Thursday, January 22, 2026

Mr. John Gamble

The ultimate vision is that we can put solar on every building. You can put it on the outside of the building so we can create as much power as we need. We don’t really need as much nuclear. Reduce that cost and use our sun to power ourselves. It’s been done in many other places around the world. Solar is the number one power provider. We wanted to start putting in—we talk about data centres—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. She didn’t give you quite 40 seconds. MPP Brady.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Lesley, I’ll move over to you. Forgive me for asking this, and please don’t feel alone; I’ve asked this question a few times during pre-budget consultations, including as recently as yesterday, when I asked the Council of Ontario Universities. That’s my disclaimer. My understanding is that we have more and more domestic students wanting to enter our institutions. I want to support your cheerleading on Brock because it has long been a fantastic place to receive an education locally and regionally. I know a lot of my friends attended Brock, from Norfolk county, so I think to my colleague across the table—his sister should jump on that acceptance letter. Now that I’ve sweetened the deal here, I’m going to move into my controversial question. It comes from some who believe that our Ontario universities are essentially holding the domestic student spots hostage to force the province and the government to end the 10% tuition cut and freeze. How would you respond to that sentiment? Why can’t colleges and universities just make it work like they used to?

Official source

Dr. Lesley Rigg

That is a really good question. What I would say is, absolutely, I can guarantee you 100% that Brock University is not holding domestic students at bay. We know the importance of educating. We are of the Niagara region, not in it. We formed because of the people of Niagara. The majority of our students are domestic students. We have only between 9% and 11% international. It’s a little bit lower right now. We have very intentionally brought in international students with an eye to globalization but not an eye to filling our budget. So, our domestic students are our bread and butter. They are the reason we exist. They are our passion.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Dr. Lesley Rigg

We are looking to increase our domestic enrolment. In fact, we’re predicting a 4.9% increase in our domestic enrolment this year. For every 1% increase, it’s a million dollars to our bottom line. It serves two purposes: It keeps us domestic—it makes us do what we do so well—and it does help our bottom line. So we are not holding them hostage. Doors open; dorm beds are there for them. Our teachers and our instructors are waiting to work with them—so, absolutely.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Amazing. You stole my thunder on—I know that you guys have historically maintained lower international enrolment. How long can you continue to kick the can down the road? Have you already closed departments and cut programs?

Official source

Dr. Lesley Rigg

We have cancelled 450 sections of classes in the last three years. We are combining smaller classes into larger classes. We have done a series of efficiencies in constricting, I would say—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time for that question. It also concludes the time for the panel. We thank all the participants for the time you took to prepare and the time you took to be here with us today to help us along with our public consultations. Thank you very much.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

As we’re switching the panel, our next panel is the Niagara Home Builders’ Association; Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario; and Ontario Association of Cardiologists. As we’re going forward, each presenter will have seven minutes to present. At six minutes, I will say, “One minute.” At seven minutes, it will be over. We ask each participant to identify themselves as they start their presentation to make sure we can attribute the presentation to the appropriate name through Hansard. We will start with the Niagara Home Builders’ Association. The floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

Good afternoon. My name is Chuck McShane, and I am proud to serve as the chief executive officer of the Niagara Home Builders’ Association. I would like to begin by thanking the Ministry of Finance for the opportunity to speak with you today. Our association represents 170 member companies, including builders, developers, professional consultants and service providers. For more than 70 years, we have been the collective voice of the home-building industry and the new home purchasers in the Niagara region. We are also proud to be members of the Ontario Home Builders’ Association and the Canadian Home Builders’ Association. We commend the government for the significant work undertaken to advance Bill 17 and Bill 60. These are important steps forward. However, there is still much more work required if we are to truly move the dial and enable our industry to deliver the housing Ontario urgently needs. Today, I would like to highlight two priority items for the committee’s consideration, both of which are essential to achieving our housing targets and restoring affordability. First, the south Niagara waste water treatment solution: The home-building industry fully supports the Niagara region’s request that the governments of Ontario and Canada each provide one third funding for the south Niagara waste water treatment plant, a critical piece of growth-related infrastructure. Provincial projections estimate that by 2051, Niagara region will be home to 689,000 residents and 272,000 jobs. The existing waste water infrastructure in south Niagara does not have the capacity to support this level of population or economic growth. With an estimated capital cost of $400 million, the south Niagara waste water treatment plant represents the largest investment in Niagara region’s history. Support from senior levels of government is essential to move this project forward and unlock the housing and employment growth our region has been planning for. The second, PST relief on all new home sales in Ontario: The Niagara Home Builders’ Association and the Ontario Home Builders’ Association are calling on the government to provide immediate PST relief on all new home sales and substantial renovations and to make this relief retroactive to May 27, 2025. For this measure to be effective, the relief must be applied at the point of purchase, reducing the purchase price before closing, rather than issued as a rebate after closing, so buyers can actually qualify for financing. Ontario currently has the most unaffordable housing market and land costs. Chronic undersupply and excessive taxation have pushed home ownership out of reach for too many families. Without decisive government action, this situation will not improve. Today, taxes account for approximately 35% of the cost of a new home. These costs are passed directly on to the consumer and embedded in their mortgage. Many of these taxes, including the PST, apply only to newly built homes. New homes are taxed at rates comparable to tobacco and alcohol. We do not believe that achieving home ownership should be treated as a luxury or a sin purchase. The construction industry is now in a full-scale affordability and viability crisis. There are currently 37,000 completed new homes sitting unsold, and housing completions projected for 2026 are expected to fall to just 42,000 units—half of what Ontario delivered only two years ago. Without intervention, 40,000 jobs are at risk within the next six months. Builders have gone to extraordinary lengths to retain skilled trades, keeping workers on payroll despite underutilization, to prevent them from leaving the industry altogether. However, even the largest builders in Canada can no longer sustain this. The proposed PST exemption for first-time homebuyers impacts less than 5% of all new home sales. This will not protect jobs, stimulate construction or meaningfully address affordability. By contrast, removing the PST on all new home sales would stimulate the construction of 53,000 new homes, generate $42.4 billion in economic activity, add $10.6 billion in wages and contribute $20.7 billion to Ontario’s GDP. Most importantly, it will reduce the price of a new home by the average of $60,000 for buyers across the province. We’re also asking the province to adopt the federal government’s 90% threshold to define a substantial renovation and to exempt those projects from PST. This change would support aging in place, modernizing our housing stock, enabling additional dwelling units and protect skilled construction jobs. We understand concerns that PST relief would cost the provincial treasury approximately $1.8 billion; however, the reality is that unsold homes generate zero tax revenue. These homes are not selling at current prices and without action, they are unlikely to. The province cannot lose revenue it was never going to collect. With a bold leadership, governments of all levels will also forgo future assessment growth and revenue needed to fund public services. Removing the PST on all new home sales would turn today’s zero-revenue environment into an engine for jobs, investment and economic stability. It is the only policy lever that delivers a meaningful, near-term reduction in home prices for all families—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

—trying to live in the communities where they work. Let me be clear: Without action, Ontario’s residential construction industry will lose more than 40,000 direct and indirect jobs and $5.3 billion in economic activity. All Ontarians, regardless of age, occupation, political affiliation or postal code depend on access to a reasonably affordable place to call home. If Ontario cannot provide this basic human need, the long-term cost to the provincial treasury will far exceed the PST relief that we are requesting today. Thank you for your time and your consideration. I look forward to your future questions.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much for your presentation. Our next presenter will be from the Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario. The floor is yours.

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

Thanks very much, Chair, and to the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear today. I am here representing CUPE Ontario, the Canadian Union of Public Employees. We represent more than 300,000 workers in every corner of the province—people who keep our province and long-term-care homes running, our schools open, water flowing and communities functioning. Our members are not abstract shareholders; they are your constituents; they are the people who others in Ontario rely on everyday. We have a full brief that is quite detailed in front of you. I’m going to do my best to try to summarize it. Budgets are not neutral documents; budgets are moral documents. They reflect priorities, they reveal values and they show us clearly who government is prepared to invest in and who it is prepared to leave behind. Ontario is at a crossroads. The decisions made in this budget will determine whether the province continues down the path of austerity, privatization and growing inequality, or whether it finally chooses to invest in people and services that make Ontario work. For years, Ontarians have been told that the government is making historic investments across society, in services, in the infrastructure and in everything in between. But the data doesn’t support that claim; in fact, it shows quite the opposite. When adjusted for inflation and population growth, the rising costs of service delivery programs, spending has remained stagnant and is projected to decline in future years. These are your numbers, fact-checked by the Financial Accountability Officer and the Governor General. In 2025, this government spent less per every Ontarian in real terms than it did when it took office in 2018. It’s not because there isn’t enough money. Ontario doesn’t have a spending problem; it has a revenue problem by design, created through deliberate political choices. Ontario is one of the most wealthy jurisdictions in the country, and yet according to province’s own data, including analysis from the Financial Accountability Officer, we collect the least in revenue per person compared to any other province in Canada. This confirms that any supposed fiscal crunch is actually self-inflicted. We are a wealthy province and we’re choosing not to collect revenue. As a result, we’re choosing to provide a lower level of public service. At the same time the schools, hospitals and social services are told to tighten their belts, billions of dollars are flowing out the door through corporate tax cuts and tax expenditures. These tax expenditures now exceed what the province spends on the entire public education system or post-secondary education or social services, combined. If the government is serious about financial responsibility, then we need to be honest about where the money is going. Tax expenditures are, in fact, spending. They’re just simply spending without transparency, without oversight and without public debate. Ontario has options. Restoring corporate tax rates even partway towards where they used to be would generate billions in stable, predictable revenue. Rolling back ineffective corporate tax breaks would free up funds immediately. These aren’t radical ideas; they’re practical choices that would allow Ontario to fund public services properly without asking working families to shoulder the burden. That brings me to fairness: Ontario’s tax system punishes work and rewards wealth. Many working families earn modest incomes and leave a great deal of it to taxes and benefit clawbacks when compared to higher income earners in our province. Put plainly, people who earn less pay a larger portion of their share of total income in taxes than people who earn far more. That’s not fairness. A fair system should recognize that those who have more should pay more. It should reward work, reduce inequality and fund services that people rely on, but Ontario’s current system does the opposite. This government has the chance to fix that. The second major choice facing the province is privatization across Ontario. We see the same pattern repeated again and again. Public services are underfunded, workers are stretched thin, systems are destabilized and then privatization is presented as the solution. But the evidence is clear: Privatization doesn’t save money; it costs more and delivers less, and it weakens accountability. In health care, the province is paying private clinics significantly more per procedure than if those same procedures were done in our public hospitals, even while wait times grow. After supressing wages and driving workers out of the public system, the government is now paying private staffing agencies to hire those same workers back at two and three times the cost. It’s not innovation; this is public money being redirected to private profit. In social services, employment supports are being outsourced to multinational corporations whose incentive is not long-term stability or community well-being but short-term outcomes that trigger payment. Poverty is being treated as a business model and now we’re seeing the groundwork being laid for the privatization of water and waste water systems starting in Peel region that pose real risks to communities across Ontario because water is not a commodity; it’s a life sustaining public infrastructure. Turning it into a corporate asset is a dangerous gamble with public health and public safety. The third major issue I want to raise is Bill 124 and the ongoing failure to fully remedy its damage. Bill 124 was unconstitutional. Its harm is well documented: It supressed wages, drove workers out of critical sectors and made recruitment and retention far worse. Many public sector workers have now received wage remedies, but tens of thousands of social service workers—predominantly women and often racialized folks—are still waiting.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

They deserve the same remedy as other workers. Taken together, these issues tell a single story: Ontario is being governed as if scarcity were inevitable. We’re giving billions away, public assets are being turned over to for-profit models and workers, we’re all just told to accept less. The budget’s an opportunity to make different choices. It means fixing the revenue side of the ledger. It means rejecting privatization schemes that cost more and deliver less. It means investing in services that help Ontarians. The question before the committee is not whether Ontario can afford to make this change; the question is whether or not the government will choose to do it. Thank you.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much for the presentation. We will now go to the Ontario Association of Cardiologists. I believe we’re on the screen virtually. The floor is yours, sir.

Official source

Dr. John Parker

Good afternoon. Can you hear me all right?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Yes.

Official source

Dr. John Parker

Thank you for having me speak. I represent the Ontario Association of Cardiologists. I’m a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, also at the University Health Network. I’ve been in practice here in Toronto for 33 and a half years. I work both in the hospital—actually, I’m sitting in the hospital today speaking to you—and I also work in an ambulatory clinic. Today’s conversation is going to be a little bit about things that most people aren’t aware of relating to health care delivery in the community. A lot of what’s seen in the news and what people are aware of is the really excellent hospital-based health care system we have for cardiology patients. I’ve been fortunate enough to bear witness in my 30-odd years here to massive improvements in both provision of care, quality of care, what kind of things are done to manage people with acute cardiology problems. And in many cases, this is truly life-saving. I’m actually very proud of this system that has been built up around me and to have played a little role in that. What’s less recognized is that actually beginning in the 1990s, more and more ongoing cardiovascular care occurred out of hospitals. In particular, in larger cities in Ontario, physicians began to set up outpatient clinics—not just a single physician working in an office but actually grouping together in variable numbers to set up cardiology-specialized ambulatory care clinics. This is where the majority of cardiovascular care actually occurs now outside of hospitals. This is less well recognized, and I think even until recently it was less well recognized by the Ministry of Health. To give you an idea: We did some analysis from 2019 to 2020 and were able to show by looking at billing records, which define where the care is taking place, that fully 54% of all initial cardiology consultations occurred in these non-hospital settings, and 72% of follow-up care actually after initial consultation occurred in these ambulatory clinics. This number is only growing. I can tell you, for someone who does clinics both in and out of the hospitals—and I can speak across the whole province because I’m quite familiar with the system—the hospitals would in no way be able to now absorb this large majority of cardiovascular care which occurs on an ongoing basis. The reality is that all of these clinics are actually funded by two sources of funding, all of which flow through OHIP: One is the technical fees related to doing testing and the other are the professional fees of physicians who are seeing the patients. With those overheads charged to physicians that aren’t owners of the clinic and the technical fees that the clinic receives from doing testing, they must cover their lease, all the equipment, equipment maintenance and a whole list of things. And these funds have actually rapidly fallen behind the rate of inflation. In the last two years we’ve seen a significant increase in funding for the first time since 2015 and, in fact, physician fees essentially didn’t change from 2015 to 2023 and are still 25% to 30% behind the rate of inflation as posted by the Ontario government. The lack of ability to pay staff well has led to recruitment problems in particular for support staff at these clinics. I point this out not really as a complaint but to highlight the fact that the system is fragile, that in fact if you really recognize that truly the majority of ongoing primary prevention cardiac care, post-event cardiac care, dealing with chronic disease occurs out of hospital and could not be absorbed by the hospital, I think we have to be very cognizant of the fact that it’s a system which needs to be supported. The physician funding is all wrapped up into agreements that usually are three and four years in duration, which is a negotiation between the OMA and the Ministry of Health. We would ask that the government ask questions and get more information about how the Ministry of Health plans to fund, or not to fund, this very important, critical management system of the majority of patients that need cardiac care in the province.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Dr. John Parker

Certainly the profession is more than willing to work with both the Minister of Health and with the government to try and give more information and highlight the importance of the system. But if it was ever to really become so fragile that those clinics began to close because they were simply fiscally not viable, this would create an enormous problem for patients and their caregivers in the province. The Ontario health care system is actually a fantastic system. I trained five years in the United States, and I never planned to stay there. The United States system is a bad model, without question. I think the Ontario system is a great model, but it does have certain fragility which needs to be taken care of. That’s really the point I wanted to make today, and I’m happy to take questions if there are any. Thank you for the time.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you, Doctor, for your presentation. That concludes the presentations. We’ll start the first round of questioning with MPP Bell.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Bell

Thank you so much to the presenters for coming here today. My hope is to have questions for all three of you if I have the time. My first question is for Fred Hahn, the president of CUPE Ontario. Thanks so much for being here and representing 300,000 workers. You are the first person that has come in during this pre-budget consultation that has talked about not just the spending but the revenue—the first person. Everyone who comes in says, “We need this, this and this.” There is a conversation around efficiency on occasion, but we have not talked about the revenue piece, which I think is critical, especially with the debt levels that we are in and the growing needs of Ontario. Can you talk a little bit more about some of the revenue proposals that you have made in your presentation? I see here there is some interest in looking at the corporate tax rate. I’m also wondering if you have recommendations around the capital gains tax.

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

I think this is an incredibly important part that is often missing in budget discussions, because people think about budgets as what we spend and not necessarily what we take in. I’ll just remind us all that when compared to other regions we are leaving money on the table. We collect the least amount per person compared to every other part of our country, and yet we are the largest and have the most diverse geography and need to deliver services in a whole range of ways. That results in us spending the least per person than any other region. I feel like most people in Ontario, if they knew that, would feel like, “Wait a second. I feel like they should spend the same amount on me that they spend on people in Saskatchewan or BC or Quebec. I feel that’s just a rational thing.” But, you know, you’ve got to pay. The money has to come from somewhere. Our corporate tax rate is chronically low. It could be adjusted. This could be done in a way that would—it’s quite clear; corporate profits continue to rise at enormous rates. CEO wages—CEOs have to work, I think, an hour or two before they make most people’s average wage for the entire year. There is money there, and actually, those corporations benefit from us collecting that money as a government and investing it in the services they need, not just the roads to move their goods, but the health care system that look after their employees. All these things matter; it’s what we used to understand as fundamental in Ontario. The capital gains stuff, if I own a piece of property and, on paper, the property is now up in value or decreases in value. It’s a paper transaction. It’s got nothing to do with any real cash, but I get to claim an exemption for that. If I buy box seats at a hockey game for some of my customers, I get to have a deduction for that. I think there is a review that is necessary because there are billions of dollars in exemptions. And again, those resources could be used to invest in our hospitals, so people aren’t on stretchers in hallways. It could be invested in our schools so that workers there aren’t facing violence, never mind the other kids. It could be invested in our social safety nets so people aren’t having to live in parks at the end of our streets. This is about real choices. This is not something that would hurt our economy. In fact, small businesses, community businesses and large corporations all benefit from investments in public services. We’re leaving money on the table, and that’s a shame.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Bell

Thank you for that. We have had industry leaders, chambers of commerce come in and speak to the value of having high-quality infrastructure to build more homes, the need to have good hospitals and health care to attract workers—the same goes for schools. We want workers here; they want to make sure their kids are going to a good school. There’s certainly a balance that needs to be had there and us having the conversation about revenue—I mean, we’re the NDP—but having a conversation about revenue, I think, is really important. The second question I have is to Chuck McShane from the Niagara Home Builders’ Association. Thank you so much for coming here. Before I was a finance critic, I focused on housing. I’m very interested—

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

Excuse me. My hearing isn’t the greatest, so if you could get a little closer to your mike, I’d really appreciate it. I’m sure Mr. Hardeman will, too.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Bell

Sure. Thank you for that feedback. I’m very interested in what we can do to increase housing starts but also to make sure that the housing starts that we are building are in line with what Ontarians need.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Bell

I do have some clarifying questions. The one question I had was, you mentioned that if we take the PST off the table it would reduce revenue by $1.2 billion—that’s how much it would cost—

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

It’s $1.8 billion.

Official source

Ms. Jessica Bell

Thank you for that. The second question is, I’m very interested in low-cost measures that we can take to really spur the kind of construction that we need. Does your association have any position on zoning changes, regulatory changes, to spur the construction of missing middle housing or purpose-built rental?

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

Definitely. We do zoning changes to get more units on a piece of property if that’s what’s going to work and that’s what’s going to sell. Right now, you can see what happened in the condo market in Toronto—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time. We’ll now go to MPP Cerjanec.

Official source

Mr. Rob Cerjanec

Through you, Chair: Thank you all for your presentations today. Chuck, you come to the table with some very interesting ideas. Last year, I raised some of these things in the Legislature, calling on the provincial government to take the HST off of new construction, to take the land transfer tax off of new construction, as well. And then also to cut development charges, but make municipalities whole so that we can fund things like the south Niagara water/waste water treatment plant. We’ve seen the provincial government move a little bit and say, “Okay, we’ll take the provincial portion of the HST off of a new home for a first-time homebuyer.” I think that’s a good step forward but a couple of days later we saw the Premier of Ontario say we should be taking this off of new homes. I’m glad the Premier agrees with me and agrees with you on this. You make a really good point as well, because if we’re not building the housing, there’s no money to be collected, at the end of the day, so the provincial budget is not going to be in a good place. I’d rather those construction and skilled trade workers be able to have jobs and be on job sites and paying income tax, as opposed to collecting unemployment insurance. Do you think the provincial government should also think about taking the land transfer tax off the sale of new construction?

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

That’s another item that we would definitely look at. I think the PST is the big one right at this point in time, that we’re looking for. We want to sell more homes. We want to put people in homes. That’s the dream of everybody, right? That’s the big thing. If, by reducing the price of the house—the taxes right now, that are paid on housing with the infrastructure dollars, the DC charges, all the other stuff is equivalent to the downstroke that somebody has to put on a house right now. So they’re really not coming to the table and putting—they’re putting a downstroke in there. They really haven’t even bought a two-by-four at that time. We’ve talked about development charges for many, many years. Eliminating the PST on all new home purchases, for all home purchasers, will help drive that forward. Less than 5% of all new homes are purchased by first-time home purchasers. That’s the big thing in this question right here. That’s why it has to go clear across the board. It’s like when you turn 16, you buy a used car and then you move up. It’s the same thing with housing.

Official source

Mr. Rob Cerjanec

Yes, absolutely. Are your members laying off workers right now? Is that happening?

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

We have some members that are projecting layoffs, especially within the next month or two, because we really can’t dig any holes now. We’ve got frost and everything else. Normally, they would keep them because they would be afraid that they would just jump ship and go to somebody else, but there’s nowhere to go, and that’s clear across Ontario. I’m sure the unions are seeing it, as well, in the condos.

Official source

Mr. Rob Cerjanec

So building housing is not like a light switch. When you turn it on, it just doesn’t appear tomorrow; it takes time to do that. If the province were to make these changes, when would you see that impact in terms of new homes being constructed, purchased and occupied?

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

Well, first and foremost, with the inventory that’s out there, we’ll start to see that stuff fly off the shelves. That’s what we want to do, is get the stuff flying off the shelves. We want people to move out of their parents’ basements, right? Or we want their parents to move out, and the kids can stay there and the parents can go to the new place—once again, the second-time purchaser. So that will start flying. That will put more certainty within the market. Even with all the uncertainty that we have here in Canada—and that’s not caused by us; we all know that. But at the end of the day, to put certainty back in the industry, because there isn’t—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

I think we would see a lot more deals closed as soon as that happens.

Official source

Mr. Rob Cerjanec

What do you see as the average new home price here in Niagara region, or what kind of product do you think your members would be building if we were able to make this change?

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

Right now, ground-level is what people want. People don’t move to Niagara to live in high-rises, right? Or, you know, even if seniors are downsizing and everything else, they’re going to want to be in a town, right? A small, little bungalow, condos—not a condo building but cul-de-sacs and all that. That’s ground-level. People who move to Niagara, and especially our youth, don’t want to raise their children on a balcony.

Official source

Mr. Rob Cerjanec

Yes. And we want people to—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time. MPP Brady.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Chuck, I’ll continue on with you. I agree with you and your passionate presentation. I support your asks. Perhaps this is more of a comment than it is a question, but I think some of your concerns reflect a critical tension between provincial housing targets and municipal financial solvency. I’ll repeat what you said: The south Niagara waste water treatment plant—correct me if I’m wrong—is budgeted at $400 million?

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

Yes.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

And you’re asking for a third from each level of government, which is about $145 million from this government.

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

Close—I mean, the numbers are changing every day. You know how the CIP is, and everything else.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Yes.

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

Now, I give the government credit, because they have said that if the feds come on board, they’re on board. I think, somehow, if we can get this government, who have worked with our industry extremely well in the last six or seven years and done so much, to help us move forward on this somehow—if we have to, down here in Niagara, do some different funding models for the other third if the feds don’t come through, then we need to start this sooner than later. We can’t wait until we need to hook up the hospital to it.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Right, so the point I’m trying to make is this is not a unique ask. This is not a unique ask. I’ve just returned from ROMA, and every time I go to ROMA or AMO, I hear municipalities conveying their struggles with respect to infrastructure upgrades, and they’re drowning. That’s what mayors tell me, that they’re drowning. So, given that Niagara’s debt burden is forecast to double over the next five years and development charge revenues have been significantly curtailed by provincial legislation, do you think that regions like Niagara and municipalities across this province will be forced at some point to halt new development approvals and say no to new growth to protect the solvency of existing taxpayers?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

Yes. You know, I don’t know if it would get that drastic. I think, when you go back to development charges, the government has been quite clear on that, and they actually did the deferrals, which is a huge thing, because now the developer doesn’t have the finance—or the builder. I think the big thing, when we talk about development charges—and we do want to reduce the price of housing and get more stuff put in the ground—we need to deal with the needs and not the wants from now on. And within the development charges, there are a ton of wants and not needs, and the needs are being eliminated. Big, fancy community centres; big, fancy arenas; additions to libraries and everything else: They should come secondary. That should not be part of buying a home. Back in the old days, when we wanted to build an arena, we—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time. MPP Smith.

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

Thanks, Chair, I appreciate that. I’m going to start with CUPE. Fred, do you have any academic papers that support your notion that we’re leaving money on the table with corporate income tax? And, actually, I’ll answer that for you: The answer is no. Because I am currently working on a PhD on corporate income tax and the effect on the jurisdictional GDP and the economy, and there isn’t a single academic paper for the North American market. My thesis, when it’s published, will be the first. So could you tell me how you came up with the idea, then, that Ontario is leaving money on the table with corporate income tax?

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

Sure. I mean, there’s some basic stuff, but I’ll just—I don’t want to debate you about your academic credentials or career, but I will say there are lots of organizations, like Canadians for Tax Fairness, which have done a lot of academic work in relation to the challenge of the taxation system, not only federally but provincially. The truth of the matter is that when we compare ourselves to other jurisdictions, we’re leaving money on the table and, as a result, people are shouldering the burden. People can’t afford to buy homes because they’re having to pay more for their health care. This is all connected. So our corporations here in Ontario are doing quite well. They’re generating profit. They can afford to pay more in order to ensure that they, themselves, and all of us have services we need. And I would say that some of the tax breaks that have been brought in—I understand that there are academic streams of thought that think that tax cuts are programs. They’re not. There’s no guarantee that a tax cut actually generates the same kind of economic activity that an investment that is actually transparent and controlled by government, that could actually generate a measurable set of services for people—the value there is quite important. It is the way we built Ontario. It’s how we got the bridges and the hospitals and the roads and the schools and the things that we all rely on today. It’s how we didn’t have to choose, in communities, between hospitals and water infrastructure or libraries, because we actually had a taxation system that had people who made more pay more and corporations who made big profits paying their fair share. I think, in the challenging days that we’re all in, when we’re talking about defending our province, we need to think about the best way to strengthen our province, and the way to do that is to make sure that we’re actually collecting taxes from people who can afford to pay it and corporations who can afford to pay it, and reinvesting that money back into the things people need. That’s what made Ontario a great place to live and it can keep Ontario a great place to live.

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

So we’ve seen our revenues increase by just over $50 billion without raising a single tax in Ontario. In fact, we’ve had some tax cuts; we’ve had some reductions in expenses for people. But we’ve seen a growth of $50 billion. I point out that the Isle of Man, a country that has a zero corporate income tax, actually has a much stronger economy comparative to everyone else as a result of that. But I’m going to shift to some other topics. We heard a presentation earlier this week from an association or a group who came in that wants to deal with some of the racism and some challenges that we’re seeing. Their proposal to us was to have some mandatory training around racism for all public servants, and it was specifically based around anti-Semitism and the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Would you be supportive of a anti-racism training program that was mandated for Ontario public servants, specifically around anti-Semitism?

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

Well, I guess I would wonder how the government intends to pay for that when, in Niagara, we’re losing, I think, over 100 health care workers because there isn’t enough money in the system. Every day in schools, because we represent support staff in schools who—

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

The question is about anti-Semitism—

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

The question becomes how would we—

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

—and would you be supportive of—

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

—so you would want to pay for—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Order. One at a time.

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

Thanks.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

You can cut him off, and if he wants it, it’s the member’s time.

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

Thank you. The question was specifically: Would you be supportive, would CUPE be supportive, of anti-racism training, specifically around the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

Would you support that training for your CUPE members?

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not globally accepted, nor should it be. Anti-Semitism is a scourge, as is Islamophobia, as is transphobia. We would support our members and others, like government ministers, getting appropriate training. But training that doesn’t actually help to bring our communities together is not something that we would support.

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

How much time is there, Chair?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thirty seconds—28 seconds.

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

Thank you. We’ll pass it over to the next round.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Gates.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

This is actually to the two of you, and I want to get to the doctor as well. It’s critical in Niagara that we get our waste water treatment plant done. How we get there—the region has already committed. The government should commit and figure out how we get it done. Our waste water treatment plant is falling apart. We can’t build homes if that waste water treatment plant breaks down. It’s held together with a string. Thirty thousand unsold homes in Niagara? That’s crazy—40,000 jobs potentially being lost. I want to say, without a doubt, there is no shortage of skilled trades—good workers and great companies—Rankin; Mountainview Homes in Niagara. And yet, we learned yesterday there were only 62,000—a little over that—housing starts last year in Ontario, well short of the target of 150,000, and 37 of them right here can’t be sold. This is where the two of you come in: Niagara’s waste water system is aging. It can’t support growth. Our mayors are saying that without new infrastructure, housing is delayed, costs go up, and families face higher rates and bills. From your perspective—the two of you—why are regular people of Niagara paying the price when water and waste water infrastructure isn’t funded properly by all levels of government? Hopefully, the two of you can—

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

Thank you for that, MPP Gates. I just wanted to correct a few things. I’m sorry; maybe I wasn’t clear when I brought that out. The 37,000 homes that are sitting are clear across Ontario.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

Oh, okay.

Official source

Mr. Chuck McShane

And the 40,000 jobs are clear across Ontario—which, if we continue at this rate, by 2030 it’s projected to be 100,000 job losses. When it comes to the waste water treatment plant, the provincial government has committed to it, but there is the one stipulation that the feds kick their third in. What we’re hoping is that maybe we can work with the provincial government down here to get that much-needed plant put in. We can work on other ways to come up with the other third, but if we get it started, we can put more pressure on the feds to give us that cash.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

Go ahead, Fred.

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

I’d just quickly add that the current government’s future for water infrastructure is quite dangerous for all of us. In Bill 60, passed in an accelerated time frame, it facilitated the creation of what is called a public water corporation in the region of Peel. It’s governed under the Corporations Act. It ostensibly would allow that region and its new public corporation to borrow money. That’s great, isn’t it? I don’t know. It’s because the government doesn’t want to fund this infrastructure, and it’s trying to find another way to do it. We are seeing it in our health care system. We’re seeing it in social services. For the love of God, every one of us relies on water. It sustains our life. We all lived through—or some of us; some of you are too young. Many of us lived through the Walkerton tragedy. We do not want to go back there. That is where we are headed. Yes, of course the government should fund its infrastructure in Niagara. It should fund it across the province. It should relieve the burden on municipalities. It should allow them to levy development fees to make sure that water infrastructure is part of how we do planning. That is the way we built our province, and we’re headed in the wrong direction.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

I just want to say, it’s one thing to say that you’re committed to it; it’s another thing to actually put the dollars forward. We need the provincial dollars to come now, along with the region. And then, you’re absolutely right: Maybe we can put some pressure on the federal government to come to the table. But if we don’t come to the table, we’re going to be in a real mess. This question is for Fred. Leave me enough time to say something to the doctor. Bill 124 suppressed wages right across Ontario for many workers during a cost-of-living crisis, and many are still waiting for full remedy. How should the next Ontario budget fairly address that shortfall and support these essential workers?

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

It should find a remedy for all workers who haven’t received it. Health care workers, education workers, college workers, people who work directly for the provincial government, people who work for the LCBO have all gotten around 6.5% retroactively applied to their wages in recognition that money was stolen out of their pockets with an illegal bill.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

So should child care workers, developmental service workers and community agency workers—mainly women, mainly racialized workers. The government could fund that remedy in the budget.

Official source

MPP Wayne Gates

Thank you. I just want to say to the doctor, I have a mechanical heart valve. If it wasn’t for a doctor like yourself that decided to do an operation on me, I wouldn’t be here today. I’m on warfarin, and I take it every day. So I’m just saying from the bottom of my heart, I’m not the only life that you’ve saved, for sure. I just want to say thank you for everything you do every day. I was scared to death when it happened, but the doctor that took care of me, Dr. Chu, was wonderful; very compassionate. I just want to say thank you and tell everybody else. I greatly appreciate everything you do every single day to save lives, so thank you.

Official source

Dr. John Parker

Thank you.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you. I’ll now go to the third party. MPP Smyth.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Mr. Hahn, I just wanted to ask you—follow up—on why you reject the definition of anti-Semitism, the IHRA definition.

Official source

Mr. Fred Hahn

It’s not about what I reject. Our union had a debate about it. Our members have taken a position that’s consistent with many other organizations who have rejected this definition because what the definition does is conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. We’re still witnessing a global genocide that, I think, increasingly, people around the globe have understood is deeply horrible. And in Ontario, it would be useful for us to think about, in a budget consultation, how we’re actually dealing with some of these challenges that are deeply dividing our communities. It is true that discrimination, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and transphobia are being used to divide us against each other so that we can fight with one another instead of actually thinking about how we work together to make Ontario the kind of place that we all want it to be: where your community school is well staffed; where you can go to the hospital and not have to wait for 27 hours in an emergency room; where you can actually get child care that’s affordable; where if you fall on hard times, there’s a social safety net that will support you; where if you get injured at work, you know that you’re going to get supports, and where that money isn’t somehow being returned to employers simply because no one died this year so you get a bonus. All these things, in my mind, are connected, and I think they matter deeply. I think most people in the province want a future like the one I described, and I think there are ways for us to get there if we focus on that together.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Thank you. I want to move on to Dr. Parker with the Ontario Association of Cardiologists. It’s wonderful that life-saving things are going on all the time. You mentioned 54% of consulting in non-hospitals is what you do now; 72% follow-up care. It’s only growing, and hospitals would in no way be able to absorb this. This is a common refrain we’re seeing about what’s going on in hospitals and our critical care—and this is critical care. What code would you give this situation right now in terms of a wake-up call for this government to be able to maintain the level of service that you have right now that is taking that load off the hospitals?

Official source

Dr. John Parker

I’m not sure what code I would give it. I think, actually, what’s happening is good, that you don’t actually have to have tens of thousands of patients who need ambulatory care, do not need hospital-based care, can see a highly trained cardiologist in the community. The hope with this presentation is just to recognize that this is a very large area of care which is not receiving any financial support from the government outside of what have been historically called physician fees. I did mention that physician reimbursement for seeing a patient has not really gone up very much over the last 15 years. In fact, this is something to highlight: There probably is a need for the Ministry of Health to begin to look at these clinics, look at their volumes and give them some basal funding to help them support the ever-increasing cost of supplies, personnel, technology and renewal of equipment, as they do within hospital global budgets. For me, I think even I was surprised when I saw that truly 75% of long-term care of patients with chronic cardiac problems occurs in these ambulatory settings that are outside of hospitals. So, the code I’m not sure of, but the need is clear. The system now runs primarily on a patchwork of making things work fiscally, but it’s been increasingly hard to do for clinics who actually continue to hire and pay staff appropriately, because the funding envelope is entirely fixed to physician reimbursement and technical fee reimbursement. Technical fee reimbursement is actually a major, major issue. It’s something that doesn’t impact me directly, but technical fees, in some of the common testing we do, didn’t change for 20 years. And of course, costs have gone up astronomically.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Dr. John Parker

On a broad-based perspective, I think, since we have a global health care system in Ontario, that we should actually have a look, identify clinics, make sure they’re doing a good job—which I think all of them are—and think of a way to look at their volumes, fund them in a way that stabilizes their fiscal base and make sure they keep running appropriately.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Okay, one more question quickly—if you’re able to answer it quickly, do the best you can: How do you think earlier investment in cardiac care could reduce costly emergency and in-patient admissions?

Official source

Dr. John Parker

They would be probably primary care based to identify risk factors earlier, and many, many young people don’t have a family doctor. But actually, primary prevention is something which really mandates that a person who is in there after the age of 40 needs assessment for hypertension, hyperlipidemia and other risk factors. That’s the opening door. Cardiology has not done that. Cardiology would, if asked, but it’s really a primary care mandate.

Official source

MPP Stephanie Smyth

Thank you so much.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. We’ll go to MPP Brady.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

I’ll turn my focus to Mr. Hahn. I see in your report under school boards that you are requesting a designated early childhood educator in every kindergarten class, along with an EA. The truth is, Ontario is experiencing a critical and growing shortage of these professionals. It would be great if we could add EAs to improve special education outcomes, but the truth is we can’t, due to that shortage. I think it will be years before we can ever close those gaps on those professionals. Make no mistake: I want to see the chaos in our classrooms and our schools disappear, like, yesterday. But we have to be very honest as to what things look like today, not how we wished they’d look today. So, how does CUPE propose we actually stretch those limited resources without compromising student and teacher safety while maybe we wait for a new funding formula? And in the immediate absence of those professionals, would CUPE support shifting towards specialized hubs or centres of excellence to consolidate the professionals and the limited resources that we currently have?

Official source