Whatever.

The cap-and-trade program, honestly, was very focused on the highest industrial polluters and then that funding would go back to the greening—investing back in those businesses, in that manufacturing. I mean, based on how few times we’ve seen climate change in the budget, it’s almost like you’ve got your head in the sand on this one, because the smart money is on conservation, the smart money is on strategic investment.

And the lack of transparency around the funding in this place—really, I’m just going to circle back to this—is very key to the undermining of our democracy, which I see and I feel we are seeing in real-time at Queen’s Park; way worse than the Liberals I have to say—way worse. When you have a Minister of Energy overriding public good to benefit a corporation like Enbridge, you have lost the plot and this budget does not meet the moment. If you were looking for support from this government around affordability, it is not in Bill 180, I give you that much.

Let’s remember that the Auditor General has one job, and that is to follow the money that has been spent, right. The female or the male auditor does not have purview of looking at where the money was spent well or where it was spent where it was needed. The mandate of the Auditor General has been challenged many times by this government. In fact, I would ask the member why has this Conservative government doubled down on the watered-down advertising policy that you criticized the Liberals for?

The Auditor General can only work within their mandate; I will tell you that much. Why is it that the Financial Accountability Officer and their expenditure monitor say that when you say you’re going to invest $5 million to the Alzheimer’s Society and that money doesn’t flow for 2021, 2022, 2023, that number is an atrocious record of this government? You say you’re going to invest and then you don’t get the money out the door. I mean, that is a failure of leadership, if I’ve ever seen it.

If a government has a choice before them to do the right thing for the people who we’re elected to serve, to make sure that the public as a whole is getting good value for money, that the money from a return on investment is ensuring that we have healthier people in the province, why would they then look to agency nurses, agencies who—many are publicly traded. Why would that be okay with the government to pay that nurse three times what a hospital nurse or acute-care nurse is making on the floor? In what Conservative fiscal world does that make any sense, paying three times as much for not having consistent care?

I mentioned my future daughter-in-law works alongside agency nurses. The agency nurse comes in as a temp, right? There’s no team. There’s no coordination of care. And she’s dealing with the smallest, most vulnerable babies in Waterloo region. It makes no sense, and it’s fiscally irresponsible, I would argue.

There is no doubt that you are moving completely in the wrong direction, and at the end of the day, this budget does not meet the needs of Ontarians. In fact, you’re doubling down on natural gas, which the independent regulator has said will leave us with stranded assets. You are setting this province up to fail on the energy file, and it should come back to bite you.