Nepean, okay, Ottawa-Nepean—

When she got to be the minister, she was in charge of actually breaking down and closing the child and youth advocate office, and she said that she would be responsible, she would be the greatest child advocate that they could have. What we saw and what I mentioned when I started my speech was the Global News and the APTN investigation which shows that the abuse in foster homes is continuing. So the question is, does the member from Nepean actually take responsibility for all of the abuse that’s taken place, in part because of the loss of the child and youth advocate office?

I’ve only got a minute and a half left and I want to get to the solutions that we’re proposing. What we would like to see in this bill is getting rid of for-profit delivery. There should be no profit in looking after children. Profit should not be the motive. If you are going to dedicate yourself to looking after children or dedicate a company to looking after children, the children’s welfare has to be the first and only priority.

We also need to restore the child and youth advocate office. That’s an important thing to do. And we need to, as my colleague from Ottawa—

Interjection: Ottawa West–Nepean.

I think this bill—as the members opposite have said, there are some good things in it, but it does not go nearly far enough. With this bill, if this is the only action this government takes, there are going to be many more children like the one I started the story with, who are in foster care, who end up in very, very dangerous situations.

There were 200 complaints in 2023 to the Ombudsman’s child and youth unit by children in care. When the child and youth advocacy office was in play, they received an annual 2,000 cases per year. So there’s 1,800 fewer cases reported to the Ombudsman’s office than there were to the child and youth advocacy office. And the question is: What is happening to those children?

What you’re saying about high-needs children—high-needs children require a lot of care, and depending on the needs of those children, it can be very expensive to look after them. The funding for those children is simply not there. You cannot ask a family to take on a high-needs child and dedicate themselves to that if it’s not possible to do it and if the child needs more care than what’s possible to deliver, especially if the funding is not there.

One of the other recommendations coming out of this for this bill is an increase in funding, particularly for the care of high-needs children.

That the government is expanding that to include ECEs and other professionals who are in care of children, that makes good sense. But at the same time, the government needs to provide funding and also restore the children and youth advocacy office so that those children have an advocate on their side when things happen.

Thanks to the member from Spadina–Fort York for his question. He raised several points that are of interest to me. Our local children’s aid society has come to me and said, “We cannot find foster parents for high-needs children. It’s too hard.” And let me be really clear: There are some really good foster parents out there who are compassionate and caring, and this is not an easy, easy job.

So they’ve had to either create their own model of care for these high needs, which they’re not funded for, or they become reliant on these privatized agencies who say they specialize; however, we don’t have eyes on those agencies. And that’s the key piece: the oversight piece.

There are good intentions with this legislation. It may be good, but at the end of the day, you need to have eyes on these homes and eyes on these children. What does the member say to that?

Did you?

It’s a pleasure and honour to be able to speak to this bill today, Bill 188. Certainly, I don’t profess to be an expert in children, but I’ve had some experience. Some people say I’m still living that experience, working my way up to adulthood, but that’s a debate for another day.

I want to, first of all, commend the minister for bringing forward this initiative because obviously I’ve known this minister for some time now and I’ve got to see how he works, and I really appreciate, in his work in this ministry, how he continuously and incrementally has always put the welfare of children and youth at the top of the priority list.

We do appreciate that, Minister, and this bill is no exception to your commitment, and that is appreciated not just by myself and all of the members in this caucus, but, I do believe, the members on the other side. I think that I heard, if I’m not mistaken, notwithstanding the comments from the member from—is it Spadina–Fort York?

I say this as a person who came from a family—or comes from a family; it’s not like the family has kicked me out or anything. I come from a family of 14 children. Well, you can imagine all of the dynamics that exist in a family of 14 children. You know they say it takes a village to raise a child. Well, we were a village unto ourselves, with all of the challenges and the pleasures and everything else, and the wonders that come with that, growing up in a large family like that.

One thing that you do learn is that even when you don’t want to, you’d better get along. You’d better try to get along, because there are enough battles in a large family. It’s just like a big caucus. You’re supportive of one another, but there is a competition as well. That’s the way teamwork plays out. It will happen tonight on the ice in Toronto, as well, as the Leafs take on the Boston Bruins in game 3. I’m looking for another big performance by world-class superstar Auston Matthews.

One thing that my wife and I have always agreed on—we don’t agree on everything, and she always wins the things that we don’t agree on, but that’s another story too. But one thing we do agree on is the importance and the absolute priority of our children. We’ve talked about it. You do a lot of things in this world, and at some point you leave this world. We’ve often talked about it, that the only really amazing, wonderful, important thing that we have done is brought our children into this world and we have raised them, because when we leave this world, that is literally the only thing that Vicky and I will leave behind.

It doesn’t matter what I did here. It doesn’t matter what she did; it doesn’t matter what I did. It doesn’t matter if I even won the 1977 home run championship in the North Renfrew baseball league—

Those things don’t really matter. It doesn’t matter that I released a couple of CDs to support hospitals and long-term-care homes in my riding. What matters is our children, and without our children, there wouldn’t be our grandchildren, and so on and so forth—we have no great-grandchildren yet; as you can tell, I’m not that old.

But I really like what I’m seeing in this bill from the point of view of prioritizing the protection of children and youth. One of the items in the bill, one of the clauses or whatever in the bill, is requiring early childhood educators to have the same reporting requirements as teachers would have, for example, in reporting suspicion of abuse. Because if we’re not going to protect the children, then we don’t have much of a future, do we?

Now, I can tell you that I’m old enough—and, Speaker, you’re not that much younger than me—that we know of instances growing up where people have failed to report issues of abuse because they’re afraid of the repercussions upon themselves, particularly in small communities where everybody knows each other. This requirement that will become legislated under Bill 188 takes away that fear because it’s now an absolute requirement. It isn’t because you wanted to do this, to report so-and-so or whatever that you suspect there may be abuse; it is because it is now the law. You are required to report the fact that you suspect that there’s abuse going on in this group home or some other facility. That is a huge step forward in protecting the children and the youth in our society, those that are under care.

I know we don’t have a lot of time when we’re speaking on these issues, but there’s another aspect that I wanted to touch on as well, Speaker, and I hope I get this right. Let’s just say that you and I were in a group home at one time, that we were in care. Today, you and I are not allowed to talk about that. We are not free to talk about our experiences while under care.

I can talk all I want about my childhood experiences, about all the good, the bad and the ugly—oh, there was a movie under that name; I think I was the “ugly” part. Absolutely, Speaker, we can talk about those. We have that freedom to speak on any of those subjects we want and divulge what we choose to and withhold what we choose to. But if we were in a home, in a care setting, under the current laws we’re not allowed to talk about that. I mean, it’s like wiping out—how many times have people who know me in here heard me talk about experiences I had growing up?

If this government wants to support children, they need to end Ontario’s for-profit child residential care. We cannot forget the case in 2021, while this Conservative government was in power, when a teenager living in a for-profit home was murdered by another teenager. And guess what? This Conservative government still gave that for-profit care home its licence.

So at this point in time, in 2024, we really want to be able to believe that you care about children and youth. but it’s hard to when we see our schoolboards consistently gutted. And which kids are getting hurt the worst? Kids with disabilities. It’s the kids who are at the margins of the margins. It’s the BIPOC kids. It’s the kids living in poverty.

So is this government going to actually end for-profit residential child care?

I hear the member’s passion in this, and absolutely, we must end for-profit child care. There’s a litany of abuse that’s been happening. There’s the reports that come out about what’s been happening, that these for-profit child care providers are generating profits, that they’re actually making money on this, on the backs of these children, and they call the children “cash cows.” They’re accumulating real estate assets from the taxpayer dollars that are supposed to be going to children’s care.

We need to get the profit out of child care, foster care. We need to make sure that all organizations that are looking after children, that their first and only responsibility is the care for those children, not for generating profits for their owners.

We’re seeing it also with Chartwell, the seniors’ home in Mississauga that’s being shut down. We’ve got 200 seniors being evicted because this company, a real estate investment trust, wants to renovict those seniors so they can make more profit. It’s appalling. The government should not be supporting, either for children’s care or seniors’ care, for-profit corporations.

Further questions?

A few.

Speaker, if you seek it, you’ll find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6.

And I don’t just mean in the debate chamber here, but I mean sitting in a social setting, in the caucus lounge or whatever. You’ve heard me talk about those many, many times, because I have many experiences to talk about when you come from a family like mine with 14 children. We have four children and 12 grandchildren; those are not my childhood experiences, but I can talk about anything I choose to.

Well, in the case of someone who is under care, they can’t talk about them. But, should this bill pass, Speaker, they will be free to talk about those and speak about those experiences to anyone they choose. That is like having a yoke and a cone of silence all at one time lifted off your shoulders, so that you are now free to speak about your childhood experiences.

Speaker, I know I only have a little bit of time. I thank you for this time and appreciate the minister bringing this bill forward.

I get the rhetoric from the other side. This is the way they work. It doesn’t matter how much we invest in children; according to them, it will never be enough. But the next question in question period will be: “Why do you have a deficit of $9.8 billion? You’re spending too much money.”

Speaker, children are our priority and will always be. Thanks for the question.

Isn’t the ability to speak freely really what democracy is all about? Isn’t the freedom to speak freely what our founding fathers and people like my father went to war to defend?

I say to the member, in our house, the kitchen table really was the place of all conversation. You could have a conversation just about anywhere in the house, but the kitchen table was where people really spoke freely and where all the best decisions were made. I grew up in a home where I had the ability to speak. And our children have always been able to speak about their experiences and their concerns.

Being able to speak freely—that’s something we are giving to children who grew up in care. This bill gives them that freedom.

She’s right: 44% is an unacceptable number. That’s why we’ve got $3.8 billion in the Roadmap to Wellness and other monies—

Questions and comments?

Further debate? Further debate?

Mr. Parsa has moved second reading of Bill 188, An Act to amend the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and various other Acts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Minister?

Orders of the day. The member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington.

MPP Hazell moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 184, An Act to amend the Metrolinx Act, 2006, the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act and the Shortline Railways Act, 1995 with respect to transportation / Projet de loi 184, Loi visant à modifier la Loi de 2006 sur Metrolinx, la Loi sur l’aménagement des voies publiques et des transports en commun et la Loi de 1995 sur les chemins de fer d’intérêt local en ce qui concerne les transports.

I thank the member for his very energetic comments. And 14 kids—wow.

He talked about something that actually touched me. He talked about the ability to speak freely. Imagine being a child in care, or once in care, and not having the ability to speak or provide personal information about their life, which is so impeding, when you think about rights as a human being. I’m just wondering if you’d like to talk about that a little bit more—about having their rights kind of taken away from them.

It was with great interest that I listened to the member’s debate, because the member spoke quite a bit about accountability. I think it’s important that we have some accountability for what’s happening in the child welfare sector, because we have a funding formula that’s completely broken.

The children’s aid societies across the province have a deficit this year that’s not being eliminated. Last year, they got one-time funding only to eliminate the deficit, and they don’t have the resources they need to provide sufficient quality care to children who need care. So across the province, we have kids who are in hotel rooms, Airbnbs and even offices, which is not a good place to provide care for a child, especially not when the child has complex mental health or physical health needs.

My question to the member opposite is: Where is the funding to actually provide good-quality care to children who are in care in the province of Ontario?

There are some good aspects of Bill 188, the Supporting Children’s Futures Act.

I want to share a statistic in this House from a few years back: 44% of youth in care graduate from high school compared to 81% of their peers. I think that speaks loudly to the lack of supports that we have both in the care system and also in the education system.

I will say it over and over again: Mental health has to be a priority here in Ontario. And how do we do that? We do that by having the caring adults, the caring professionals in place who also have culturally relevant training to support our diverse Ontario youth.

Will the government commit to more funding for our education system and our care system so it can actually care and function—

To the Standing Committee on Social Policy, please.

Pursuant to standing order 100, the member has 12 minutes for their presentation.

Mr. Speaker, I am so honoured and delighted to debate my second piece of legislation in this House. I was elected to this chamber to bring positive change to Ontario, to present good policies that would improve people’s lives, to bring new ideas that would make Ontario a safer and kinder place—ideas that are bold, ideas that move the province forward, ideas that are smart.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this bill has not one, not two, not three but four smart ideas to improve transportation in our beautiful province. This legislation, if enacted, would address four sections where the government could be doing more. These are the promotion of active transportation, construction of affordable housing near public transit, improving safety standards on dangerous northern highways, and protecting crucial rail infrastructure with support to the economy and impact to the environment.

Here’s my first smart idea: People are cycling more than ever, particularly in more urban environments. In 2023, Toronto saw over 5.7 million bike-share riders, and that number is only growing. We are on the brink of a new golden age of cycling. It is the healthiest form of transportation. You can get your daily exercise just through pedalling. It is environmentally friendly, with zero carbon emissions, unlike gasoline and diesel cars and buses. And often, cycling can be faster than public transit, so it is no surprise that people are pedalling more every single day.

One of the biggest advancements in cycling is this bike-share system implemented in Toronto and Hamilton. These systems are game-changers, providing convenient and easily accessible transportation for thousands of people. This system is expanding quickly, with plans for every riding in Toronto to be connected by the system. It is time to move forward into the next phase of it.

As it stands, there is minimal coordination between bike-share systems and public transit. That interconnectivity is hampered by a lack of fare integration or discount for using both, meaning that commuting with both bike-share and public transit is more expensive than just by public transit. For example, someone who commutes from Hamilton to Toronto for work would pay $11.44 to take the Hamilton bus to West Harbour, take the GO train to Union and take the subway to their office. They might prefer to use the bike-share to and from the GO system, but that would cost them $20.50. Just imagine: $9 more for the healthier and often quicker option, which does not make sense, especially when it would likely be cheaper for the province to cover the bike-share fare and the Hamilton Street Railway and TTC fares.

My legislation would amend the Metrolinx Act to require them to consider bicycle infrastructure in route and fare integration planning. Bike-shares are public transit, and we need to start treating it as stuff. The SMART Ontario Act makes Metrolinx adopt that viewpoint. A policy shift to integrate fares will not only benefit the 5.7 million-plus riders in Toronto, but it will also encourage commuters to use a healthier and more environmentally friendly transportation option.

The second part of the SMART Ontario Act also amends the Metrolinx Act to require 20% affordable housing whenever Metrolinx sells land to residential property developers. Metrolinx is one of the largest landowners in all of Ontario, and it currently has multiple properties up for sale. Let’s get this right.

I’m going to use Scarborough for an example: 4142 Sheppard Avenue in Scarborough—this location is a five-minute walk from Agincourt GO, as well as the future Sheppard East TTC extension. This is prime real estate to redevelop for transit-oriented living, and we need to see some proactivity from Metrolinx to ensure that the redevelopment includes an affordable component.

I have seen the impact that this housing and affordability crisis has on the people of Scarborough–Guildwood. We are in a generational housing crisis, and when we sell government land off for housing, we should be ensuring there is an affordability component. But you don’t have to trust my words, because this government’s very own Housing Affordability Task Force recommends the same measure. Requiring 20% of units to be affordable at these sites is a slam-dunk way to get affordable housing built, but this government has already missed the boat on this at a number of sites. Metrolinx sold land in Beaches–East York and Mississauga–Lakeshore that will not have an affordable component, and that is a major missed opportunity.

The Housing Affordability Task Force report has been out for two years now, but this government has stalled or refused to implement the vast majority of its measures. By voting for the SMART Ontario Act, this government can fulfill one of those crucial measures to address the housing crisis.

The third part of the SMART Ontario Act is new standards on Highways 11, 17 and 69, which form the backbone of the northern road network. These roads are dangerous and not well maintained; it is putting drivers and transporters at risk every single day as they drive on these highways.

As part of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, I travelled through northern communities such as Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Dryden, where I heard not just about the difficulties regarding these highways but how this government has stalled on their promises to complete the twinning of these highways. Much of the routes in these northern communities are single lanes going in each direction. When one of those lanes closes because of a snowstorm or a car accident, travel is crippled, which means people can’t see their families, businesses can’t make their deliveries and residents cannot access crucial services like the hospitals when they need it the most. There have been an alarming number of deaths caused by horrific accidents on these highways because of poor road conditions.

The new standards through the SMART Ontario Act will mean that potholes are fixed sooner, and snow and ice are cleared quicker, allowing for safer and more reliable roads. When you are driving down along northern roads in the dead of winter, you need to trust the asphalt beneath you. People’s lives are threatened and even lost by the poor standards of these roads. Mr. Speaker, the standards that are held for the 400-series highways should also be held for Highways 11, 17 and 69. Let’s fix that by voting for the SMART Ontario Act.

The last part of the SMART Ontario Act is about protecting shortline railways. It’s not difficult. This is not a hugely visible part of people’s lives, but it’s a major part of this economy. These rail lines connect business to the main freight lines, support thousands of jobs across the province, and could be used towards advancing transit in the future. These rails provide first-mile and last-mile connectivity to customers and industries that are located in rural and remote communities.

Many local businesses would not exist or could not survive without access to shortline freight rail services. When a shortline rail shuts down, businesses are forced to either close up shop or move, often to other jurisdictions, including the United States. Let’s not forget that.

The sales of shortline railways are not protected right now, which puts our economy at risk and limits our options for the future. If we protect these railways, we could repurpose them for public transportation, such as for the GO, which would save millions of dollars. Existing rail corridors are unique assets, and building new transit on them is much more cost-effective than building LRTs or subways. We are allowing shortlines to be abandoned and sold off, which means Ontario is losing vital opportunities to expand our transportation sector.

The almost funny thing is that there used to be great protections for shortlines in this province, until this government removed it in 2019 in a misguided so-called red tape reduction measure. That’s why, in my bill, we are just bringing back the old law—very easy to fix. Bringing back these protections doesn’t just protect jobs; it is also protecting the shortline right-of-way of future generations, which keeps the door open to future passenger rails on these routes.

We as MPPs do not need to just plan for a better Ontario. We need to make sure we are planting the seeds for a brighter future too. I strongly encourage every member of this chamber to support this bill. These proposed changes are simple and non-controversial, and will improve peoples’ commutes, bring good homes to the families of Ontario, support businesses big and small, and save lives on northern roads.

Let’s get it done with the SMART Ontario Act.

Further debate?

I’m pleased to rise today and take this opportunity to discuss the Supporting Mobility, Affordability and Reliable Transportation in Ontario Act, as proposed by the member from Scarborough–Guildwood.

I’d like to start by addressing the proposal for Highways 11, 17 and 69. We are working with those communities and listening to their feedback. The Ministry of Transportation ensures that Highways 11, 17 and 69 continue to receive investments that strengthen their safety. Ontario has nation-leading standards in place when it comes to winter maintenance, and our government will never compromise on safety. Operations are active 24 hours a day, seven days a week, until bare pavement is restored, so road safety will always be a priority for this government.

The member opposite’s bill also proposes to introduce more integration between transit agencies. However, this is the same party that voted against removing double tolls for transit riders. That will save commuters up to $1,600 a year per person. There has never been a government that has invested more in our transportation network than under the leadership of Premier Ford.

Our government has the most ambitious infrastructure plan in Ontario’s history. We’re making historic investments, including over $100 billion over the next decade to build roads, highways and public transit that our growing province desperately needs. This includes more than $70 billion as part of the largest public transit expansion in Ontario’s history.

The people of Ontario re-elected our government to build Ontario, and under the leadership of this Premier, we’re getting it done. Unlike previous governments, we’re getting shovels in the ground faster than ever before.

In 2020, our government brought forward the Building Transit Faster Act, which introduced measures to streamline and accelerate the construction of critical transit projects. I will remind the Liberals and the NDP that they voted against the Building Transit Faster Act. But again, that’s why the people of Ontario turned their backs on the Liberals and the NDP: They have no solutions to make life better.

As a part of the Get It Done Act, our government is proposing changes that will allow us to get shovels in the ground faster on new housing projects for cities all across Ontario. Under the leadership of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, we will continue to work with our municipal partners as we build a better future.

After years of inaction by the previous Liberal and NDP government, our government is working hard to build new infrastructure as fast as possible. The Liberals and the NDP left people crowded on subways and buses and failed to deliver critical projects like two-way all-day GO, or a new subway for downtown Toronto.

They sat by as our population grew over a decade. Their record is clear: They do not support public transit. They voted against the largest expansion of public transit in Canadian history. Speaker, we are the only party that is serious about building Ontario.

When the Liberals were in office, they cut passenger rail service for northern Ontario. They abandoned communities like Timmins and Cochrane who absolutely relied on that Northlander. We know how important the Northlander is for families in the north, and that’s why this Premier and our government are bringing back the Northlander with brand new trains and passenger coaches.

The Liberals had a chance to reverse their mistake, but instead, they doubled down and they voted against our plan to restore public transit in the north after they cut it. So whether it’s the Ontario Line, GO expansion or the Ontario Northlander, Ontario Liberals vote against building transit time and time again.

Since our government took office, we have made it a priority to get things done for the people of Ontario. That’s why we introduced the Get It Done Act, which will allow us to plan, approve and build projects faster than ever before. The Liberals and the NDP, they seem to love red tape, and it’s part of the reason they got nothing built when they were in office. That’s why Ontarians rejected the Liberals and the NDP overwhelmingly in the last election.

The people of Ontario want to see new infrastructure built and built without delay. We can’t let more red tape get in the way of our getting shovels in the ground on the roads, the highways and the public transit that our province so desperately needs. Unlike governments of the past, we’re not just talking about transforming our transportation network; we’re getting it done.

Thanks to the leadership of Premier Ford, Ontario’s economy is strong, attracting investment and attracting new families from around the world. In fact, Ontario is one of the fastest-growing regions in North America. It’s predicted to grow by five million people over the next 10 years. The greater Golden Horseshoe alone is expected to grow by a million people every five years, reaching almost 15 million people by the year 2031.

The Liberals knew this growth was coming, and yet they did nothing and left our highways in gridlock. That’s why we’re building generational projects hike the Bradford Bypass and Highway 413, both of which will be toll-free and bring much-needed relief to some of the most congested traffic corridors in North America, shortening commuter times by 30 minutes per trip.

The reality is, the gridlock commuters face every day costs us more than $11 billion a year in lost productivity. Gridlock not only increases the cost of things we buy, but it also makes it harder to access good jobs and affordable housing. Highway 401 is already the most congested highway in North America, and with other major highways quickly reaching their capacity, doing nothing is simply not an option. That’s why we’re building roads, highways, bridges and public transit to get people where they need to go and keep our economy moving.

Unlike the Liberals, we’re investing in every corner of this province, including northern Ontario. When it comes to highway safety, our government will continue to take action. That’s why we’re the first government to introduce new maintenance standards for Highways 11 and 17. Under our government, Highways 11 and 17 is cleared four hours faster after a winter storm.

And we’re making critical investments to improve highway safety. We’ve added more winter maintenance equipment to our fleet. There are currently over 1,100 pieces of winter maintenance equipment ready to be deployed to keep our highways clear even on the harshest winter nights.

Over the past few years, we’ve hired 20 new inspectors and coordinators and provided them with the tools to effectively ensure that our contractors are meeting those high standards. These are investments that the Liberals and the NDP voted against. They voted against funding to complete the twinning of Highway 69. They voted against funding to build the first 2+1 highway in North America. They voted against funding to twin the Trans-Canada outside of Kenora. This is typical for the Liberals. They say one thing but then do another. We are the only party that’s taking real action to improve the highways in the north.

Speaker, when it comes to investing in our transportation network and in housing, we won’t take lessons from the opposition. As the former mayor of Mississauga, carbon tax Crombie balked at thousands of units next to the future Hazel McCallion LRT. Let me repeat that: Bonnie Crombie said no to 4,690 units next to an 18-kilometre transit line that would connect Mississauga to Brampton. It’s because of policies from NIMBY politicians like Bonnie Crombie that costs continue to rise.

Our government is about saying yes to building. Unlike the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie, we’re saying yes to homes, to transit and to the highways that we need. My colleague Minister Surma is leading the way when it comes to connecting communities to transit. Our Transit-Oriented Communities Program will ensure that people have access to jobs and to transit while being closer to home. We’re going to see new communities along the Ontario Line: 1,490 units in Corktown, nearly 4,000 units in East Harbour and over 2,600 units in Thorncliffe Park. These are only some of the communities that we’re building through the TOC Program.

And yet, Speaker, again, the Liberals and the NDP voted against this plan. They voted against building new homes for families next to transit. They voted against housing projects that increase transit ridership, reduce carbon emissions and provide much-needed housing in the GTA.

Since day one, our government has made affordability our number one priority for the people of Ontario. Now, more than ever, we need policies that help Ontario families keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets, and we’re giving them the confidence that they will continue to keep that money.

That’s why we introduced legislation which, if passed, would ban any new tolls on provincial highways. This would not only apply to the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner Expressway once both of those highways are uploaded to the province, but also to the province’s 400-series highways. Any future government would be required to conduct public consultations before enacting tolls because the public has a right to know if it’s going to enact tolls that can cost up to $5,000 a year for a family.

But it’s not only families that benefit from fewer tolls. The tolls add to the price of commercial goods because it adds to the cost of trucking, and that cost is reflected in the prices that we see on store shelves. Hard-working Ontario families deserve better than that. Preventing new tolls on provincial highways will connect communities across the province, making jobs more accessible, and drive our economy forward.

We know from experience that making highways toll-free provides significant savings to Ontarians. In April 2022, we eliminated the tolls on Highway 412 and Highway 418, a move that will save drivers $68 million between 2022 and 2027. By introducing a ban on any new tolls on provincial highways, we’re going a step further to make sure it stays affordable.

Speaker, on average, with the new One Fare, average transit riders will save up to $1,600 per person, and yet again, the Liberals and the NDP voted against it. I don’t understand.

As many Ontarians struggle to make ends meet, now is definitely not the time for the federal Liberal government to raise taxes, so we will continue to fight the government of Canada on the carbon tax.

Now, more than ever, we need to build infrastructure to save people money. We’re the only party that is serious about that. We were elected to get it done, and we will.