It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this House and today speak on Bill 75 on behalf of the official opposition, the third reading of An Act of enact the Queen’s Park Restoration Secretariat Act, 2023, and to make certain amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and to follow the government House leader.

I’ve been here for 12 years. This is—I believe all Parliaments are, but this is the only I’ve experienced—a unique place, a unique work environment, and a place very few Ontarians have the privilege of ever working in. What we should strive for is that as many Ontarians as possible can experience this place. That’s one of the goals of the restoration act.

But to truly understand what this place means, just think about what we’ve discussed in the last week. Bill 60, a health care act: The official opposition are incredibly opposed to that. We made it very clear, which is our right. The government believes in what they’ve proposed, which is their right. We voted. The vote was over. The mining act: We will be voting on that after. We voted for it in second reading because we believe in the principles. How we vote in the end will be based on what we heard in the committee.

They are both partisan but very important. This one is as important, but this one is non-partisan. We all want to serve. We want this place to serve the people of Ontario, to allow those of us who are lucky enough to get elected to represent the people, who are fortunate enough to work here, to be able to serve the people of Ontario to the best of our abilities and their abilities. I think this bill and how it has come to this point is an example of how sometimes this Legislature can work very well, where amendments are proposed that actually weren’t even in order, but we agreed to put them forward. I will touch on them a little bit, but it shows how, when there are issues that we all—when we need to, when we should, that we all can pull in the same direction, and I think that’s very important.

I think everyone, when they walk through the doors for the first time, and I’m sure the vast majority—I can’t speak for all of us, but I still have that feeling when I walk through the doors that it’s something special to walk through the doors in this place. When I walked through the first time, I thought it was the most—it was like walking into a cathedral for me, a cathedral of democracy. It really was. That’s one thing that we don’t want to lose, ever.

But now that I have worked here for 12 years, there are structural things that prevent or make it harder for the people here to do their jobs. There comes a time when—can you imagine how big a project this was to build in the first place? There was a picture once in the cafeteria—the cafeteria is one of my favourite places, by the way. There was a picture in the cafeteria of this building and University Avenue, and University Avenue was all trees. It was forest. Can you imagine what it took for parliamentarians to decide to build a place like this? And when part of it burned, what it took to rebuild again?

Now it’s time to rejuvenate. If you’re going to rejuvenate the precinct, the legislative building, it is a major undertaking, because, yes, if 12 years ago, before I walked into this building somebody said, “Well, everybody is going to have to move out and we’re going to have to do”—I would have said, “No, no, you can just do a piece at a time.” But that’s not how this place works, because in this hall, in the legislative chamber, there will be a time today where emotions run high and we will, at points, not be very friendly to each other, and that wouldn’t work in a setting where we are much closer. It just wouldn’t work. There is a reason why there are these spaces. There’s a reason: to allow us to do our job, to allow us to debate, to allow emotions to run high, and now to allow them to cool down.

To rebuild, to rejuvenate this structure so that it actually can perform the way modern buildings should, but that it can maintain this cathedral of democracy, is going to take a lot of effort, a lot of planning. The effort and the planning actually have just begun. I would also like to commend the committee for the work they’ve done so far, and I’d like to commend the Legislative Assembly staff for the work they’ve done so far, but the work is just beginning. It’s just beginning, because we have the opportunity now to actually make this cathedral of democracy accessible to all, accessible to all cultures, all people, and that’s not a small undertaking. I would like to say, we—particularly the staff—have all done what we could to make it accessible with what we’ve got. But we have a chance now to truly make it accessible, to make democracy accessible to all Ontarians.

If you look at the carving of the Seven Grandfather Teachings from Indigenous people, we need to take the time—and the committee is going to do that—to truly make not only the structure but our system a partner to Indigenous people in this province so that they see their own history here. Because in many ways, the history of this building starts in 1867, but that’s not when the history of Ontario starts. We should think about what we can do to make sure the history before this building was built is included now that the building is going to be reconfigured.

I don’t want—we don’t want—the building to be rebuilt. There are parts of this building, many parts, that we all treasure, that Ontarians treasure. When schools come, when kids come—my riding is a long ways away; I don’t get as many children, school kids coming as others sometimes. But when I do get them coming, for many, if you’re coming from New Liskeard or Cochrane and you tour through this building, it’s a place like you’ve never seen. We don’t want to lose that. But it has to be a place that functions and a place that includes everyone.

I would also like to speak to the two fundamental changes that have been made—“fundamental” is perhaps not the right word—to the bill itself. One is the clarification of, as the project continues, what is subject to freedom of information and what won’t be. Quite frankly, that is a concern among some people, and rightfully so. Sometimes, this is a fractious place. This is and would be a G20 economy, this province.

Just to clarify, what is not subject to freedom of information for 20 years is any documentation that comes from the assembly itself. As for what comes from the new secretariat—the contracts to build—that would still be subject. It’s not that we’re throwing this in a big dark hole and no one will ever know how much this is going to cost or did cost. That’s not the case. But there is very sensitive information that the assembly holds, and some of that is going to be needed for the secretariat to make these decisions. That documentation is also not subject to freedom of information now, so when that is going to be used in the future, it should also not be subject to freedom of information laws for 20 years. That, I think, is a good clarification.

The second, regarding legislative protective services: When—it’s a word I have never used before until I got here. When we do decant, when we move en masse to another location, the legislative protective services are going to have to not only follow us, but protect not only us but the information that flows. It’s going to be much more spread out, so it makes sense that they should have the ability to do that off this site. It makes sense. Also, it makes sense that they have the training—in the subject matter where they are trained, they are equivalent or better trained than any other police service in this province. It also makes sense that they should have the ability to be peace officers outside this legislative precinct; for example, in our constituency offices. I think in both cases, those changes make sense.

This is going to be a long, long road. There’s no doubt about it. I think there are times we are all going to shake our heads and wonder what we’re going to do next. When we toured the Parliament buildings in Ottawa—I personally didn’t truly understand the scope of the project until I did that tour. I can’t remember his title, but to the person who was giving us this tour I suggested it would be the best reality home reno series ever seen, because it was incredible.

I look at this place differently now. When I walk through and I see cables taped to the wall, I say, “Well, they’ve got to go, but wait a second, that moulding, that can’t go. That is going to have to be taken apart, to be coded, stored somewhere, perhaps refinished—for sure—and placed back.” That is a lot of—I’m a bit of a rough carpenter myself, and I like to demo; you just take the sledge hammer and demo everything, you buy all new and put it back in. That’s not the case here, and it certainly shouldn’t be. We want to rejuvenate, but we also want to protect so people who walk through these doors for the next hundred years have the same feeling that we do. If we can use the spaces in this place that aren’t used efficiently now, because times have changed—the legislative library was full of books. We don’t use a lot of those books anymore. It’s digital.

There’s room for big ideas, and I encourage Ontarians to think big. We encourage Ontarians often: “Don’t settle. Think big.” With this project, I encourage parliamentarians from all sides, because there isn’t really a side on this one, to think big. If you think too big, you know what, it’s not going to happen, but we’re at the point where there’s no such thing as a bad idea right now. Now is the time for ideas. The first big one is that we are deciding to actually take this step, and it’s a big one. Now that we’re deciding, now we have the chance to really envision what our forebears envisioned when they built this place in the middle of a forest, what they envisioned and what Ontario has become.

We disagree on some of the things that happen in this province, but we all agree that it is one of the greatest places in the world to live. That is why we work so hard to get here to represent the views of the people in our various part of the province. Always in the back of my mind is, what can we do to envision the next 100 years?

We are in favour of Bill 75. We want to work together with all parliamentarians, with all the staff, with all Ontarians. Often when we introduce people, we say, “Welcome to your House.” We now have a chance to do everything we can to make sure that people from all walks of life, all parts of the province, all races, all colours, all creeds, feel like this is their House. I encourage all parliamentarians, all Ontarians, to think big and to take that chance.

With that, Speaker, I would like to move the adjournment of the debate. Thank you.

Please let me introduce some great Ontarians, leaders in the agri-food business that help keep Ontario fed every day and the founders of St. Helen’s Meat Packers: Robert Bielak; his wife, Gloria; and their daughters Rachel and Jaclyn. Welcome to the Legislature of Ontario.

Thank you to the member opposite for the question. It is this government that believes all Ontarians deserve a home and will not waiver when it comes to protecting new home buyers’ investments in their future.

Under this Premier, it is this government has not only committed to building 1.5 million new homes, but it is adding new ways to improve protection for Ontarians across our province. The changes we implemented over the last few months have put bad developers on notice and made bad developers think twice before trying to take advantage of our homebuyers. Hard-working Ontarians can rest assured that our government has their backs when they make the biggest purchase of their lives, with or without the support of the opposition.

Interjections.

Speaker, on this side and on that side too, we are here—

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. It is good news that our government is providing new payment options that make it easier to travel on our public transit networks. Access to more payment options is long overdue and is important to many individuals and families.

Public transit is an essential service, and our government must continue to invest in public transit infrastructure so that people can be better connected to jobs and travel.

Can the associate minister please explain what our government is doing to ensure that reliable and convenient transit service is available for all Ontarians?

My question is for the Solicitor General.

Sadly, I’m hearing concerns from the people of my community about increased criminal activity. Of course, the issue extends beyond our local community of Brampton East. We’ve all heard media reports about a rise in attacks on religious institutions and hateful graffiti. Hate-motivated incidents that target individuals, families and businesses based on their ethnicity, religion, race or gender have many feeling vulnerable and threatened.

The public safety of all Ontarians must be our government’s highest priority. The people of my community and all Ontarians are counting on our government for support and solutions.

Speaker, can the Solicitor General please explain how our government is addressing crime and increasing protection for Ontario communities?

It’s reassuring that our police services are well-trained and well-equipped to protect our communities. We value the dedication and service of our front-line police officers.

Ontario is one of the most diverse places in the world, and everyone is responsible to be respectful and welcoming to all. The words and actions that we all use must help build stronger, safer and more inclusive communities across our province.

Speaker, can the Solicitor General please explain what other actions our government is taking to support the safety and protection of all Ontarians?

I thank my honourable colleague for the question. It’s been this government that has been there for every single Ontarian when we said we’re not going to leave them behind. I will just remind the member of all the decisions that they have voted against.

First of all, the largest increase to support the most vulnerable here in the province—what did the opposition do? They voted against it. Then the rates were aligned to inflation, which was the right thing to do to provide more support for Ontarians at a time of high costs and everything as a result of the carbon tax that they supported, that we are against, Mr. Speaker. Time and time and time again, it’s this government that’s fighting for Ontarians. The NDP will say one thing when the lights are on and the cameras are rolling, and then when it comes to actually voting and supporting Ontarians, they’ll continue to turn their back on them, just like they failed, supporting the Liberals in 15 years, Mr. Speaker. We said from the beginning—

Interjections.

I want to thank the member from Carleton for that important question.

Time and again, the only thing we ever hear from members opposite is no. What they fail to realize is that reducing red tape is about the impact these changes are having on real people and businesses across our great province—changes like helping businesses embrace new technologies like carbon capture and storage. Reducing red tape on these projects will unleash innovation, and it will create hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments right across our great province.

While our government knows there is a tremendous economic and environmental potential for carbon storage, the opposition wants to keep the red tape barriers in place. Mr. Speaker, we are never going to let that happen. Our government will never stop fighting for a better future for Ontarians and make sure our province is prosperous.

I also want to point out that I’ve yet to receive a single idea from any of the members opposite. They don’t even have a critic responsible for red tape reduction. While this is disappointing, it is not unexpected. That’s because, as we all know, the Liberals, supported by the NDP, came up with the highest burden the province had in the country.

However, since 2018, our government has taken strong action to cut Ontario’s regulatory burden by over 16,000 regulatory compliance requirements, which helps businesses big or small with, on average, $700 million annually.

Mr. Speaker, we have invested more than $1.2 billion towards helping communities through the Social Services Relief Fund—$1.2 billion to help with food, to help with the cost of housing; investing $83 million through the Ontario Trillium Foundation to support non-profit organizations, including food banks; $8 million in support for funding Feed Ontario. Mr. Speaker, every single measure that we’ve taken to help Ontarians during the cost of high prices everywhere, the NDP continuously votes against. They will never support lowering costs in this province. You’ve seen them; you’ve heard them. They’ll say one thing here in the House, but as soon as it comes to actions, they’re MIA. They don’t exist.

It’s this Premier and it’s this government that says we’ll make sure that every single Ontarian is supported and no one is left behind, and we’ll put—

Interjections.

I think that’s a great question, but I don’t think I’m the person to answer that question, actually, because if there’s one thing I’ve learned in working with Indigenous people, it’s the idea of the two-row wampum, for those who know what it is—the Hiawatha Belt, as it’s also called. It was actually made with Dutch settlers to New York 400 years ago. It was the idea of two nations walking side by side in perpetuity without mixing each other up.

We have spent hundreds of years destroying that belt, tearing it to pieces and scattering those beads all over the place. But with a project like this, I believe we have an opportunity to knit those pieces back together. We owe that to the people who were here before us. I really look forward to hearing the input on how this could be a place that Indigenous people could also call home.

The building systems are at end of life. The fact that there’s things posted all around the building: “Don’t drink the water because there’s lead in the pipes.” I think we should be something that should be a place for all Ontarians and that actually shows something that is good and top of the line for every single person, too.

And then just the spaces that we have—they’re all so different. We need something that’s equal for everyone who’s here. I’ll end there for now.

I don’t know. I walk through here and I look at everything. I had the cadets in here earlier today and I said, “Have a good look around, because if this piece of legislation passes, this building will be closed for the next 10 years.” And I wonder how many of us will still be here when it’s done. I hope we can all come back and see each other again.

But I think we have the know-how in Ontario in order to be able to be realistic and to preserve the pieces that are very, very important. But even more than that, I envision what could be new that brings other people together into this building. I think it’s very, very important. We have a unique opportunity to build a space where my colleague from Kiiwetinoong wouldn’t feel like he’s walking into something that was built by people that oppressed his people, but a place that also belongs to him.

It’s that reminder that we come from all over the province. That’s why I was saying, every neighbourhood is going to say that they are the heart of their area. I don’t know what the committee will ultimately recommend, but if I were to imagine the opportunity to travel more, I would say that we have that opportunity with different committees, and maybe we make that a priority—the government can make that a priority in different ways.

Back to what I had been saying about the operations of this space—and not to limit, but I do know that broadcast and recording folks have to come with us when we travel. They came with us—and thank you—when we went to Ottawa so that we could ensure that we had Hansard, that we were accessible to Ontarians in the work that we did there. Whatever we do, we’re going to have to factor in everybody who works behind the scenes to make the magic happen, whatever that looks like.

But as a former educator, what if we had a section—and I’m just making this up—that was more of a museum? We have dark chapters in our history and we have bright spots in our history. What if we had a section that told about the power of government and the massive responsibility, the bad decisions when things go badly, and tell that story and actually educate in this space? I think that would be worth considering.

There’s a lot of stuff that happens in here that has been patchwork—and done really well. I’m standing here feeling safe and secure. However, we do have to plan for that inevitability of things requiring not just repair work but replacement work. As we’re fine-tuning some of the pieces, there is way bigger stuff behind the walls, in the roof—it’s really remarkable to know what happens behind the scenes here.