life. Now, I, I don't know that for sure, but I can also say with some more certainty that if you haven't, you will. You will. Whether it's a sick child or a vulnerable person in your family or an aging parent, I think everyone in this room will-

Speaker 00

and today I want to say this benefit and this motion are more relevant than ever before, because life is very unaffordable right now. Life is difficult. The number of people who this would benefit is greater than ever before as well, and the reality is that people want to recover, they want to stay, and they also want to convalesce at home. but what I really wanted to say this evening, and the reason that I'm here today, is that a lot of people out there tell me that government and politics can't make a difference. They've lost hope that we can actually change things here in these halls, in these chambers. And I always say, "You know what? We can change things. That's what we do here. We change laws. We make laws." This is an opportunity for the government. I think every member of the opposition, independents, et cetera, we are in support of this legislation. I think I can say that quite confidently. What we need, what we need is the government to come on board. This is a real opportunity to send a message to all those people out there that it does make a difference, that it's possible to hope, to believe, to organize, to make life better, to work together, to make people's lives better. So I really would encourage the government members opposite, let's do this. Let's make this a reality, and let's help people like the folks above who've been fighting so hard, for this legislation. Thank you very much, Speaker.

Speaker 02

Further debate. Further debate, I recognize the member from Peterborough—Kawartha.

Speaker 03

Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker 03

I'll, I'll say I, I, I have some conflicting opinions on this.