Thank you to the member opposite for that important question.

Mr. Speaker, we could have saved the Auditor General some time and money. Maybe we should have done a value-for-money on this finding—because, of course, as the member opposite knows, we take the cost of auto insurance very seriously. As the member opposite knows, through the pandemic, we saw rate relief of $1.3 billion for drivers in this province.

The member opposite—because I know he’s a very learned fellow—has read page 102 of the budget that was tabled in April, which, as the member for Brampton South just highlighted, his party didn’t vote for.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll highlight what’s on page 102 in the supplemental question.

Mr. Speaker, maybe I’ll take the member opposite out for lunch.

I do appreciate the question. It’s a very serious question.

Let me read from page 103—sorry—from the budget, which I’m sure the learned member read: “The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario is implementing a new strategy for reforming the regulation of automobile insurance rates and underwriting. As part of the new strategy, FSRA will be developing a new framework for ensuring fairness in rates that would replace outdated guidance, including existing guidance on territorial rating”—also known as postal codes.

So I’d ask the member opposite: Do you support that in the budget, and why did you vote no?

Interjections.

I come back to the pandemic—$1.3 billion of relief; zero increases for two years, because we’ve been focused on keeping costs down for the people of Ontario.

But it just doesn’t end with territorial ratings—that we’re looking to provide value for auto insurance premiums and the people of Ontario. We’re also looking at choice. That’s also on page 103. We’re looking at more choice for auto drivers who want more choice in the industry. We’re also looking at fraud and abuse. We’ve directed FSRA to collect the data so that we can tackle fraud and abuse in the system.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows well that this government’s priority is to provide relief to the hard-working people of Ontario. That’s what we ran on, and that’s what we’ll—

Thank you to the member opposite for that question.

Mr. Speaker, those contracts, which were signed about a decade ago, in 2012—between 2011 and 2014, I think there was a minority government. And who supported the minority Liberals?

Interjection: Catherine Fife.

Over the last decade, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. has been good for taxpayers—in fact, the most recent year returned $1.5 billion to the taxpayers of this great province. Not only that—provided significant growth to the economy through good jobs, good-paying jobs, bigger paycheques.

Finally, the citizens of this province have a great entertainment industry, through the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., that provides entertainment value to the citizens at all the casinos and all the great—

The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. has a very rigorous process, has policies and procedures in place—and they’ve increased their enforcement over the years and are doing a terrific job.

We will always go after bad actors.

But let me tell you this: I have to question the scope and the mission creep of the Auditor General using taxpayer dollars to do a sting operation in an area where we have plenty of enforcement in this province.

We are going to go after the bad actors. We are going to make sure that we have the high standards in this province. We take it seriously, the OLG takes it seriously, and this government takes it seriously.