Supplementary question?

The next question. Start the clock.

To reply, the Minister of Transportation.

Back to the transportation minister: 16 months ago, the transportation minister said she would investigate consultant Brian Guest and his firm, Boxfish. Mr. Guest was a key adviser to Ottawa’s LRT, a former vice-president of Metrolinx and the key leader in most of Toronto’s LRT contracts, including the Eglinton Crosstown. Boxfish earned millions for contracts in LRT systems that are failing or don’t work. The minister at the time said she was “extremely concerned about any perceived or potential conflict of interest” with Mr. Guest and pledged to investigate him and Boxfish.

Speaker, we have done our own investigation, and we have confirmed that Mr. Guest has never been investigated; neither has Boxfish.

If the Minister of Transportation was truly extremely concerned, why did she break her promise to this House and the people of Ontario and fail to investigate Mr. Guest or Boxfish for any of these contracts?

So, very clearly, to the minister: The investigation that she claims to have done—will you make that internal investigation public? Will accountability be brought to the Eglinton Crosstown, to stage 1 of Ottawa’s LRT, and to every other transit project being done under this government?

Interjections.

A few weeks ago, the NDP and I presented evidence of a cash-for-access culture in minor hockey that is letting rich parents buy their children spots on teams, shutting out talented, young athletes in the process. Evidence of not-for-profit teams being bought and sold for millions in private profits—the Minister of Sport shrugged his shoulders.

Since then, a whistle-blower provided the minister with new evidence of this widespread corruption—financial documents and communiqué that suggested this is happening at every level. Do you know what they heard back from the minister? Nothing.

My question to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport: How much more evidence of corruption does he need before he takes complete action?

Speaker, I don’t buy it. The minister says an independent investigation is under way, but it is akin to the GTHL investigating itself. The minister says he has “no authority.” Speaker, that is not accurate at all. His ministry regulates provincial sports organizations. The Ontario Hockey Federation is that organization; the GTHL is its member. The ministry requires these organizations to verify annually that they meet the requirements for this special status. Speaker, the puck is supposed to stop with the Minister of Sport.

Back to him: When will the Minister of Sport do his job and take responsibility by launching an actual investigation to stop this corruption?

Supplementary?

The supplementary question?

My question is for the Minister of Energy. Individuals and families and even businesses in my community, as well as all across Ontario, are looking for relief on their energy bills. When our government was first elected in 2018, we made a commitment to make life more affordable for the people of Ontario. We have to make every effort to deliver on our commitment, and we need to be providing more ways for Ontarians to take control of their energy bills and encourage energy conservation.

Under the previous Liberal government, Ontario witnessed out-of-control energy costs as a result of their failed policies. The people of Ontario expect our government to do all that we can do to reduce these costs.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is providing support to the people of Ontario in helping them save on their energy bills?

It’s encouraging to hear about the many different energy initiatives and supports brought forward by our government to help Ontario’s hard-working families and businesses.

However, affordable energy remains a serious issue for our province. Our government must continue to implement solutions that will bring costs down and provide help to Ontarians, after the previous Liberal government squandered our province’s clean-energy advantage. Our government must continue to show respect for the people of Ontario by implementing programs that offer choice and will help to reduce costs.

Can the minister please share more details about the recently announced Peak Perks energy program and how this will benefit the people of Ontario?

Speaker, the mission to Germany was an opportunity to build on the $25 billion in auto and EV investments that we’ve landed in Ontario in the last two and a half years. We were able to thank the Volkswagen team who we worked with day to day to land this historic $7-billion investment here in Ontario.

It was an opportunity to discuss the nature of the main suppliers they now need to begin operations. Cathode, anode, separator, copper foil, electrolyte, lithium hydroxide: Speaker, these aren’t just words. Each of those are main components needed in a battery and each of those represents a $1-billion-to-$3-billion company coming here to Ontario.

Speaker, we’re also talking about a suppliers’ day to help identify opportunities for their new facility in St. Thomas.

We also took a day trip to Poland to meet with similar companies.

What we heard everywhere was consistent: In this turmoil-filled world—post-pandemic, Russian invasion, Chinese-dominated supply chains—they all look at Ontario as a sea of calm and a stable, reliable, trusted partner. They also view Ontario as a safe jurisdiction, safe for their employees, safe for their families, safe for their executives to visit. We showed them that Ontario is all that and more.

My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Last week, the minister was in Germany again to continue meeting with and attracting investments in the automotive and EV sectors. With the recent news of Volkswagen coming to Ontario, there is no question that the province should continue to focus on its manufacturing capabilities and ensure that there are good jobs for families across the province now and into future.

Speaker, can the minister please provide us with an update on his recent trade mission to Germany?

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please elaborate on how companies overseas feel about investing in Ontario, and what they see our competitive edge to be?

Good morning to everyone. I thank the member opposite for the question.

I’ve been in contact with the members of the GTHL and we have discussed the ongoing investigation that is happening, that if something is exposed with respect to wrongdoing, dollars or whatever, we—as in our ministry—will be brought up to speed.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I don’t want to get caught up in is speculation—someone says one thing, and someone says something else. Let’s, like everything else, get the facts of what’s going on. When we get the facts, we will respond. But only until we have the facts and the information—then we can make good decisions.

The GTHL is a member of the Ontario Hockey Federation, and I think she knows that, Mr. Speaker, because the member opposite is well versed in what’s going on.

But, again, when we talk about an independent investigation, I don’t believe I’ve received a phone call back from those that are doing the investigation or the GTHL with their findings.

Once again, I know there are conversations that go around. It is sport, Mr. Speaker, and everyone has an opinion. But I’d rather respond and act on results and specific information before we would get involved with the PSOs and help sort this out.

Stop the clock.

Restart the clock. Next question.

Premier?

The supplementary question.

I wouldn’t say it three times fast, but the Peak Perks program is an energy efficiency program that means families will have yet another tool to help them with their energy bills. Families are going to receive a $75 financial incentive this year for lowering their energy use at peak times, and they can receive it in future years, as well, if they remain in the program—a $20 incentive. That’s good for families, and it’s really good for our grid. And this new program—

Interjections.

We’re bringing in an—

Interjections.

My question is to the Premier. Bill 97 will allow three severed residential lots per farm property. This could severely limit livestock expansion because of MDS guidelines. In response to my question a few weeks ago, the minister stated: “We have taken a thoughtful approach, and we are going to be okay.” Since then, Ontario farmers have united to stand in strong opposition to the proposed severances—beef farmers, Ontario Pork, dairy farmers, chicken farmers, OFA, CFFO, NFU and others. These are the people who feed our cities, and they’re telling you this is a mistake.

Will you remove the ag severance provisions from Bill 97?

So I’m encouraged that you’re willing to reconsider. I hope that the Premier does reconsider and fixes Bill 97 so that livestock operations aren’t restricted when they try to expand.

Interjections.

Thank you for the question. This is going to be one of the times we all kind of agree, including the farmers. We do. We had a great meeting with all the farmers on Friday and came up with a solution about the severance. But the number one complaint that I get when I go to the farms is, “I want my kids to stay on the farm,” and there are certain jurisdictions that won’t allow you to build an additional residence.

The other number one complaint is—and I heard it this morning from a farmer I spoke to on the way down here: He has 100 migrant workers who work on the farm who are critical to his operation, but he has no place to put them. We’re going to come up with a happy compromise and work with the farmers, because they’re the ones who have to live with this day in and day out. Believe it or not, we’re all kind of on the same page here. We’re going to work with them.

But they did say one thing, Mr. Speaker. They said there’s no government in the history of this province that supported the farmers more than this government and they appreciated it.

My question is for the Minister of Health. Just over two months ago, I tabled my private member’s bill to address the most predatory hiring and recruitment practices used by temporary nursing agencies, while also establishing a safe and responsible licensing framework. Mere days after I tabled this legislation, the Minister of Long-Term Care stated that he would form a technical advisory committee to examine the issue of price gouging by nursing agencies.

But since then, it’s been radio silence. Instead, all we’ve heard is a cry for help from hospitals and health care workers in response to legislation like Bill 124 and a worsening lack of government support. This kind of public policy makes the tragic situation in Minden inevitable. Now this government is doing what it does best: It’s looking the other way. It’s washing its hands of the Minden hospital, and it’s washing its hands of our health care system. Why? So that temporary nursing agencies can profit? So that private, for-profit clinics can turn a profit?

This government is an expert in looking the other way. When will the Minister of Health stop looking the other way and look at the mess she’s made of Minden’s and Ontario’s health care?

Patients rely on local emergency departments in times of crisis. This isn’t about Minden, it’s about the 2.2 million Ontarians who don’t have access to a family doctor, who are forced to rely on emergency rooms as their only source of primary care.

This government claims hospital closures are not their jurisdiction. Well, the greenbelt wasn’t supposed to be their jurisdiction either, but somehow this government finds a way to get what it wants.

If they wanted to keep local hospitals open, they would. Solving emergency room closures would mean paying health care workers a fair wage. It would mean telling private, for-profit interests to rein it in. But they won’t.

I know this government loves saying yes to corporate interests, but just for once, for the sake of patients, not profits, will this government say no to the most predatory practices of temporary nursing agencies?

Speaker, the NDP continues to spread misinformation about our government’s balanced and thoughtful proposal—

Interjections.

While the member opposite continues to defend the status quo, we are not satisfied with the status quo here, which is why we have made so many different investments that are ensuring we have health human resources available across Ontario.

We are experiencing challenges, as are all Canadian jurisdictions, in ensuring that we have sufficient staffing. But we are doing that with investments: two new medical schools in the province of Ontario. We have never seen this kind of investment in training, in retaining, in keeping and giving people the opportunities to practise in medicine that we have in the province of Ontario.

I might remind the member opposite that it was actually Kathleen Wynne, in her major exit interview after she was defeated, who talked about the regret that she had in terms of cutting residency positions for physicians and, in fact, not sufficiently supporting the health care system. We’re making the investments. We’re doing that work. It’s—

As the member opposite talks about the need for investments, he actually voted against Bill 60. What would Bill 60 do? It actually ensures that people have as of right, so clinicians who are practising in other Canadian jurisdictions, for the first time in Canada, are going to be able to start working immediately in Ontario as they get that licence approved through the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

It is very challenging for me to listen to this information while we make the investments and they continue to continuously vote against those same investments. I don’t understand how you cannot make the connection as a physician to understand that as of right in the province of Ontario is going to increase the capacity, ensuring the College of Physicians and Surgeons immediately access, approve and ultimately assess and give licences to internationally educated and trained physicians. Those are the changes that we are making that could have been done under the previous Liberal government but—

Thank you. The next question.

Thank you very much to the member for Cambridge for that question. During the 15 years of the former Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, we saw job-killing regulation after job-killing regulation brought into this chamber. It led to 300,000 manufacturing jobs leaving this province.

But under the leadership of this Premier and this government, we’re taking a different approach. Today, we started third reading of the Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act, which will build Ontario’s businesses by cutting red tape. The Liberals and NDP left businesses in places like Niagara and across small communities in this riding without help when it came to accessing the broadband infrastructure they deserved, but by removing red tape, our government is getting the job done. We’re making that process faster and ensuring that communities like those in Cambridge, like mine in Niagara West, are receiving the services they deserve, when and where they need them.

My question is for the Minister of Red Tape Reduction. Small businesses are crucial to Ontario’s economy and their success, and their accomplishments are felt in all communities across the province. Unfortunately, many of them bear the burden of excessive regulation that prevents them from further growth. Ontario business owners want regulations that are easier to understand, faster to implement and less costly to comply with. That is why our government must continue to help people and businesses to save time and resources by reducing red tape, which will encourage new investments.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how our government is paving the way for better services and helping small businesses grow?