It’s a pleasure to join the debate today. This is actually the first time I’ve been able to get up to speak to a broad piece of legislation or, as today, a concurrence motion.

I just wanted to start with some good news. In my family, just before Christmas, my son, Aidan, proposed to his long-time love of nine years, and she said yes. So I think you should be prepared to hear a lot about the wedding industry and that sector. I can tell you one thing that won’t be happening, though: I will not be inviting any stakeholders to the stag and doe. I’ve learned the lesson here from Queen’s Park.

The other thing that happened is that now I have VIP parking at Rexall because I turned 55, and it’s a really good program. I’m taking all the perks that I can get wherever I can get them.

Also, I just want to say, we had a very successful pre-budget consultation, and this is my first opportunity to thank the broadcasting staff, the Clerks and, of course, the research staff. I’m really hopeful, when the government reads the report that we prepared for the finance minister ahead of the budget, which will be on March 21 or March 28—he will not tell me—that those voices across Ontario inform that budget, because that is actually our responsibility here in this House. I want to thank the Chair of the finance committee, who I see here in the House as well.

I also just want to say, before I get into the substantive comments about the finances of the province of Ontario, that this morning’s tribute to Brian Mulroney was really touching. I have to say I think that our leader really brought it home, the impact that public service can have, the long-standing impact on communities, on our reputation as a country, on our own families. I thought everybody did a very good job. I also want to say, including to the Premier—he actually made me cry a little bit and not for the usual reasons. That is my attempt at humour in that regard.

It is also worth noting that in my office here at Queen’s Park, I have this beautiful scroll that is signed by Brian Mulroney. It was signed to my father-in-law, Walter Fife, who is deceased. It indicates how politics used to be so very different, because it’s a thank-you note for his service to the country in national defence. I keep it there as a reminder that none of us do any of this work successfully, meaningfully, without the people who help us, the staff in this place and our own research staff. We really are very fortunate and very privileged to be in this House, to hold this responsibility.

It is with that that I will make some commentary on where the finances are in the province of Ontario. I’m going to start with housing, because in every riding across this great province, housing is the number one issue, I would say. It’s very much connected to the cost of living, which will underpin my entire commentary.

When you look at where we are right now, in March 2024, I don’t think anybody expected the housing crisis to worsen. Housing starts are down significantly. They are down from 96,000 in 2022 to 89,000 in 2023, and 24 of the 50 municipalities are below 80% of their annual target of housing, including my own city of Waterloo. I’m going to talk about why they are there and the role that the provincial government could strengthen, to come to the table as a true partner to municipalities in the housing crisis.

I’m going to quote from one of the first articles. This is a CBC article by our own Mike Crawley. It examines the tools—or the stick; whatever you want to say—and how this government is trying to motivate housing. Based on the housing starts, based on the fact that we are losing ground, those mechanisms that this government is using—those tools at your disposal, some of them legislative tools—are not succeeding. This could be a very dangerous tipping point for this province, because without shelter, without stable housing, it is so difficult to move forward as an economy, to ensure that people in this province reach their potential. Housing underpins the economy and we must get it right, and I would argue that right now the government is not doing that.

This article is called “What Should the Ford Government Do about Developers Who Go Years without Building Homes?” This is happening in all of our ridings. “Some Ontario cities want power to slap ‘use it or lose it’ penalties on stalled housing projects.”

Let me tell you why this is so important. Some of you will know this very personally. “The town of Newmarket approved rezoning of [a] property along Yonge Street to allow a high-rise development of more than 500 housing units back in 2018, but construction is yet to begin.

“At least 20 Ontario municipalities are so far away from reaching their provincially mandated targets for new home construction starts that they have virtually no chance of hitting the mark, and will face stiff financial consequences in 2024.

“The problem is something municipal politicians say puts Ontario at risk of failing to meet the goal of 1.5 million new homes.” This is a fictional goal as it stands right now, Madam Speaker—essentially just talking points.

“Under current rules set by” the Premier’s “government, cities that fall short of the 2023 target for housing starts will not get any money next year from the province’s $1.2-billion fund to help cover the costs of housing-related infrastructure.”

Now, we all know there is such a strong connection to having that infrastructure, those roads, those sewers. Without that, you cannot build houses, right? With this partnership, the government has intentionally created an imbalance between municipalities and the province.

Now, I will admit that municipalities are creatures of the province. This is a well-known relationship, but it has never become this hostile. It very much feels to many cities across this province that this is a very punitive measure of this government.

One councillor, who happens to be in that place called Mississauga, Councillor Tedjo, “feels particularly frustrated when he looks across the half-empty parking lot” that I just referenced. So cities have made these approvals. They have approved these developments and developers are not moving forward. And then, in turn, what happens here? The government punishes those municipalities.

But he goes on to say, “I don’t think it’s fair at all that the province is measuring our success on housing starts and not on housing approvals.” He's not the only one. He’s not the only municipal politician raising concerns about the role developers play in Ontario’s housing crisis. They’re pointing to housing projects that have all the necessary municipal approvals, but developers have yet to put a shovel in the ground. Some of those nine municipalities in York region include the cities of Vaughan, Markham and Richmond Hill. They’ve approved more than 49,000 housing units that are not yet under construction. That’s a lot—49,000, Madam Speaker.

So these councils are doing their work. They are fast-tracking and streamlining the approvals, but at the end of the day, the housing is not coming to fruition and that leaves so many Ontarians really—some of them, literally—out in the cold.

Some of these titles are—“Ontario’s Road to 1.5M New Homes Has Gotten Rockier, Construction Insiders Say.” So whatever you are doing, you’ve actually put up more barriers to housing. The question this provokes in city halls around Ontario is, why is this government taking such a punitive approach to municipalities? It really does. This is a really important question. We know that the minister has said that he’s not even considering changing the rules on how municipalities qualify for the fund, so this $1.2-billion pot of money is held out here in front of municipalities, and yet, even when they go through a successful approval process, they can’t build the houses themselves. This is the role of the developers. Some developers are land banking, right? They’re banking that land until prices go up, until things become more stable—who knows? But this is what Newmarket Mayor John Taylor calls “the policy not only unfair to municipalities, but also potentially damaging to the government's own plan … because he believes it will hamper the building of the water and sewer facilities needed” to build housing.

So some people think that some pressure should be put on some of those developers, but I actually have an example in my riding of Waterloo where we do have a progressive developer. It’s called Solowave. His name is Richard Boyer. These are 3,400 purpose-built rental units—that’s a huge number. It’s up by the Conestogo Park Square. But right now, it isn’t the city of Waterloo who is holding up this development and it certainly isn’t the developer. The developer has been working on this plan for almost four years; that’s how slow it has been.

The city of Waterloo—they’re on board. The region of Waterloo—on board. You know where the problem is? The problem is with the Ministry of Transportation, because MTO expects this developer to upgrade the highway to address traffic. And then every time there’s a new housing development, they have to do another traffic study. I think they’ve done three traffic studies. So what’s happening right now? Instead of building houses, developers are paying for traffic studies. It makes zero sense.

This developer, by the way—and I did write to the Minister of Transportation and there is a letter coming to the Minister of Housing—he’s about ready, if there’s one more barrier that’s set up in front of this project, to plant beans. So instead of building houses, we’re going to have non-descript farming. It doesn’t make any sense, Madam Speaker.

So the housing file is not going well. I think that would be an understatement. And just for context, in some part of Ontario, the number of homes sold in 2023 dropped to levels not seen for 20 years.

So we have a stagnant housing market in Ontario. The actions of this government have further destabilized that market, and the combination of high interest rates and buyers waiting for prices to tumble further certainly is not helping it.

But at the end of the day, the number of home sales in the greater Toronto area in 2023 is on track to be lower than in any year since 2001. And we all know that the population is increasing. So the housing specialists, the housing leaders across this province have said that we’re looking at housing stagnation. All of us need to make sure that the municipalities are supported in their work. This 2023 low, we have not seen it since the turn of the century.

When I looked at the FAO report this morning, and I see where some money is going some places and some money is not going some places, this government has to get your act together on housing. It’s long overdue.

This speaks, really, to the priorities of this government. We hear so many throwaway lines from this government, like: “We’re putting more money in your pocket. We’re taking our hands out of your pocket.” It’s really very interesting to see which pockets you are really concerned about, because the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. And one of the first things that this government did was freeze the minimum wage, you’ll remember. What a devastating impact this had on front-line workers. This happened in 2018. The government froze the recently changed minimum wage, which at that point was $14, and they did it for two years.

They also cancelled a series of planned increases that had been set to begin with the 2019. What Deena Ladd has said is that, “What he did was basically take away a dollar increase, then take away the adjustments for two years, and then start to adjust it again in 2021.”

It’s really interesting, if cost that out—and we did raise this during the debate at the time. If you cost it out, one estimate—and this was from a research study—confirmed that if this government had not “instituted the freeze, each minimum wage worker would since have earned between $3,000 and $6,000 more between 2018 and 2021. These lost potential wages came at a bad time, the authors of the estimate write: ‘Many minimum wage workers put their own health at risk to keep working on the front lines of our economy throughout the pandemic. The three-year delay in raising the minimum wage to $15 cost them dearly.’”

So once again: very selective about who you’re saving money for and who you’re not. And let’s remember, this study could not even quantify the impact on racialized minimum wage workers, and that gap and that disparity in wages is well documented.

When we look at the findings of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives around the minimum wage, because we hear lots of talk about how generous and compassionate some of these changes have been, this is a hard and cruel change which we are still feeling today. The impact of those decisions are still being felt today. But the findings from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report says, “The discrepancy between the rental wage and the minimum wage is such that, in most Canadian cities, minimum wage earners are extremely unlikely to escape core housing need. They are likely spending too much on rent, living in units that are too small, or, in many cases, both.”

So, I’m connecting your policy decision to freeze the minimum wage and that impact on people’s ability to be housed, to find shelter. These are core issues that Ontarians face.

Even with the catch-up, the 6.8% raise, “A full-time minimum wage worker in the GTA will still be short by $260 a week in trying to make ends meet.... There’s nowhere in the province where you can survive off the minimum wage, now, or after Oct. 1.” This quote was from Craig Pickthorne from the Ontario Living Wage Network.

These are important policy decisions that the government has made, that have not been in the best interests of Ontarians.

I’m going to move on to energy costs too, because as I mentioned in my opening comments, the cost of living is really having such a negative impact on the quality of life that Ontarians are experiencing. And what I will say about energy costs—I think that my parents from Peterborough may be watching. Energy costs are something that impacts their daily lives because most seniors are on fixed incomes, and there is not a lot of wiggle room there at all. But the decision by the Minister of Energy to override the Ontario Energy Board—and we read about this just before the House came back. This story, you couldn’t write this story because—please remember that I served with many of the PC MPPs that are across the row today. When the Liberals interfered and politicized the Ontario Energy Board, there was such a hue and cry. You could not believe it, quite honestly. What I’m seeing is such a complete reversal in how politicians act when they’re in opposition versus when they are in government, and I’m going to give some context for this.

This is an article by John Woodside. He writes: “Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government is tabling new legislation to overrule the provincial energy regulator in a move worth billions of dollars that benefits gas giant Enbridge,” and it goes on to say that if passed, this “move would effectively strip the regulator of its arm’s-length role.”

Now, we know that this government is not really big on independent arm’s-length agencies or, for that matter, independent officers, quite honestly, as demonstrated by their removal of the child advocate and the francophone—

Environmental.

Environmental, oh my God. I mean, I know the independent officers are sort of on eggshells a little bit, because this government is not a fan of impartial non-partisan critiquing.

But this case is so interesting, because the Ontario Energy Board, please remember, is responsible for ensuring that energy policy in Ontario serves the people that we’re elected to serve, that it’s in their best interests. In this instance, the OEB decision reviewed where the government was going with natural gas, and the “decision requiring new gas infrastructure to be paid upfront was an attempt to grapple with the realities of the energy transition off fossil fuels.” Remember, this is the hottest year that we’ve seen, I think ever. Climate change, just for the record, is real and it is impacting the province of Ontario and this great country. “As fossil fuels are phased out in favour of clean alternatives, allowing Enbridge to pay off fossil fuel infrastructure by spreading costs over all ratepayers into the 2060s represents a significant financial risk to the public.”

The Ontario Energy Board found that the government was moving in a direction which was fiscally irresponsible, that was not conforming to our environmental responsibilities and that was going to be very costly for the people, including many, many stranded assets. That’s their job. Their job is to be forward-looking and to see what the land is like out there.

So, the government said “it is overriding the regulator in the interest of keeping housing costs down, but that position isn’t supported by evidence,” much like the legislation and policies of this government. “In fact, high-efficiency heat pumps are more affordable over the lifetime of the equipment than new gas hookups, meaning Ontario’s decision to reverse the regulator’s decision could actually make housing more expensive.”

Given what I have just shared about the lay of the land around housing in Ontario, the fact that housing starts are down, that housing has never been more affordable, that this provincial government is actively getting in the way of permitting the development of 3,400 affordable housing units in north Waterloo, why would a government overrule this decision when this is the context of the lived experience of Ontarians?

The Minister of Energy was questioned at length about this policy decision, and it goes on to say that he bristled at questions asking if the government was taking control of the regulator, and he said that the OEB decision, which emerged after a year of hearings, thousands of pages of evidence and testimony from environmental advocates, industry representatives and utility experts alike, was simply “wrong.”

Independence of the OEB is key.

Don’t worry; more hot air is coming, more gas is coming. The minister said that they’re now going to come out with a natural gas policy statement to provide further direction to the Ontario Energy Board. That’s not really how it’s supposed to work. The government does not control the independent regulator. The regulator provides information and data and evidence to the Minister of Energy, and that should inform policy—but not in this new Ontario, under this PC government.

They’re going to bring in this policy, and then they’re also going to bring in a new chair of the OEB. This is what the minister said: “I’ll expect the appointee to help ensure the [OEB] conducts appropriate consultation before reaching any decisions, and to reinforce the government’s priority”—essentially, he’s looking for a new chair of the Ontario Energy Board who is like-minded. I raise this characterization, if you will, of “like-minded” because this is a new direction that we have not seen this government go in. The fact that the Premier is bragging about appointing like-minded judges is such a dangerous direction for this province.

Earlier this morning, I did have a chance to meet with the Ontario trial lawyers, and we had a really engaging conversation about the sad state of affairs of our court system in Ontario—the backlogs, not just for the Landlord and Tenant Board, but for victims of sexual assault who are not getting their day in court, and rapists are walking free because that 18-month threshold has not been met.

Ourselves here and my good friend from London North Centre introduced the HVAC—sorry; what was it called?

No more HVAC scams.

No more HVAC scams. Thankfully, it really prompted the government to move on that. White-collar crime in Ontario is out of control.

It’s astounding to see the Premier of this province stand up in this House and pretend that he has a little gun in his hand and say everybody is getting shot up. It’s not a comical situation at all.

The court system is so underfunded. In fact, in that last cycle—I think it was Q3—there was a reduction of 2% in the judicial system.

So when you meet with the Ontario trial lawyers and you talk about the characterization of judges, including this very strange civics lesson that we got from the Attorney General about judges becoming impartial when they’re appointed—this is language that is really straying into a very dark space.

This morning, when we were talking about this, I have to say, one of the delegations said to me it’s so dangerous that—and this is the quote: “In order for justice to be done, it can’t just be done; it needs to be seen to be done.”

The confidence in our judicial system is so compromised right now, because people are waiting so long for their day in court. And it’s an overused quote, but justice delayed is justice denied; it truly is.

I’m working with a young woman in my riding right now who waited two years for her day in court, and those two years were the most painful days of her young life.

The system that the Attorney General describes as top-of-the-class, first-class—there’s a serious disconnect between that language. But the fact that now the Minister of Energy is also using this callout for like-minded people, chairs of committees—this morning we heard about an appointment to the LTB, about people who will do the government’s bidding. This takes away from those first comments that I started with about the duty to serve the public.

There should be a very open and transparent judicial appointment process. It is key to having confidence in the judicial system, and right now, the comments by the Premier about having like-minded judges, and now the comments about the Minister of Energy finding someone who will fall in line with the government’s directives, is language I actually haven’t seen a lot in this place. I’ve seen a lot of things, and sometimes I’m surprised, but more and more, I’m not that surprised.

The Ontario Energy Board—there has been lots of criticism about this, as well. And this is about people’s pockets, so let’s say what’s really going on here. This is what the Minister of Energy has said: that if the do-overs return the same result, the minister wouldn’t rule out intervening again to ensure the province gets what it wants. “It’s incumbent on the Ontario Energy Board to realize what our policy is as the government [goes] forward.”

This is a key piece, because the OEB has the public interest at heart. It’s actually their mandate, Madam Speaker, and when the politicians interfere in that process, that undermines confidence in the energy sector as a whole, I would argue. If the government even hints at appointing a Ford-connected insider who’s not going to act in the best interests of the people of Ontario, but instead acts in the interests of a multi-billion-dollar fossil fuel company, then we have a serious problem in Ontario.

That’s what this legislation that the minister brought forward is all about. At the end of the day—and this is the key piece—who is it going to cost? It’s going to cost ratepayers in Ontario more, because the OEB is being overturned, because of political interference to the tune of I think it’s almost $600.

This is Kent Elson, who’s a lawyer representing the non-profit Environmental Defence, which intervened in Enbridge’s rate application. He told Canada’s National Observer that this “government’s decision to name its legislation the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act is ‘Orwellian.’

“‘It should be called the Keeping Enbridge Profits and Energy Bills High Act,’ he said.

“‘The OEB decision would have cut capital costs covered by gas customers by approximately $600 per customer,’ he said. ‘Reversing the decision will certainly raise energy bills.’”

Why is this government raising the energy costs of Ontarians? They’re already hurting so much.

And so if you care about housing starts, if you care about the environment, if you care about being fiscally responsible, avoiding fitting a house with gas infrastructure and connecting it to the gas grid by switching to electric heat or cooling means only one system. Actually, we heard this at pre-budget consultation: Moving away from this government’s plan would actually increase the supply of affordable housing, because it reduces that infrastructure pressure.

At the end of the day, this government now is actively creating legislation that’s going to increase your gas bill. It makes no sense whatsoever. We fought it. Our energy critic spoke eloquently about it, and at the end of the day, what’s concerning for us is that this is all too similar to the greenbelt scandal. The government is legislating against the public good in the service of a few private interests, namely Enbridge and housing developers.

How did we get to this place in this province? Honestly—amidst an acknowledgement by every member of provincial Parliament in this House that the housing crisis is real. It is hurting our economy, it is hurting our families and our communities, and it’s having a devastating effect on the quality of life. So why bring in legislation which hurts Ontarians? This is the genuine question that I have.

This legislation also sets a dangerous precedent. This is the first time any government of Ontario has brought through legislation and overruled a decision by the independent Ontario Energy Board. Please remember: The Ontario Energy Board’s mandate is to keep energy costs down. And that’s the problem. That’s the problem when a government interferes and intervenes and actively works against the people that we’re elected to serve.

I have to say, I’m very discouraged by this move, because not only is it going to negatively impact the housing sector, but it’s going to also impact people’s pockets. It’s just really interesting, because Enbridge is going to be fine. Enbridge makes a lot of money; in fact, I think last year, their net profits were $19.1 billion. So don’t worry about Enbridge. Enbridge is going to be okay.

Yes, they’re doing okay. You know who’s not? The people who are looking for housing, particularly affordable housing, and the people who are getting energy bills. And you’re going to increase their energy bills. Why would this government go down this road, Madam Speaker?

So we question the decision-making. Honestly, the OEB’s decision was based on research by experts. The evidence is clear that the government’s direction around expanding natural gas was not in the best interests of Ontarians. And yet, now we have a piece of legislation, ironically called “keeping your energy bill down,” or something like that—something ridiculous. I don’t know who writes the titles of these bills.

And then you know what? Even when we do come to this House and we propose some solutions, the government is not willing at all to even contemplate them. I’m thinking particularly of our oppo day motion from this week. We came to this House with our oppo day motion to remove the tolls for truckers on the 407. For us, this was a very creative solution; perhaps a stopgap for other highways or other infrastructure projects, but really, an immediate solution to address painful gridlock on the 407.

This would also address the productivity of Ontarians, because people spend too much time on the parking lot called the 401. And this would address the economic development call and potentially save $8 billion by not having to build another highway directly parallel to the 407. And also, quite honestly, there would be significant environmental benefits from ensuring that we make better use of the 407. There was, of course, the forgiveness of the $1 billion in non-compliance fees that were forgiven by this government. So there’s definitely a need to sit down and have this conversation.

I don’t know why they’re so soft on tolls because, ironically, they brought forward a piece of legislation saying that they’re going to take the tolls off roads where there are no tolls, but they refuse to take the tolls or even address or reduce the tolls where there is a toll, on the one highway in Ontario that has a toll, which is the 407 ETR.

Just to give you some sense as to how this would play out, the potential—and this is a report that I will quote in a second. This would move trucks to the 407 and “12,000 to 21,000 trucks a day off Highway 401, reducing daily traffic for passenger vehicle drivers” on that highway. Moving trucks to the 407 “will improve journey times for truckers by approx. 80 minutes”—time is money, Madam Speaker—“which would be less than half the length of time than the equivalent trip on Highway 401.”

Subsidizing the 407 will “cost $6 billion less than constructing” another proposed highway. And that highway isn’t even going to be built for another decade. People who are stuck in traffic and gridlock on the 401 right now, they cannot wait another decade for some kind of relief.

This report from Environmental Defence says this confirms—if they had even been willing to have a conversation, right? “Their findings confirm that the alternative approach of subsidizing the toll for trucks on the 407 would address the key aim of reducing congestion on the 401 while eliminating the risk of negative environmental impacts.”

Was this government willing to have this conversation with us? No, they were not. In fact, for some reason, the Minister of Transportation didn’t even want to talk about the 407. I know why they don’t want to talk about the 407. They don’t want to talk about the 407 because this was the worst deal in the history of the province, and our debate really revealed a lot of issues that are ongoing.

This goes back to contract law. For some reason, the 407 ETR contract with the province of Ontario heavily favours the 407, not the people of this province. Some of the highest tolls in the country—I think “the universe” may have been quoted the other day—but definitely the highest tolls, on the 407, in Ontario, than any other province in this great country.

Going back to that $1 billion: Let’s remember that during the pandemic, obviously, ridership was down on the 407, and the 407 ETR wanted some COVID-related relief. They got relief. They got $1 billion worth of relief.

According to documents obtained through the provincial freedom-of-information act, the government “didn’t pursue ‘potential congestion penalty payments in the order of $1 billion’ for 2020 and could decide not to do so again”—which they did.

This comes at a time when the government was planning to build a parallel highway to the 407. It’s really about priorities.

Even if you go back to the pocket issue, this government is actively choosing to provide relief to the 407 ETR and not to the people of this province, who, in better times, are back on the 407, paying the highest tolls in the country.

Let’s remember that the 407 ETR received that $1 billion in relief even in the year when they made $147.1 million worth of profit. So, yes, they still posted a profit, and yet they still received very, very generous—I would say $1 billion is very generous. This is a very profitable highway. When you’re charging the kind of tolls that they are, of course they’re going to generate a lot of money.

What’s really important to think about, when a government is making choices or setting priorities—this is what actually happened. The highway, during this time, had the option of reducing tolls to encourage more drivers to use the highway, possibly preventing the congestion clause from being triggered, but they opted not to do so. Do you know why they opted not to do so? Because they were like, “It’s okay. This PC government will take care of us.” They knew where the interests and the priorities of this government fell. It fell with the 407, not with the people who pay the highest tolls.

It goes on to say in the contract—“‘407 ETR is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to minimize the effect and duration of the force majeure,’ ministry officials noted in their April 3 memo. ‘This could include, amongst other things, reducing tolls to encourage traffic.’” It’s right there in the contract. The government has never even tried to pressure or push the 407 corporation to meet their contractual obligations. This meant that the 407 ETR was failing to meet its contractual obligations—I just said that.

CEO Sacristan explained to the ministry and wrote a letter, and in that letter they quoted—“407 ETR has initiated discussions with ministry staff and is seeking comfort that the government will exclude the pandemic period from any congestion penalty payment calculations. Corporate reporting requirements to shareholders, investors, debt holders and public auditing and disclosure requirements are driving the urgency of this matter....”

And the government met them at that urgent place. They met them in that moment in time. Meanwhile, minimum wage workers are actively having the government remove money from their pockets, but the pockets of the shareholders, they’re fine; they’re doing okay.

The Ministry of Transportation, ironically, does not make its traffic data public, despite the open-government legislation. The language that we hear around here around “the historic investments” and “this never happened in the history of the province of Ontario”—I have never heard a government use the word “historic” to such historic measures. I mean, it’s quite something. This is a very clear example of a government showing us who they really are, right? At the end of the day, there were a few ministry staff who really tried to push back a little bit, but not on the political side, I have to say. They said, and this is the quote from one of the FOI documents, “We believe that the congestion relief mechanisms have been rendered inoperative by the lack of congestion.” And then: “Mindful that the 407 managers could reduce tolls to encourage higher traffic levels and avoid billion-dollar penalties, however, the assistant deputy minister, operations division”—at the time, Eric Doidge—“at the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, took issue with the company’s characterization of traffic levels.”

There were people, I’m sure, who were advising the Minister of Transportation at the time that we didn’t have to be so compliant with their request to seek comfort. That is not the job of the government, to comfort corporations. It is the job to put the interests of the people of this great province ahead of those corporations. And the ministry disagreed “with the 407 ETR’s statements regarding the existence or non-existence of congestion in the” GTA. The only reason that we know some of this stuff is really through FOIs—and several people, though, who have been following this debacle of the 407, beginning with the worst deal in the history of Ontario by selling it after we’d already paid for it.

“The government could have pressed them to drop the tolls” after viewing these documents. “They don’t seem to have put any pressure on the operator. They lost that opportunity.” So this government chose the interests of this corporation over the interests of the people that we serve. I have to say, we continue to really just be the people that paid for the original highway and pay the highest tolls. They continue to pay the highest price for a really messy policy decision.

I’m just going to move on a little bit, because the government is not indicating at all that they’re even interested in alleviating congestion on the 401 with a creative option, even though it’s well within their rights, particularly on the provincially owned 407. There’s literally nothing stopping this government from removing tolls on that part, but they do have a piece of legislation that says “get it done”—is it just “get it done”?

Doing okay.

Get it done. I would just say, do something to alleviate some of the pressure.

Moving on to health care—let me just take a look. I want to say, I just want to do a special little shout-out on the health care file to the good people of Minden, who are still fighting for some financial transparency in how their emergency rooms in their hospital were closed. They continue to share information with us. They’ve done their financial responsibility, their fiscal due diligence. It really is too bad that the Ministry of Health did not do that, quite honestly. This is an emergency room which was a game-changer for that community, as they all are. You will know that we’ve had record emergency room closures across the province like we’ve never seen in Ontario. Health care professionals from across all sectors have said that this is the worst health care crisis they have ever seen in Ontario. That is not a record to be proud of.

Looking at where the funding is going right now and following the FAO report from earlier today, the impact of the unconstitutional Bill 124 which this government brought in, which is wage restraint legislation that limited increases to 1%—while you’re taking care of corporations, 1% for health care workers, the mass migration of talent from this province. It keeps me up at night, quite honestly. How are we going to rebuild the health care sector when such deep disrespect was shown to them—and illegal—Madam Speaker? Bill 124 was deemed illegal. This government fought it two times in the court system. It’s ironic that they finally got their day in court. It did take, I think, almost three years, though.

It does lead me to believe, watching how Minden was treated, how various emergency rooms across this province are experiencing such stress on basic services, access to family physicians—we heard at pre-budget consultations one doctor in a rural community who is 76 years old who said he would love to retire. The pressure for him as the only doctor in that community is profound, right? Where is the strategy for this government to attract doctors and medical professionals here?

The Ontario Medical Association has some good suggestions. It’s not like talented, knowledgeable people haven’t stepped forward and said, “Listen, this would be a really good idea.” It’s just that there’s no willingness, no goodwill to actually entertain some solutions. I think, really, when we’re seeing some of the privatization—which, of course, the parliamentary assistant said would never happen. This is not going to be privatization, she said, but here we have people paying for basic access to primary caregivers in Ontario to the tune of $4,900 a year.

I will say that we are going into a very dark place, though, with the recent decision for a pay-for-plasma centre coming to Hamilton. Our members from Hamilton asked this question earlier this morning, receiving a dodgy answer. When I say “dodgy,” I mean just not even meeting the question. I know it’s not called answer period, but it would be really good when we got some information. Instead, the Attorney General keeps coming back asking us questions. I feel like this place has become a little bit of a theatre of the absurd some days, or a Monty Python film.

But this is what’s happening right now in Hamilton: A private company from Spain plans to open a centre in Hamilton that will pay for plasma donations. I’m going to tell you why this is so concerning—and there is an organization called BloodWatch.org that suggests the plasma collection centre will be located on Barton Street in Hamilton. Listen, if you know Hamilton, you will know this is an area of the city which is really hurting, I mean seriously hurting, and has been for a long time. It is an area where, historically, there has been higher unemployment and lower incomes than the city’s average.

Then Dr. Kerry Beal, who’s the lead physician at the Shelter Health Network, an excellent organization doing amazing work on a shoestring budget, said, “Isn’t that going to be a great location? They’re targeting vulnerable people.” Imagine you are looking at paying a higher energy bill, paying higher rent because there’s no more rent control, sky-high grocery costs, and then this place opens up in your neighbourhood. Now, we don’t know the full price point, but they’re suggesting between $75 and $100 for a plasma donation.

I have to say, BC has ruled this out. Even the Liberals, in 2014, when this was first suggested, stopped it; they blocked it under a significant amount of pressure. I keep thinking about these government advertisements and these commercials that we’re paying $25 million for—that’s a low ball on that part. But if the government is concerned about blood donations, which are down post-pandemic, or plasma donations, why not use some of that money to advertise how great this is for you? It’s a good thing for people to do, if they’re able to do so. But what does this government say? We got no answer this morning from the Minister of Health on this issue.

This needs to be shut down. It needs to be shut down now. It is a predatory practice. Privatizing the sale of bodily fluids like blood and plasma is a dangerous precedent to be setting. I have to say that you will see very vulnerable people coming to this place to earn $75 or $100 for their plasma, instead of a proactive, healthy policy in place, which should be supported by the government of the day.

Plasma and blood are obviously needed in the health care system, but selling it from a company from Spain is a very dangerous direction to go in. It makes me wonder, what else is going to be for sale in the province of Ontario? Is everything going to be for sale?

Interjection: Organs?

Yes, I think so.

Further debate? Further debate?

Seeing none, Mr. Jones has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carries?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Further debate? Further debate?

Seeing none, Mr. Jones has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Government order number 43.

Organs? It is such a dangerous precedent to be focused on.

The Shelter Health Network: We share the concerns of this organization that “worries that the vulnerable population they care for will use the pay-for-plasma centres as a source of income because they desperately need money.” This is really where we are in Ontario right now. I would have loved to have heard a very clear answer from the Minister of Health this morning, saying, “We’re going to shut this down. This is wrong. Not everything should be for sale.”

One of the last issues I want to talk about—I already addressed the justice issue. I should mention this, because it’s very politically—the timing of this particular motion, the upcoming budget bill, we’re going to be watching the justice file very closely. Right now, there are “53,000 unresolved cases … as of March 2023,” at the Landlord and Tenant Board, “impacting at least one million Ontarians.” This is a direct quote from Tribunal Watch Ontario.

Even the folks that are in prison right now, the latest stat was 63% of them are on remand. So these are people who may be innocent but they can’t afford bail, and they have been there for months or years. This is impacting families, impacting the economy. For some reason, the Attorney General doesn’t see that this is an urgent issue, and we’re just going to keep putting a lot of pressure on that.

But the other story that is around community and children’s services: Now, we all know that the autism wait-list right now is a disgrace. It is a point of shame that I think that this government will never be able to get away from. That system is so broken, and families tell me that they are breaking because of it. But our critic from Kiiwetinoong raised the issue of a recent story by Global News that just broke, and it’s called “Profiting Off Kids: Indigenous Kids Allegedly Called ‘Cash Cows’ of Ontario’s Child-Welfare System.”

Any government of any stripe anywhere should be judged on how they treat their most vulnerable. These children are some of the most vulnerable in this country and in this province. This story is called, “The Business of Indigenous Kids in Care.” It reads, “At a group home in eastern Ontario, the owner allegedly called First Nations kids from northern Ontario his ‘bread and butter.’

“Behind the doors of other privately run group homes”—which are a scourge in this province, and the oversight on these homes is almost non-existent—“former workers say that staff and management referred to Indigenous youth sent there for help as the company’s ‘cash cows,’ ‘money-makers,’ or even ‘paycheques.’” Imagine referring to Indigenous children in that manner.

“A year-long Global News investigation has revealed how some private group homes allegedly prey on the vulnerability of Indigenous youth from remote First Nations in order to generate profit.” This sounds accurate, because if it was a not-for-profit, profit wouldn’t be driving the chasing of the money, right?

“‘These are lives. They’re not a commodity’: Indigenous kids in care” are not a commodity. This needs to be clearly stated, and the minister responsible—I mean, I like the minister. I saw no acknowledgement that this is actually happening in Ontario, but this story goes on to say, “The result, according to some workers, child welfare experts and youths, are horrendous experiences some liken to the abuse that took place during … residential schools….

“Allegations of kids being violently restrained. Indigenous youths allegedly punished for speaking their languages. A vulnerable child asking visiting Indigenous social workers if they were there to rescue him.

“This … investigation, based on leaked and other internal government documents obtained under freedom of information laws, government contract data, and interviews with more than 100 former group home workers, youths and children’s aid employees, reveals: …

“—These companies allegedly charge resource-starved Indigenous children’s aid societies in the north higher daily fees to care for their kids compared with what they charge non-Indigenous agencies….

“—These group homes are often compared to a ‘prison’ where staff frequently use physical force to restrain children, former workers and youths said.”

And this is the last quote from this article: “‘People need to know that Indigenous youth are being monetized by the child-welfare system and that no cultural considerations are being made,’ said a former worker of multiple group homes in the Ottawa area….

“‘The average person would be quite shocked and frankly horrified,’” and we should be. We should be, Madam Speaker. This is not the Ontario of promise. These are intentional financial decisions that the government is making. The lack of oversight on all of these files and the accountability and needed transparency on these files are incredibly concerning for not only myself as the finance and Treasury Board critic—you certainly give me a lot of material to work with—but our entire caucus.

So we’re committed to showing up for the people of this province, for bringing the voices of the people who are not going to your events, who are not buying tickets to your stakeholder relations, not attending your mental health mixers—we are focused on bringing the real voices of Ontarians to this place, as we’ve taken an oath to do as legislators.

Madam Speaker, this government could do so much better for the people of this province and we’re going to hold you to account in that regard.

Further debate? Further debate? Seeing none, Mr. Jones has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Education, including supplementaries. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day? I recognize the deputy House leader.

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day? I recognize the deputy House leader.

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day? I recognize the deputy House leader.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Government order number 45.

Government order number 46.

Thank you, Speaker. Do you think I was going to let an opportunity go to waste to talk about the great things that are happening in Ontario thanks to Premier Ford and the team that is bringing jobs and prosperity right across all of Ontario?

We’re reminded, of course, of some years ago, under the previous Liberal government, when we lost 300,000 jobs. I recall the day when the former chair of what was then called Fiat Chrysler was sitting on a stage in Windsor with the former Premier, Kathleen Wynne—don’t forget auto companies were leaving Ontario at the time—and she was musing with Chrysler’s chair, “Are you going to be expanding in Ontario?” He looked at her with this shocked look on his face and said—I’m paraphrasing: “You have made Ontario the most expensive jurisdiction in North America in which to do business.” And she pushed a little further, and he replied one more time, “You’ve got to lower the cost of doing business in Ontario.”

The very first thing Premier Ford said to our team when we got elected was, “You heard loud and clear the problem in Ontario: 300,000 manufacturing jobs have left us. We’ve got to lower the cost of doing business in Ontario.” And we began immediately by reducing the cost of WSIB, workers’ compensation. Think about it: We charged employers a fee. We had charged so much that that fund was so overstuffed with cash, it was far beyond any financial realms. It was so far beyond any moral requirements that we reduced that fee by 50%. That is a $2.5-billion reduction in the cost of doing business in Ontario overnight, and that’s permanent reduction. The benefits have not changed, but the premiums have been lowered by 50%.

The next thing we did was bring in what’s called an accelerated capital cost allowance. That means that businesses can now write off the cost of their brand new equipment in the same year. That’s a billion-dollar savings to the businesses.

Then we reduced industrial and commercial hydro rates by 15%. That’s a billion three in savings.

The Liberals had a tax increase plan for January 1: $465 million in taxes that were to go up on January 1. We cancelled that tax increase and every other tax increase since the day we were elected. That’s $465 million, year after year after year, of savings.

Then we lowered the provincial share of your local property taxes by $450 million annually.

Then the red tape reductions began. Think about this: There are a couple of simple red tape reductions. General Motors, for instance, told us at the CAMI plant, they have to go through 120 pages of red tape. We reduced it to 12 for them. That is a massive savings of money and time that they can put in to doing great things like designing the BrightDrop electric vehicle that comes off the assembly line in General Motors.

We put red tape reductions that today amount to almost a billion dollars a year. Add all these things together and many more, and it is an $8-billion annual savings to the cost of doing business in Ontario. We pulled on every lever that we had at our hand to lower the cost of doing business, and the business community did exactly what we expected they would do. We lowered the cost, we lowered taxes, we lowered all of the red tape, we got out of their way and let them do what they do best, and what do they do? They hired 700,000 new employees since we were elected.

You can see the signs of this success all over Ontario. Here we are in Toronto. You look up in any direction in the city of Toronto and you will see cranes building this city. In fact, today, there are 240 cranes in the city of Toronto at work. Now, Speaker, that is an all-time record. There is no other city in North America that has ever had more than 60 cranes at the same time. There are 240.

This is an interesting list that I must read. There are more cranes operating in Toronto today than every other city on the crane list. That includes Seattle, LA, Denver, Boston, Washington, Portland, Honolulu, San Francisco, Chicago, Las Vegas, New York and Phoenix. We have more cranes operating in Toronto today than all those cities combined.

That’s the might. That’s the power. That’s what happens when you reduce taxes, lower the cost of doing business. They put people to work. They create jobs. Families earn incomes. This is what’s happening in the city of Toronto. This is what’s happening all across Ontario.

No better example than in the auto sector, where we now have landed $28 billion of new EV auto business in the province of Ontario in the last three years. That’s a remarkable statistic, and it is in conjunction with the $3 billion that we’ve landed in the life sciences business and the tens of billions of dollars we’ve landed in the tech sector. It is a remarkable picture that you see in Ontario.

You’ve heard me in this Legislature—I love this statistic. I can say this statistic 10 times a day in this Legislature. There were more manufacturing jobs created in Ontario last year than in all 50 US states combined. That’s what’s happening. That’s the picture of Ontario that people need to see.

You think back to that day when Sergio Marchionne was sitting on the stage telling Premier Wynne that Ontario is expensive. Reuters announced that there would be $300 billion spent in the EV sector, and zero of it was coming to Canada, zero of it was coming to Ontario. We put that $8 billion of savings, that power of that low tax, in front of the business community, and they did everything they said they would do. Last year, the business community hired another 180,000 people. Ninety-three per cent of those were full-time jobs. This is what’s happening.

What you hear across the aisle and what you see, the Liberal policies of high tax, carbon tax—tax, tax, tax—that is exactly the opposite of what we’re doing here in Ontario. We’re lowering the costs. We’re putting the conditions for businesses to want to be here and create jobs, and that is exactly what we see happening in the province of Ontario.

So, Speaker, there’s a very different Ontario happening today: one of job creation, one of economic development. We’ve had, as trade minister, the privilege of travelling far and wide last year, and we heard two messages—very consistent, unrehearsed, un-asked-for messages. We’ve heard that in this world, this post-COVID world—lots of trauma, lots of uncertainty. We saw Russia’s invasion of Ukraine creating more uncertainty, more disruptions. We see China disrupting the supply chain. Now, this was all before the war in Israel. But we see this sense of uncertainty around the world, and they all say—but they can look across the ocean. They can look across and see this beacon of hope that is Ontario. They know that they can come here, and they find certainty, stability, dependability, reliability, almost boring, in a sense—in a good way. That’s what they see in Ontario. They know what they’re going to get, and they understand that we’re open for business.

Then the other thing they tell us is that Ontario is safe. It’s safe for their executives. It’s safe for their employees. It’s safe for the families to be in. This is the vision around the world that is Ontario today. It’s a vision that was not Ontario only five years ago, before we were elected.

So, Speaker, I would say to you that the state of Ontario’s economy is very solid. We have great projections for this year, all because we’ve lowered the cost of doing business by $8 billion.

The deputy House leader has moved government order number 57. Further debate? Further debate? Further debate? Mr. Jones has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Transportation, including supplementaries. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Interjection.

I recognize the Minister of Economic Development.

Government order number 58.

Further debate? Further debate? Seeing none, Mr. Jones has moved concurrence in supply for the Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day? I recognize the deputy House leader.

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day? Deputy House leader.

Interjection: On division.

Order of the day? Deputy House leader.

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day? Deputy House leader.

Interjection: On division

Orders of the day? Deputy House leader.

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day? Deputy House leader.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day?

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day? Deputy House leader.

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day? Deputy House leader.

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day? Deputy House leader.

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day? Deputy House leader.

Interjection: On division.

Orders of the day? Deputy House leader.

Interjection: On division.

Motions agreed to.

Government order number 59.