It’s a pleasure to get up and speak to the Get It Done bill, the predecessor to the “get it undone” bill, which will be the predecessor to the Get It Done bill and then to the next “get it undone” bill. So, backwards and forwards they go; backwards and forwards we go.

When I came in here this afternoon, it kind of felt like church. It was very quiet—almost holy. It felt like a place of sanctuary.

Let’s just start with road tolls. Newspaper headlines across the province: “Ontario Banning Road Tolls.” “They’re banning it.” “We’re doing it; we’re getting it done.” But the tolls are still the same on the 407, the piece we don’t own and the piece we do own. Is that right? Somebody can answer this when they get up in questions, but I don’t think you’re taking tolls off the provincial portion of the 407. And I think most Ontarians, when they looked at that, probably thought, “Oh, good.” But there will be a sad reality when they find out that they’re still paying tolls.

The members across the aisle like to bring up history all the time, like to throw stuff back in people’s faces. What your government did while saying you want to ban tolls is you forgot that your party ensured that road tolls will be on the 407 and continue to increase in perpetuity, forever. You sold it. You’ve got no control. As a matter of fact, you forgave a billion dollars. So I don’t think you’re for drivers.

You know, that billion dollars would have been really handy. It would have prevented a lot of Ontarians from having to decide, “Do I need my credit card, or do I need my health card? Which one?” I’m not holding up the cards. I’d love to be able to do that, but I know the Speaker would let me know that that wasn’t right. I want to be on my best behaviour this afternoon. Which one, folks? Which one?

Here’s a suggestion: I think a member across the aisle could say, “You know what? I’m going to make an amendment to this bill, and I’m going to take tolls off the provincial portion of the 407.” I challenge you to do that. That way, you would really be battling road tolls. I know you can’t do anything about the mess that Mike Harris left us with the 407. You’d all have to agree that that was a mess, selling it off. I’ll forgive you that—not that you’d forgive me anything that we didn’t do such a good job on—but you guys really messed up on that one.

Maybe when we get to committee, we can see an amendment on the bill that says, “You know what? We’re wiping out the tolls on the provincial portion of the 407, all the way from”—it’s about Whitby, right? Is it Whitby or Brock? Someone correct me. Somewhere in there, that portion—I don’t know how long it is. The tolls aren’t as much. It’d be nice if you did something about tolls right now that actually meant a plug nickel in somebody’s pocket. I’d be more enthusiastic about supporting this bill—if I could support this bill. I’m not saying whether I will or I won’t, because there are some thing in there, like referendums—they aren’t a bad thing.

I think we should have had a referendum on carving up the greenbelt. I think we should’ve talked about that. If you like referendums, maybe we should have had one for that. Do you think maybe we could have had a referendum for for-profit health care, letting private, for-profit clinics take services out of hospitals? Or, hey, maybe a referendum for whether we should actually put some measures of control on temporary staffing agencies in health care, something that the government said they’re going to do for two years. They’ve got time for a nice show, but they can’t actually guard the taxpayer dollar by putting some guardrails around temporary health care agencies. Why don’t we have a referendum on whether we should have that or not?

We could have tons of referendums. What the heck? Every big government decision that you make, put it to a referendum. I don’t see you doing that. I see you talking about it. It’s nice. It’s great talk. They’re great headlines, guys. They’re great headlines. But actually, government isn’t about creating headlines on a daily basis.

Interjection.

Interjection.

Honestly, guys, you want to change environmental protections. What you’re saying is, “Trust me. No, I really wasn’t carving up the greenbelt for my friends. I really wasn’t changing urban boundaries for some of my friends or signing MZOs for some of my friends—really. But trust me, I’ll protect the environment, because that’s what’s top of mind in our government.” That’s what you’re trying to say here.

It’s hard to trust you on this. It really is. I’d like to say I trust you—

Interjection: But you can’t.

My gosh. It says it’s an omnibus bill, but usually the omnibus bills I used to see were like this thick. This thing is probably about this thick. I don’t have it here with me right now. It’s only omnibus in the sense that it’s not doing lots of things; it’s doing a whole bunch of not really big things, but some things that will have real impact and some things that will have no impact at all—because they’re all about the news release; they’re all about the thing you want to say, like “We’re banning road tolls.” That announcement didn’t put one plug nickel, one penny, any money into people’s pockets, and it never will. As a matter of fact, to go back again, that 407—those tolls are going to increase in perpetuity, but you can prevent that, at least on the part that we own, so I challenge the government to put forward a clause and take it off. Because do you know what’s supposed to happen with a toll highway? A toll highway lasts for 30 or 40 years. You pay the highway—then you plan to take the tolls off, or you extend the highway or you improve it. But we don’t own it anymore. Somebody else owns it. I don’t think that’s good politics. But you’re banning road tolls.

Licence fees being frozen—yes, I think that’s a good thing. I can support that. But we have to make sure that we don’t nickel and dime ourselves so that we can’t invest in mental health as much as we want to, or primary care or cancer surgeries. It’s all about choices. So when I see something like that, I’m happy that people are getting some support. But if they’re making that choice—which one?—I’m not sure that makes any difference. It’s good that you’re not going to raise the fees, but you’re not putting any money in their pockets. It’s not happening. You’re just not taking any more. That’s a good thing.

The question is, are we actually putting money into the things that matter most to people?

I’ll go back to primary care. Almost two million Ontarians don’t have a family care practitioner. That’s serious. It messes up our whole health care system—

You came in and it changed.

You should.

I couldn’t help notice that the member was quoting British Columbia. For British Columbia to achieve what they have, they have already been ahead of Ontario in terms of streamlining their environmental assessment process, which now we’re finally modernizing in Ontario after 50 years of not having this process embrace some new technologies to modernize it.

If you’re embracing your BC partners, who are doing such a great job on housing, shouldn’t we adopt practices like EA modernization, as well?

Sorry, Stan.

I apologize to the member from Ottawa South.

Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

Interjection.

We could have 20 minutes of questions, Speaker. Look, I have a lot of respect for that member. He knows that. But earlier, two of your colleagues, the member from Beaches–East York and the member from Scarborough–Guildwood were talking about highways.

The member from Scarborough–Guildwood was bringing up some of the safety concerns along Highway 69. You know, good concerns, talking about how that highway needs to be twinned, good concerns, talking about some of the other highways in the north that need to be twinned. But then the member from Beaches–East York talked about how Highway 413 shouldn’t be built, how it’s a bad highway, talked about the climate crisis that would come if we built those highways. So my question is—and I didn’t get an answer when I posed it to those two members—what does the Ontario Liberal Party stand for? Do you want to build highways or not? Yes to highways or no to highways?

Thank you.

There we go. I didn’t want to miss out on the questions, guys. That’s the best part. I want to hear great questions.

Have I gone over 10 minutes yet? Can the table—have I gone over 10?

Interjections.

I don’t want five minutes of questions. I want 10 minutes of questions, and they better be good questions, guys.

Again, “omnibus bill” sounds like it’s this heavy-duty thing that’s coming down on all of us, and we will not be able to sustain the weight of the omnibus bull—bill, or bull. Actually, that’s it: It’s the omnibus bull. That’s the best way to put it. My God, sometimes your mistakes work out.

Pardon me, Speaker. Pardon my irreverence.

In this—and I’m not going to stop saying it—omnibus bull, they’re not doing very much. At least with certain kinds of bull stuff, you can grow things—but not with this bill.

Anyway, I digress. Sorry. I’m off on a bad spot. Now it feels alive in here, folks. You feel alive.

We’re here, it’s Thursday afternoon, and we’re talking about really important things to Ontarians, like road tolls that will never exist but ones that will continue to go up; or licence fees that won’t go up, but somehow that’s putting money in your pocket; and referendums about things that governments should just damn well figure out for themselves. We have one—I’ll support it—every four years. Right? So it gives you the power to make decisions. The problem is you can’t over-read your mandate. If you want to look at it as a referendum, I think a plurality is something over 50%. And I’m not going there. You guys are the government; you earned the right; you worked hard. But as a referendum, it didn’t give you carte blanche to do whatever you like.

Anyways, I think I’ve gone over my 10 minutes, so I’ll get 10 minutes worth of questions and they better be good, folks. Thank you.

Now, in fairness, that happened when we came into government. So here’s the thing: The north needs safe roads. The member from Scarborough–Guildwood, who is not from the north, can see that. She saw that when she went up north and that’s why she mentioned it.

Now the 413—because I’m trying to get this in under a minute—if we actually still owned the 407, maybe you wouldn’t need the 413. So the things that I get concerned about are the same things I saw in the greenbelt giveaway, aligning along 413, so I would hope that it’s not about land speculation.

The premise of the question, that we didn’t do anything, is nonsense, because if you even look economically, we led the G7 in jobs and growth for five years until 2018. We were top three for foreign direct investment. We had historic investments too in public transit, in hospitals—all sorts of things.

And you know what? When we did those investments, guess who voted against it? Not you guys, but there are a few who did vote against it on the other side. So let’s not—

Interjections.

Here’s the other thing: I know you guys are big on auto, but guess what? In 2009—the bailout, the crisis—we had a vote in this House. Guess who voted against the bailout? Your party. So don’t throw that stuff out. It was a good question, but forget that stuff, because you guys voted against as many things as we did, and far worse.

Yes, the government is collecting tolls while it’s outlawing—okay. Did I say that? They’re collecting tolls while they’re proposing a law to outlaw them—collecting tolls but outlawing them.

There’s a solution to that: Amend your bill; take the tolls off the 407 east. And you know what? You’ll get support from all of us.

And I think the member from Scarborough–Guildwood just said, “Look, I was up north. I heard this.” She doesn’t live there. Those aren’t her constituents. She’s not searching for votes up there. There’s a big problem.

I just said earlier, if you hadn’t sold the 407 or if the tolls were lower or if you took some of the tolls off it, maybe you wouldn’t need quite as much as you’re building right now. That’s the kind of thing you have to think about.

I would just say to members of this House, go and take a look at the map of who owns all the land on the 413 and their connections to the government. You might find some of the same names that you found in the Auditor General’s report—

I didn’t hear an answer to the primary care question posed by the ray of hope for Perth–Wellington, so I’ll give you an opportunity—to the honourable member—to answer either that question on primary care or maybe my question, because—

In Peel region you don’t have a single seat. In fact, all of Peel region’s seats and York region’s seats sit here on the government side, and I think the voters speak the loudest. They clearly said they wanted those highways. So the question is, which is it? Do you stand for highways or do you not stand for highways?

It wasn’t answered.

Further questions?

I recognize the member for Mississauga–Erin Mills.

Today, I stand in the House to debate Bill 162, Get it Done Act.

I’m really very happy to speak about this bill because this act is a fulfilment of the promises we made in 2018 and 2022. We promised that we would keep costs down and build infrastructure at the same time. Our government has always been for the people of Ontario and today, once more, we are getting it done for the people of Ontario.

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the Minister of Transportation for his hard work, both for introducing this bill and for being part of the largest infrastructure expansion in Ontario’s history.

From highways to transit projects, this government, under the leadership of the Premier, is getting it done, building the transportation infrastructure that Ontario needs for its long-term success. All the while, this government has continued to keep costs down for Ontarians, never raising a single tax.

When we talk about transportation infrastructure, it is very simple: People and goods need to be able to get around this province at an affordable cost. Time is money. If people are sitting in gridlock for endless hours or paying costly taxes, then we as a government have failed.

The government’s role must be to get it done and get out of the way. This is the analogy we have been using. That’s why I support this bill and why these changes to transportation infrastructure and affordability are well needed.

Madam Speaker, a major announcement for the people of Mississauga was announced earlier this month by the Minister of Transportation: Two-way, all-day GO train service is coming to the Milton line. Whereas service is currently only available during peak hours, the government plans to allow more services with extended hours of operation. For residents in Erin Mills, this means that Erindale, Streetsville, Meadowvale and Lisgar GO stations will have all-day transit connections into and out of the city.

The Milton GO rail corridor is already the fourth busiest line on the GO network. It is used daily by many Erin Mills residents.

These investments are critically needed and it’s great to see the government continuing to invest in important infrastructure such as this.

Since 1999, when I started commuting by train into Toronto, there have been minimal changes to improve the Milton line. I think we added one extra train in the morning and one extra train back in the evening. So, that’s 25 years ago. Mississauga is now significantly larger than 25 years ago—maybe 10 times the population of 25 years ago—but no investments have been made in that past 25 years on this line.

This is why we are calling on the federal government to agree to a cost-sharing partnership for this important rail corridor, which is going to benefit Mississauga and Milton as well.

The former federal Minister of Transportation has endorsed this project. I am hopeful that the federal government will now invest in this critical infrastructure to support the people of Mississauga and Milton and support the growth of Mississauga as the seventh-largest city in Canada.

North America’s largest transit infrastructure expansion is happening right here in Ontario, and that includes long-overdue investments into Mississauga. We are getting it done. Once again, I thank the Minister of Infrastructure and the Premier for this important investment.

These investments demonstrate the government’s commitment to building infrastructure. With a rapidly growing population, Ontario needs transit, highways and housing to accommodate everyone. What we build now will be relied upon by future generations to come.

That’s why this proposed Get It Done Act is focused on quickly and efficiently building infrastructure. If passed, this bill would reduce project planning timelines for construction of important infrastructure projects. It would expedite and streamline regulations that are slowing down public projects. This will allow projects like roads and sewage treatment systems to be built quickly and efficiently while still maintaining rigorous protections where necessary. By accelerating these projects, municipal governments and public agencies will be able to complete their tasks on time and within budget.

One way that this bill will, if passed, help accelerate timelines is by clarifying the procedures surrounding expropriation during the environmental assessment process. It’s already allowed under the Environmental Assessment Act to acquire properties before the EA process is completed. But by providing greater clarity, municipalities and other proponents can create clearer plans and get shovels in the ground much sooner. These are simple, common-sense steps that this government’s proposing to get developments built. It’s not flashy, but it will get the job done.

In Mississauga, we continue to make major investments into infrastructure in partnership with our municipal counterparts. For example, the new Mississauga hospital will give a much-needed replacement to the health care infrastructure in Mississauga, allowing more capacity for this growing city, the biggest hospital in Canadian history. The biggest ER room in Canada will be in Mississauga with 900-plus rooms. This is a huge investment, and as we said, time is money. We can accelerate the process getting things done. This is what we are trying to do if this bill passes.

The South Common Community Centre in my riding will also be receiving renovations very soon, allowing it to continue to be a hub for activities for our local neighbourhood. This is all part of our government’s infrastructure revolution to continue building Ontario.

Let me give you another example: Highway 413. The 413 will be built through Peel and Vaughan to bypass the busy Highway 401 in Toronto. It will save commuters time and it will get goods and people flowing. More and more people continue to come to the greater Horseshoe area to live and work. The infrastructure is needed to accommodate and handle this increased demand.

When it comes to building infrastructure, the Liberals have made their stance clear: They are opposed to building new highways and infrastructure. When the Liberal leader was mayor of Mississauga, she voted against building the 413. She said the highway would be “disastrous,” but Ontarians know the truth. The real disaster for Ontario would be Bonnie Crombie and the Ontario Liberals. They are not willing to build highways or transit or housing or any infrastructure. Our government, led by this Premier, are the only ones prepared to get it done.

Speaker, infrastructure is only half the picture. If people cannot afford to use infrastructure, then we cannot see the full benefits. That’s why we must continue to make life affordable for all Ontarians, and I’m pleased to see the government taking initiative to do that.

The One Fare program, which came into effect earlier this week, is saving commuters money when they transfer between transit agencies. Residents from Mississauga can transfer between MiWay, GO Transit, TTC and many other GTA transit organizations while only paying one fare for the trip. This adds both affordability and convenience, allowing more options for connections at cheaper costs. And this program is expected to save transit riders an average of $1,600 per year. Every single commuter will save $1,600 per year. This is not pocket change. That is substantial savings being put right back into the wallets of hard-working Ontarians.

Likewise, the government has already been working hard on saving money for drivers and vehicle owners. In the spring of 2022, the government removed licence plate renewal fees and stickers. For many vehicle owners, this has saved them over $100 per year, per person, per car. Now, in this bill, the government proposes not only extending that cost savings, but also making the entire renewal process automatic, providing both convenience and affordability.

We might also discuss driver’s licence fees and photo card fees. In 2019, the government implemented a freeze on renewal fees of drivers’ licences and photo cards. As a result, in the years since then, over $22 million has been saved for Ontarians. This legislation proposes permanently freezing those fees, because our government believes in keeping costs down for the people. Our government has not increased a tax on the backs of Ontarians, and they are not increasing these fees.

Our government is working hard to make sure that every Ontarian is able to get cheaper and convenient transportation all throughout this province, which brings me to a pivotal piece of today’s proposed bill, the Protecting Against Carbon Taxes Act.

If passed, this legislation would enshrine in the laws of Ontario that the provincial government will not impose a carbon tax without the consent of the people. It would be a fair referendum, organized by the Chief Electoral Officer, with standard rules and procedures, and requiring a 50% majority of the vote to pass. This is not unusual. The Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999, provided for a similar referendum mechanism. This would ensure we have a fair and democratic process for establishing a new tax, if any future government wishes to impose one.

We have seen the damage that a federal carbon tax has imposed on our nation. The carbon tax has caused the prices of everything in Ontario to go up, because every item we buy—whether it’s food, clothes, materials for industry—has a transportation cost. These costs were affected and increased by the carbon tax. Every household in Ontario has had their costs increase because of the carbon tax, such as the higher cost of heating. So despite the efforts of our provincial government working hard to make life easier, the federal government is forcing harder choices on the people of Ontario, whether they heat their homes or feed their families.

I noticed on my heating bill a $64 item as carbon tax—$64 of carbon tax monthly. So when the federal government says it’s not significant, I say no; the carbon tax has caused the day-to-day cost of households to go significantly higher.

We have seen the problems of the carbon tax, and we don’t want to see it again. So this bill proposes a simple and reasonable solution: Before any government force a carbon tax, they must get the consent of the people in a fair referendum. This is not a hypothetical situation.

We can trust that this Ontario PC government would not impose a carbon tax, but the same cannot be said about all future administrations. In fact, the Liberals have already done this before. Premier Wynne told everyone that she wasn’t planning on implementing a carbon pricing system, but just a short while later the Liberal government implemented a disastrous cap-and-trade carbon tax.

In the subsequent election, Ontarians elected our government to repeal that carbon tax. We did that. We got it done. But we have learned our lessons from the provincial and federal carbon taxes. Carbon taxes do not work. They hurt people, and Ontarians do not want another carbon tax. That’s why by passing this bill, we would be giving power back to the people to decide for themselves if they want the provincial carbon tax. The people of Ontario deserve a say in this.

Therefore, our government is building infrastructure quickly, all the while making life more affordable for Ontarians. Just to name a few, we are building Highway 413, the Hazel McCallion Line, two-way, all-day GO on the Milton line. The Get It Done Act would make it easier to get this infrastructure built, including municipal projects and provincial priorities.

Affordability measures are making life easier for everyone. This includes the One Fare transit program, the elimination licence plate stickers, freezing the driver’s licence and photo card renewal fees and ensuring no new carbon tax can be imposed without the will of the people.

The Ontario government, led our amazing Premier, is laser-focused on making life affordable for everyone. Whether they call it carbon tax, a toll or a fee, at the end of the day there is only one taxpayer. The Liberals and NDP are willing to raise taxes and fees for Ontarians; we are not. The Liberals and NDP will cost Ontarians; we will not.

Our government is here for the people of Ontario because Ontarians trust us, and we will not let them down. We will get it done. Thank you.

I’ve been here a while, and sometimes you hear things that just defy logic. One of the things was, years ago when the Ontario Liberal Party, when they were in government, sold off 60% of Hydro One and said that the province would retain control. That just defied logic.

I’m not from here; I’m from farther north, so I didn’t know there was a 407 and a 407 east. We’re now told that the government is banning tolls while they’re still collecting tolls. I don’t think the government is going to explain that, but perhaps my colleague on the Liberal side could explain that.

My question, very quickly: This schedule 1 where they’re cutting the environmental assessment protections again—in it, they’re also giving the government more extraordinary power to expropriate land, and farmers along the route are concerned about that. What do you think about this government giving themselves the power to expropriate land even before they’ve done an environmental assessment?

To the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills: Do you feel that electric vehicles alone will solve the climate crisis?

My question is to the member for Mississauga–Erin Mills. Bill 23, just to be clear, has removed the fee that developers have to pay to affordable housing projects. Every development no longer has to pay the fee for affordable housing projects, and that part of Bill 23 is in force. What that has meant is that municipalities have lost funding for affordable housing and shelter at a time when we have a homelessness crisis. The city of Toronto has lost $200 million in funding just for affordable housing and shelters.

My question to the member for Mississauga–Erin Mills is, what is this government going to do to make municipalities whole so there’s funding available for affordable housing?

Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Erin Mills. Climate change—I wanted to say that for the benefit of the member from Beaches–East York. This government is quite aware of climate change. That’s why we are leading the way in EV production. We’re fitting steel plants with electric burners. And we’re building new transit and taking thousands of cars off the road.

Can the member expand on how this bill assists with the expansion of our transit systems?

Thank you to the member from Mississauga—

I noticed you said that your government hasn’t increased the tax, but that’s not quite true because in the city of Mississauga, this government passed Bill 23, which waived development fees and those development fees cost the city of Mississauga $90 million per year. So this is downloaded onto the taxpayers.

It’s downloaded onto the taxpayers of the province and off to the municipality of Mississauga. And in spite of giving $200 million—actually, for Peel region it’s $200 million but for Mississauga it’s $90 million a year. In spite of giving a $90-million gift to developers from the taxpayers of Mississauga, Mississauga was only able to achieve 27% of the housing target starts that they were supposed to build. So you’re raising taxes and—