Brazil, wherever. Anyway, it doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t belong to us.

But that’s not actually the case. I was mistaken. Believe me, it’s not often that I’m completely mistaken, but part of the 407, I believe the 407 east, does belong to the province. You kept the tolls on there. “No new tolls. We’re the anti-toll party—except for this stretch of highway.”

Again, a lot of these regs and rules seem more for political purposes than actual legislation that’s going to improve the lives of people living in Ontario. I think one thing we can all agree on, regardless of our political affiliation, is we all want to improve—our lives, let’s be honest, but particularly the lives of young people, like the pages, the lives of the many people who want to come to Ontario and the lives of the many people who want to stay in Ontario. We want to do that for everybody, regardless of our political affiliation. But I’ve got to wonder sometimes—referendums, except on things we’ve done.

You’ve spent days and days and weeks and weeks in question period about the carbon tax. I know what you’re trying to do; you’re trying to brand the new Liberal leader. I don’t mind that. I’m going to be upfront; I don’t mind that. But you don’t seem to be focusing on the things we can actually do in the province so that people don’t have to pay as much carbon tax. We’re being double charged. In a way, we’re being double charged.

I hear constantly about the 10-cent rebate in gas. Is it 10—

The one thing about the reduction in gas tax, I don’t think we felt it in northern Ontario, because there’s nothing stopping—again, every business, big or small, but especially businesses that control the market, are going to go for their maximum profit. I don’t blame that. That’s free market. But in gas, I think you just gave up your 10 cents and the gas companies got it, because there’s nothing—you didn’t put anything in to say that 10 cents actually has to go to consumers. We hear this all the—I drive every week, and there is sometimes 15 cents, 20 cents difference in my drive. No, that’s not transportation.

I have a member here I used to do business with, and he’ll know exactly how much extra transportation it is to get—it’s not 15 cents or 20 cents on a litre of gas, it’s not, because sometimes the farther ones are cheaper than the closer ones. It’s whatever the market will bear.

So on the carbon tax, again, we’re not in favour. I don’t know how many times we have to say that. We’re not in favour of the carbon tax. We are in favour of a pricing system. We believe that we need some kind of pricing system so that we can use less fossil fuel and also help people use less fossil fuel. I hope that’s one of the reasons why this government is pushing for electric vehicles so hard. We get that, but we just don’t see why you’re not putting in the safeguards so that when you make decisions, that those decisions actually benefit the people because, sometimes, the free-market system—when you have the public and the free-market system working together—will grab what it can grab.

As a farmer—I’ve got a few other farmers here. Right now, beef is really expensive, and cattle are really expensive. Farmers are selling cattle at expensive prices. No farmer is going to say, “You know what? That’s really expensive, so how about I give you”—a Holstein or a beef calf now is like a thousand bucks. “Well, that’s too expensive, so how about I’ll give you $500 back?” No free-market person is going to do that, and neither do big companies. They wouldn’t be in business long.

So when the government is going to give somebody a deal like taking taxes off, and they’re going to stand there and they’re going to say, “We’re making your life easier,” they haven’t ensured that they have. They’ve ensured that they’re getting less income themselves and they’re hoping that that tax break flows through, but there’s no reason that it will.

Now, I better start reading some notes here. Protecting against the carbon taxes act: I’ve covered that. Removing tolls from non-tolled highways: I think I’ve covered that. Highway 413: There is a huge difference of opinion on Highway 413—I’m going to talk about something personal. Where we massively disagree with the government, massively—now, not on development. We understand the population is increasing. When you have industries, now with a huge change for EVs, you need development. We get it. What we don’t understand—and I’m going to use an example—what’s happening right now in Wilmot—and please, in your questions, correct me if you’re wrong because maybe I’m misunderstanding something here. So the government has basically put out that all municipalities, if they want to be shovel-ready in case another big—I’m sure the government is working on other announcements, other industries. That’s your job, it’s all our jobs. So municipalities need it, okay.

So in this case, a private developer somehow figured out that something might be coming so they tried to scoop these farms, and when the scoop didn’t work—so you have to wonder where the intel came from for the scoop—then the next step is expropriation. Now, expropriation has a place. If there’s a new highway, but expropriation for industrial development—well, wait a second. You are taking farms—and this could happen anywhere in Ontario. You decide we’re going to need this thousand acres, so we’re going to expropriate it for whatever cost, but that thousand acres has been developed by those farmers, and if there’s a better use for it—you have to make a really good argument to me that there’s a better use for farmland than growing food, but if you can’t prove that, that land shouldn’t be expropriated.

You should actually treat those farmers like the business people they are—and they are—but that’s not what this government seems to be doing. They seem to think that big business trumps all and that that thousand acres—they’re not stealing it; expropriation isn’t that. But let’s be honest: If there’s a factory that’s going to come there, that is industrial land. That is not agricultural land. The value of the land has just skyrocketed, and that price didn’t go to the people who actually had that land. It went somewhere else. That’s not right.

I can’t believe that Conservatives, who would claim to be business people, buy that. No, I can’t believe it. I’ve got a few hundred acres. If somebody wanted to build, I personally would say you would have to prove to me that it’s better than somewhere else that maybe can’t grow food as well. But then, whoever has that land should be a part and should be paid for that land what it’s actually worth. That’s not what expropriation is; it isn’t.

Interjection.

That’s it.

It’s 10.7.

Brazil. I think it’s Brazil.

Questions?

But we fixed it.

No, it isn’t. Anyone knows that if you want to buy a house on a street, and there are 10 houses, but you want the one that isn’t for sale, you just can’t take the average of the other houses in the town and say, “Well, that’s what we’re going to give you,” because that house isn’t for sale. It’s a whole different thing, and anyone who doesn’t understand that has never really thought it through.

I’m a farmer, and if your family has built that farm up for the last 100 years or the last 10, and somebody says, “We’re going to build something else there,” well, do you know what? That’s worth a lot more than the going rate per acre. It is, because there was never a “for sale” sign there, and I don’t understand why no one, especially Conservatives, understands that.

I talk to a lot of farmers. Another one they didn’t understand was the three severances per lot that this government was going to implement. That works for some places, but if you have a livestock farm, three severances per lot is going to kill your farm, because if your neighbour sells a lot next door to you, because of minimum distance separation, you can never expand.

Oh, I’ve only got four minutes left. I don’t think I’ve got really much more to say—I probably said too much already. I’m hoping the Speaker hasn’t fallen asleep. I tried hard not to—anyway, I think the biggest thing with this bill is that a lot of the things you’re doing seem to be more for political purposes, more for messaging purposes, than actually moving the province forward. We’re not against moving the province forward, as I said. The announcements for the EV plants, we’re in favour. St. Thomas—not everybody is happy about St. Thomas, but that went through the House no problem. And we understand not everybody is ever going to be happy. That’s why we have the system we do. But please understand how things actually should work.

Rail about the carbon tax all you want. We agree that there shouldn’t be one. But tell people about your industrial compliance fee for carbon. Tell them the truth.

Thank you, Speaker.

Actually, I said that we were proud that we voted against those seven bills. We have voted for lots of bills that you’ve put forward. We don’t vote for your budget bills because we disagree, as the loyal opposition, with many of your budgetary policies. The first term, you were always talking about how we propped up the Liberal government. Now, with this question, I’ll look up the figures—I don’t have time right now—but actually, we looked it up, and we voted for the Liberals, I think, 60% of the time and you voted for the Liberals 50% as opposition. We don’t vote against everything. It’s our job to hold the government to account.

And on the registration for cars, you know what, you should maybe rethink that, because there is a loophole now where car thieves, because we are not going to register cars, have an easier time selling them. So, look before you do things, and there’s a difference between careful legislation or having to rescind whole—

But farmers are business people. They are. I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with that. Treat them like business people. They know the value of what they have built. They know the value of that land if there is going to be an industrial project put on it. They know that. And they know that when that land is expropriated that their value is being taken, and that is where the government is going to run into trouble.

Thank you to the member opposite. He always makes Thursday afternoons a little more tolerable, maybe, I should say.

I want to remind the member, and maybe the member from Spadina–Fort York, as well, that if you do nothing, you won’t need to pivot and change direction. Before you got to your notes, I just want to say that I wouldn’t be too proud of voting against everything. You mentioned the seven bills, but everything is a little bit—because when you accomplish one thing, when you do nothing, you stop to grow, and when an economy stops to grow, it dies. It’s important, and this government is really demonstrating that in continuing to move forward.

This bill, like so many others—together with so many others—creates an environment for growth. The Honda announcement today is an example like that. It also creates an environment for people to thrive, and within this bill—like the eight million vehicle owners that are saving 900,000 hours in time because of the changes that we’re making to licence renewals; it’s just one thing in this bill that helps create that environment.

Would the member agree that creating that environment for the economy and for people is a good thing?

First of all, I have to say to my colleague, that was a really good speech, and maybe you should set aside your notes more often because it’s a very effective technique appreciated by all in the House.

Your comments about farmers and the sale of land: Could you expand a bit and give us a sense of where the rest of the farming community in Ontario is on this at the moment? Because it sounds to me like it would be a red flag.

I’m proud to rise this afternoon in the third reading of Bill 162, the Get It Done Act, introduced by the Minister of Transportation. I want to thank him and his team, including the associate minister and the parliamentary assistant from Hastings–Lennox and Addington for all the great work they’re doing.

I want to thank the associate minister in particular for all his great work on the One Fare initiative. Speaker, it’s been less than two months, and there have already been over five million free transfers between GO Transit and municipal transit systems across the GTA. Again, this will save the average commuter $1,600 each year.

Before I begin my remarks, I also want to congratulate the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development for their announcement today on the largest auto sector investment in Canadian history: $15 billion from Honda for new electric vehicle manufacturing plants in Alliston, north of Toronto. Speaker, this means that, in the last three years alone, we have been able to attract over $43 billion of investment from global automakers here in Ontario.

I remember when the former Liberal Minister of Finance, who I ran against in 2018, said that assembly line manufacturing was “a thing of the past” in Ontario. Speaker, if the former Liberal government had been re-elected, it would have been something in the past. But our government has taken a very different approach, that the bill today, Bill 162, would continue. We’re cutting taxes, red tape, energy costs, and making Ontario open for business again. This has produced an economic recovery that leads the country and leads North America.

In June 2018, there were 7.2 million jobs in the province. Last month, there were almost eight million. That’s an increase of 725,000 jobs. That is an average of about 10,500 new jobs each month, or 126,000 new jobs each year. Last year, Ontario created more manufacturing jobs than all 50 US states combined.

Speaker, to support this growth, the 2024 budget includes the most ambitious capital plan in Ontario’s history. It includes investments of $190 billion in infrastructure over the next 10 years, including $98 billion for new highways and public transit, including many critical projects in Mississauga and across the Peel region that the changes in Bill 162 would help us to build faster.

As the minister said, modernizing and streamlining Ontario’s 50-year-old environmental assessment process would make it easier to build infrastructure we need. That includes the new 20-kilometre Hazel McCallion LRT line in Mississauga, including the new downtown loop and expansions into Brampton that were announced earlier this year. This project is now a priority transit project under the Building Transit Faster Act, together with the Ontario Line and other major subway and LRT projects across Ontario. It includes a historic GO Transit expansion along the Lakeshore and Milton lines and across the GTA. ONxpress is planning to run up to 18 trains per hour on the Lakeshore West line; that is an average of a train every three minutes. Expansion of the Milton line would be a little bit more difficult because the corridor is owned by Canadian Pacific; the passengers share the same tracks with the freight train. But we’re working toward a two-way, all-day service by building a fully separated passenger rail line.

The changes included with Bill 162 would help us get this new rail, highways and other important infrastructure built up to four years sooner. For example, for some projects, terms of reference will no longer be required, which by itself can save up to two years.

Schedule 1 would also make a minor change to clarify that we can acquire property before an EA is approved. While these changes would save time and money, it is important to note that all environmental safeguards would still be maintained, including consultation. But Bill 162 would help to bring Ontario’s EA process in line with other provinces, including Quebec and British Columbia, and with the federal government.

On that note, I want to take a moment here to thank the federal government again for their decision last month to cancel their EA on Highway 413, which would have delayed the project by at least five years. By working together, we should be able to begin construction next year to help connect Peel, Halton and York regions and save drivers 30 minutes each way. That’s five hours per week and 260 hours each year, or a total of 11 days each year.

Ontario grew by half a million people last year, and we’re on track for at least another half a million people this year. That’s more growth than any US state, including the fastest-growing states like Florida or Texas. The western GTA doesn’t have the highway capacity we need to support this growth. All of our major highways, including the 407, will be over capacity within the next 10 years. Highway 413 will finally bring relief to an area that clearly needs it.

I’ve mentioned this before, but when I was first elected, we met with the region of Peel, on September 18, 2018, and they told us that Highway 413 was one of their top priorities. They said it’s “critical to the economic well-being of both the region of Peel and the entire province.” They said Highway 413 is “required to support increased capacity, which is needed across Peel due to our goods movement sector.”

This was the position of Brampton, Caledon and Mississauga, including Bonnie Crombie. Like John Kerry, she was for Highway 413 before she was against it. Not long ago, the federal Liberal environment minister said that his government would stop investing in road infrastructure, but even he is now on side on Highway 413, so I hope that Bonnie Crombie will support 413 again as well.

Next, I move on to schedule 2, which would help make life easier and more affordable for drivers. As you know, two years ago, we eliminated licence plate renewal fees for passenger vehicles, saving drivers $120 each year in southern Ontario and $60 in northern Ontario. Combined with our gas and fuel tax cuts until at least the end of 2024, which are saving the average household another $320, this is real relief for Ontario taxpayers.

Unfortunately, at an event earlier this month at the Empire Club, Liberal leader Bonnie Crombie said that these are just “gimmicks” that she would cancel if she ever got a chance. This couldn’t be any more out of touch with the average Ontarian. I have a lot of respect for the member from Ottawa South; he was right when he said his party lost in 2018 and lost party status because they had a listening problem. Their leader still has that same problem.

Families are struggling with the cost of living, high interest rates, high inflation and, of course, the federal carbon tax. That’s what I’ve been hearing lately when I go door-knocking in Mississauga–Lakeshore or in Milton. I haven’t been in Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, but I’m sure it’s the same there as well. They don’t think that the tax relief we’re providing is a gimmick. That’s why schedules 2 and 4 of Bill 162 would put the current freeze on driver licence and photo card fees in legislation for the first time: $35 for photo cards and $90 for a five-year driver’s licence. This would save drivers $88 million by 2030 and also help to protect them from future increases. Moving forward, this House would have to approve any changes.

As well, schedule 2 of Bill 162 would help us to transition to automatic licence plate renewals for drivers in good standing who have no outstanding tickets or fines. As the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery said, at a time when people are as busy as ever with their work and families, we can save them time, not just money, by making government services simpler, faster and better. That is what schedule 2 would do. As the minister said, this change alone would save drivers over 900,000 hours each year.

Moving on to schedule 3: As I said earlier this week, our government is committed to working in partnership with municipalities to get shovels in the ground and build 1.5 million homes. As the minister said, we are not micromanaging or taking a top-down, Queen’s-Park-knows-best approach. These changes to official plans in schedule 3 of Bill 162 respond to feedback from municipalities, including the region of Peel, after many months of consultation.

I also want to thank my friend the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for all the work she’s doing to consult with our municipal partners to streamline the EA process for water and sewage projects. As Mayor Steven Del Duca told the committee of infrastructure back in January, the biggest problem municipalities are dealing with as they work towards their housing targets is the need for more water and waste water infrastructure. That’s why the 2024 budget includes $825 million for the Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund, which we announced at the Arthur P. Kennedy Water Treatment Plant in Lakeview. The planning expansion here will support tens of thousands of new homes along the Mississauga waterfront, including the Brightwater and Lakeview developments.

Right now, the municipal-class EA process for new waste water treatment plants or an expansion can take up to two years or more, when we need homes right now. Adding time limits for the first time could help cut these timelines from two years to six months. As I said before, all current environmental safeguards would be maintained, including consultation.

Next, I want to thank the minister for schedule 5, which would protect Ontarians from any new provincial carbon tax by making the government ask for the approval of voters in a referendum.

It was an honour to welcome the Premier and the Minister of Finance to the Pioneer gas station in Port Credit for an announcement in February. I got my first job there at that station when I was 16, pumping gas and propane. At the time, the price of gas was 33 cents per litre. Within the next six years, the federal carbon tax is scheduled to rise to over 37 cents per litre, more than the price of gas when I had my first job there. At a time when many families and small businesses cannot afford it, this will increase the price of gas, groceries and almost everything else. Again, this is with the full support of the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie.

As the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer reported last year, the federal carbon tax costs the average Ontario family almost $1,700, far more than any rebate. Still, Bonnie Crombie refused to call on the federal Liberals to cancel their 23% carbon tax hike on April 1. As I said, just a few days later, she told the Empire Club that she would cancel the relief that we’re providing here to help keep costs down for families and small businesses. Speaker, that’s why, when Bonnie Crombie says she won’t introduce a provincial carbon tax, it is very hard to take her seriously because we’ve seen if all before.

Former Premier Kathleen Wynne—who was back here at the Legislature yesterday—promised that she wouldn’t introduce a provincial carbon tax in 2014, but in 2015, just one year later, she introduced the cap-and-trade carbon tax. Now, just last month, the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie told Colin D’Mello she thinks that this “was a great program.”

So, again, I want to remind all the members what the Auditor General wrote about it back at that time. She wrote that cap-and-trade would have cost Ontario families and businesses $2 billion every year with hundreds of millions of dollars sent to California for little or no environmental benefits.

On November 30, 2016, the Auditor General wrote that the Liberal government did not study whether cap-and-trade would actually reduce emissions in California. In other words, she wrote, “These funds may be leaving the Ontario economy for no purpose other than to help the government claim it has met a target.”

The Liberals also claim cap-and-trade would cost only $5 on your natural gas bill each year, but two of my constituents in Clarkson, Bill and Muriel Chudiak actually did their homework and they discovered that it would cost at least triple that which was hard for seniors living on fixed incomes.

As Premier Kathleen Wynne admitted, some seniors were forced to choose between paying the electric bill and buying food or paying their rent because of her mistakes on the energy file. They sold off Hydro One and created many new long-term energy costs. They signed over 33,000 contracts to buy power for 80 cents per kilowatt hour when nuclear power was available for nine cents per kilowatt hour.

In December 2015, the Auditor General reported that because of mistakes like this, Ontario consumers were paying for electricity that was overpriced by $170 billion. For a typical family, that’s a power bill of about $1,200 higher than it should have been every year.

Speaker, this mismanagement of the energy sector is the reason—more than anything else—the Liberals lost party status in 2018 and again in 2022. Bonnie Crombie calls Bill 162 a “gimmick” or a “distraction,” but I’d like to share a statement from the former leader of the Liberal Party and now, the mayor of Vaughan, Steven Del Duca: “It is critically important,” he said, “that we help to keep our residents moving and our economy growing while not adding any financial burden to the people we represent.” And he continued, “I thank the Ontario government for introducing legislation”—and he’s talking about Bill 162 here—“that will help to accomplish these important goals.” So I want to thank him for that and for the work that we’re doing together to keep costs down and to support economic growth right here in Ontario.

Lastly, I want to add a few words about schedule 6. This would amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to ban any new tolls on provincial highways, including the 400-series highways, but also the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner Expressway, once they’re uploaded to the province.

In April 2022, we removed tolls on Highway 412 and 418, which is expected to save drivers another $68 million by 2027. Much like schedule 5, schedule 6 would require any future government to consult the public before they introduce any new tax.

Again, I want to thank the minister and his team for all their work on another important bill here in the House, and I know that as a government, we are saving taxpayers money here in Ontario, and we have increased our budget here in Ontario from $152 billion in 2017, under the former Liberal government, to $214 billion for Ontarians, without raising one tax and giving money back to our Ontario families across the province. So I just want to thank everyone for listening to me here today, and I want to thank the Speaker as well.

Again, with respect to our shared love of agriculture and our farmers throughout this province, we both have been in that realm our entire life. I would say I think this government, with all due respect, understands that the business of farming is that: a business.

There are all types of farmers in the farming continuum: some hobbyists; some sundown farmers, as we used to call them at Masterfeeds. For most today, it’s a consolidated industry. It’s huge. It’s massive.

With respect to Wilmot and again with all due respect, do you not believe that—and you pay fair value for what it’s worth. But how much land has been expropriated and how many farms have been sold? In my opinion, none so far.

That’s actually—I don’t disagree with his statement, because of what happened. So a developer shows up, offers you money for the farm and then you don’t accept that offer. Then, there’s a threat of expropriation by the municipality. Okay.

But because of the directive of the provincial government that you need shovel-ready spots, right—I listened to the Minister of Job Creation, who said several times about St. Thomas and about—that it was not expropriated, and that’s the issue. If the threat of expropriation is taken away, regardless of which level of government, it’s a whole different story. But the threat of expropriation, which comes from the directive from the Premier, regardless of who’s doing it—the directive is from the Premier, we all know that.

And if you’re going to get your critical minerals from northern Ontario, it has to come somehow. And right now, it’s not ready. The problem with Highway 11 is that Highway 11 runs like a main street. There’s 1,800 trucks a day now that go on Highway 11. It’s two lanes, 1,800 trucks a day. It’s closed on a regular basis, miles of trucks waiting—

My question is, you have implemented your own carbon tax scheme: the compliance fee which you charge. Why don’t you use that as a wedge to try—so that your residents and my residents don’t have to pay the individual carbon tax? Put some horsepower behind that instead of just blaming it all on the feds.

I was looking at some bills that were sent to me by my constituents. On the bill, there’s—I’ll call it a carve-out which shows how much the carbon tax is. I did a rough calculation and depending on which residence it was either 28% or 29% of the bill. So residents in my riding of Essex are paying their heating bill and the carbon tax makes up 28% or 29% of their residential heating bill.

Now, I commonly refer to the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane as the gentleman farmer, and I think he is. I was wondering if the gentleman farmer from Timiskaming–Cochrane has taken an opportunity to look at his bills, because he has bills related to his farming operation, I’m sure, and if he can tell us what percentage that carbon tax is.

Further questions?

I’d like to thank my colleague for his excellent presentation. One of the things that this government has talked a lot about in this bill is around highways, how they’re going to stop tolling highways that don’t have tolls and are quiet on highways that do have tolls.

But one of the things that I’ve also noticed is that they are silent when it comes to the northern Ontario highways. And this member has advocated to make sure that the highways are safe, that lives are not lost or that they are properly maintained. So my question to the member is, can you share with the members of this House, particularly the government, on the importance of maintaining the highways for Ontario’s economy?

To the member across from Mississauga–Lakeshore, thank you for your presentation. I’m just going to ask you about the 407.

Obviously, part of the term sheet in the original agreement between the provincial government and the 407 operator was to maintain a certain amount of vehicles on that highway to reduce the congestion on the 401, and that meant that the operator had to set the tolls at a particular price. It couldn’t be too high, otherwise you would see a drop in vehicle use, and of course we saw that the tolls were too high, and the vehicles came off the 407.

Your government, in 2021, waived a billion dollars of congestion penalties from the 407 for-profit operator. Do you have any regrets about waiving that billion dollars now that we’re facing a $9.8-billion deficit?

Thank you to the member opposite for your presentation, from Mississauga–Lakeshore. My question is about this government’s decision to once again redraw urban boundaries in areas that are abutting prime farmland. I’m talking about Halton, Waterloo, Peel, York and Wellington county.

The government’s own housing affordability task force said very clearly that we do not need access to new land to meet our housing targets. Given that, why is this government moving forward with redrawing municipal boundaries to open up farmland to unnecessary development?

I want to thank the member for that question. As you know, our goal is to build 1.5 million homes through the province of Ontario, and we are on target to build that. I look at my own community of Mississauga–Lakeshore with the Brightwater development and the Lakeview development going forward. We’re looking at building 16,000 new units in the Lakeview development, with 10% of those homes being affordable and attainable for the people here in Ontario. As well, Brightwater has already their Peel homes there. We’re going to continue to build homes across the province.

I look at the Indwell projects that we have right now. We have one on Lakeshore in Lakeview that has units there, as well as we’re going to be building another building in the Clarkson area. We’re continuing to build homes, and we’re going to continue building through the province of Ontario with our municipalities and working together with them.

This is the largest budget ever in Ontario’s history, without raising a tax, and we’re giving money back. We’re building hospitals. We’re building long-term care that was neglected by the Liberal government for so many years. Even in my riding alone, one long-term-care facility has 632 beds—more than the Liberal government built in the last 15 years.

As well, we are freezing our drivers’ licence fees, and that is saving us another $22 million. And the photo cards, as well, will save Ontarians another $66 million. And by building the 413, that will save commuters another 30 minutes each way. But not only that; because of all the automotive investment that we are getting here in the province of Ontario, $43 billion and the $15 billion today, we’re going to need more corridors to move our parts to these plants through the province.

I thank the member. You mentioned that yes, our government has not raised taxes, despite building Ontario. The people in my riding of Richmond Hill are still complaining, or they have a lot of concern about affordability in Ontario. I know this bill, what we have done has been working on that, to help communities to be able to afford their daily lives, even though we’re putting money into their pockets. Can you highlight a few things that we have done to help them and make their life more affordable?

Questions?