Further questions?

Thank you very much, Speaker—great to see you in the Chair today.

To everyone here in the House and for those watching at home, you have to know that our government has the most ambitious infrastructure plan in the province’s history. We’re making historic investments, including $100 billion over the next decade to build the roads, the highways and the public transit that our growing province desperately needs.

It’s such an easy thing to say “$1 billion,” isn’t it? What’s $1 billion? I’d like to have $1 billion, but how do you conceptualize $1 billion? I did a little math: If I handed you a hundred-dollar bill every second—every second—do you know how long it would take me to hand you $100 billion? Does anyone hazard a guess?

Interjection.

I like to do that because I like to simplify things. As an optometrist, sometimes we have to explain difficult concepts to people, and I like to simplify things down into simple concepts for myself, because if I can explain it to you—if you have pink eye, Speaker, and you’re trying to figure out what’s going on and how to resolve that situation, “Hey, this is what I’m going to do. This is why.”

It’s an astronomical number that most of us can’t understand, but we’re going to spend that money here in the province of Ontario to build the roads, to build the highways and to build the public transit that our growing province desperately needs. This includes almost $28 billion to renew, to build and expand our highway infrastructure in every corner of our province. We’ve seen the federal government waffle on this, and not long ago I think it was the Minister of the Environment who said there would be no more spending by the federal government on highways and then he had to backtrack and say that it was only for one specific project in Quebec that they weren’t going to support.

The reality is, we’re reliant on vehicles. The people of Ontario need to get from point A to point B, and whether those are electric vehicles—and it’s so great to hear about the announcements going on from the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. I think it’s $34 billion of investment in the auto sector in the province of Ontario now. That is going to make a difference in northern Ontario in the Minister of Mines’ riding. That’s going to make a difference in Windsor and Essex and in the southwestern part of the riding and clear across, and I think there will be even more announcements going on.

But we need cars, we need roads and we need infrastructure. We need to act very, very quickly in order to get these critical projects built, but as we all know here in this House, it’s so much easier to say things than it is to actually get things done.

This is at a time when many families feel that they’re struggling to get ahead. We need to take action to make life more affordable for people and for businesses.

The Get It Done Act gives us the tools to build quicker while keeping more of Ontarians’ hard-earned money in their pockets. That’s why our government plans to use the Building Transit Faster Act to designate the Hazel McCallion Line extensions as priority transit projects. This will allow us to build these much-needed extensions into downtown Mississauga and downtown Brampton more quickly, connecting communities throughout the greater Toronto area and expanding access to jobs and other opportunities throughout the region.

But that’s not all we are doing to transform public transit in our province. We’re investing another $80 billion over the next 10 years to build a world-class transit network for all Ontarians.

Speaker, the Get It Done Act will make it easier to get shovels in the ground on priority projects and build transit-oriented communities for our future. That won’t just affect us in our working careers; that’s going to affect generations of Ontarians to come. In fact, Speaker, shovels are already in the ground to build new subways like the Ontario Line, and I know we see some of that construction on University Avenue when we’re trying to get up here to this building, and yet it’s so exciting to see at the same time.

This is monumental, Speaker. With 15 new subway stations, the Ontario Line will accommodate up to 40 trains per hour and nearly 400,000 riders per day. Wait times for a train will be as short as 90 seconds, and we’re reducing crowding at some of the TTC’s busiest stations. We’re putting thousands more greater Toronto area residents within walking distance of public transit and expanding people’s access to jobs and other life-changing opportunities.

The Gardiner is under construction. That’s now under provincial oversight. I think we’ve all been stuck on it trying to get here and get away from here. Think what it will mean to be able to get those cars off the roads and people taking public transit to come into downtown Toronto. We are putting thousands more residents within that.

Contracts have already been awarded for building the southern portion of the Ontario Line: the paved tunnel and underground stations and elevated guideway in stations and contracts. Our government recognizes the importance of building transit that will connect communities and create new travel options for people all across the greater Toronto area.

And for those of you who are watching who are in my riding, that makes a difference. When you come into downtown for a hockey game or for a baseball game and get on at Aldershot from Brantford to take the train in, imagine what it means to be able to get here more efficiently. That’s why we aren’t wasting any time getting the Ontario Line built, and why we are looking to accelerate construction on other critical projects with the Get It Done Act.

We’re working each and every day to make transit a better, more accessible choice for commuters by breaking down financial and accessibility barriers to taking trains, taking buses and taking streetcars. That’s what we’ve done with the One Fare program, and that’s what we did by launching credit and debit card payments on GO Transit, the UP Express and the TTC. No Presto card? No problem. If you forget your card at home and haven’t had a chance to load funds, that shouldn’t stop you from getting where you need to go and when you need to get there. Riders can now tap their physical or digital debit or credit cards to board transit. Speaker, it’s that easy, and our transit network will only get better if the Get It Done Act passes.

Ontario is one of the fastest-growing regions in North America, and Ontario will grow by over five million people over the next 10 years. The greater Golden Horseshoe alone is expected to grow by one million people every five years, reaching almost 15 million people by 2031.

We in this House have a responsibility to build Ontario for the next generation of young people, young families and businesses. Unfortunately, the current gridlock commuters face each and every day on our highways and roads costs us more than $11 billion annually in lost productivity. Gridlock not only increases the cost of the things we buy, but it also reduces access to good jobs and forces too many Ontarians to sacrifice time away from doing the things that they love, just to get to and from work.

Speaker, I can tell you from personal experience that the commute from St. George to Toronto is often greatly hampered by gridlock. I get up at 5, I hit the road at 5:45, and I get here, well, lately between 7:15 and 7:30, and then there’s no point, really, in leaving before 6 or 7 o’clock in order to get home at a reasonable time, only to hit the sack, wake up and do it again. But it’s worth it, because my daughter gets that kiss in the morning before I leave. I don’t even know if she recognizes it, but I know she always mumbles something under her breath at 5:30 when I do that.

By addressing these issues, I, along with thousands of Ontarians, would be able to spend more time with family and less time stuck in traffic. Despite what some parties want people to believe, you simply cannot fight gridlock without actually building new highways. Highway 401 is already one of the most congested highways in North America, and with other major highways quickly reaching the breaking point, doing nothing is not an option.

That’s why we need to pass this act, and I’m going to ask all members in the House here this afternoon to do right by the people of Ontario and pass, with an overwhelming majority, the Get It Done Act.

Questions?

I think that’s a great question. I appreciate the question from the member from Nickel Belt. I would say that I have the exact same frustrations when I go to the north. Now being the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development, I completely agree.

But, Speaker, the other question that we have to ask is, how do you eat an elephant? The answer is quite simple: We have to eat an elephant one bite at a time. There are critical projects that need to happen. I see that happening in my own riding. There are things that I would like to see happen.

But what I can’t understand is—and I guess my question back to the member would be, why, when you held the balance of power, did you support the Liberals? Which is why we now need to and we have over the last six years been making these massive investments into infrastructure that were, quite frankly, ignored for 15 years under the former Liberal government. When you, the member from Nickel Belt, who has been here for a very long time, had the opportunity and could have brought the government down at any time—

I think the member brings up an excellent point. Whether it’s even just the piece on the tolls, we understand how difficult that is. I know, in speaking to the member from Whitby, the difference that it made to his riding to be able to hear that the 412 and 418 were going to be toll-free. The reality is, we have to help the people of Ontario with pocketbook issues. Some people can complain that it’s not exactly as much as they would like it to be, but the reality is that we know the value of what it means to be able to spend more time with your family. We understand how difficult it is for the people in Ontario right now with the carbon tax—which gets supported by the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie. They continue to say no to progress for the people of Ontario and say no to pocketbook issues because they want this to be a high-taxed area. They want to see those taxes go up. And it’s unfortunate.

I guess my question back to the member is, I hear no criticism of this legislation, yet they won’t vote for it. I can’t understand why it’s not important for the members of the opposition that people get to spend more time with their families, or why they would be opposed to actually having a plebiscite on whether we have any more toll roads in the province of Ontario. I don’t understand why, when they claim to represent the working man—which I think is very much debatable—they would just not do that, why they would not support their communities in building access to transit, building access to highways so that people can have access to work and have access to their families.

Speaker, through you, I want to thank the member for Brantford–Brant for an excellent presentation.

We’ve been extremely focused as a government on building convenient transportation and shrinking commute times for hard-working families so they can spend more time together. Speaker, through you, I’d like the member for Brantford–Brant to highlight a little bit more about the efforts that are proposed in this legislation and how that will improve the situation I just described.

Speaker, I just want to put on the record that Highways 412 and 418, the member from Oshawa has been a long-time advocate of removing those tolls. I’m glad the government took that initiative. I think on this side of the House, we give credit where credit is due, but that’s where the credit needs to go, to the member from Oshawa, for the 412 and the 418. Thank you to the government for implementing that.

But then I go to the billion dollars, the giveaway. You talked about a $100-billion giveaway over 32 years. I think the recent giveaway was $1 billion on Highway 407, where we could have collected that money and put it back into infrastructure, but this government chose to waive that bill and give a free pass—really, a lottery ticket—to the 407 corporation.

Can the member explain—under this bill, you say it’s getting done—not having tolls on highways that don’t have tolls, but you won’t stop the tolls on Highway 407. You won’t take that away. Why is that?

As you all know, I represent a northern rural riding, and yes, we do not have public transit, so we use the road to get from Toronto to Sudbury. A lot of things travel on that highway. It’s Highway 400 when it is four lanes, and then it becomes Highway 69 when it goes down to two lanes.

I remember, in 2003, the Liberal government made a big announcement that they were going to four-lane Highway 69 all the way between Toronto and Sudbury. It isn’t done. This government has been in power for six years. I write to the Minister of Transportation every year to say, how are we moving along with the 68 kilometres of Highway 69 that is only two lanes, that is closed every week during the winter?

Why is it okay to invest in roads in southern Ontario but not on Highway 69?

Thank you very much, Speaker. Good afternoon. Being proud Hamiltonians, I think that you will appreciate that I wanted to start my speech today by congratulating the Dundas Real McCoys. They won the Allan Cup two consecutive years in a row and so I think that’s worth it. And I want to shout-out to Ralph Taggart, Darren Haydar and Don Robertson for all of the hard work and the grit they put into that talented team. It’s a historic back-to-back win, and it happened in Dundas, so congratulations.

I also just wanted to quickly congratulate Will Jones. Will Jones is a member of the Royal Hamilton Yacht Club, and he’s going to be heading to the Olympics this summer—

Applause.

Now, here we are. It’s crazy, to be honest with you, that we are here debating a bill—follow me on this: This is a bill that is reversing the reversals that the government put in place to the changes that they made to urban boundaries across the province.

Before I even get into the substance of the debate, I want to say the scale and the scope of the wasted time and the wasted resources that this government has spent rolling back all of these bad policy decisions that they made is really unconscionable at the time of a housing crisis.

For a long time, I took this government at their word that the question was really about housing. But the more we see, the more evidence that’s revealed—like the 4,000 pages of documents that we just released today—shows that this was not about building housing; this was about making sure that developers and connected individuals of the Premier were given preferential treatment. This goes all the way to the Premier’s office.

This kind of meddling, which is the lightest of words that I can call it, has not only set us back on our goal to build housing for people who are desperately in need of good housing, it has left a stain on this province. Really, why are people so cynical about governments and politicians? It’s because of this kind of action. It’s exactly because of this kind of action.

It is shocking that we are now in a place in Ontario where housing starts are going down, not going up, and that we are in the middle of an RCMP investigation to get to the bottom of this insider dealing and preferential treatment. The time and the money and the energy and the good will that have been squandered by this government when it comes to housing are really, really deplorable.

What I would like to say when we look at this bill that we have before us: People have been making fun of the bill—you know, “Get nothing done.” But I would like to say, as I go through my 15 minutes here this afternoon, I think the question that should be on everyone’s mind is, get it done for who? Who is this government working for? Who are they listening to, and who are they getting it done for? The evidence will show that it is not for the people of the province of Ontario.

I would like to begin to talk about the very fact that this is a bill that reverses a previous reversal on municipal boundary changes. This is amending legislation that they just passed. And this is all, as I said before, while this government continues to be under investigation by the RCMP for the $8.3-billion greenbelt gravy train, as would have it.

Again, what we should be debating here this afternoon is, really, effective ways to get people housed. But instead, we’re spending this time looking at this government trying to paper over their mistakes to try and get us back to square one.

I’m going to concentrate mostly on schedule 3—well, let me just start. Schedule 1: Here’s what I want to say. This government went full frontal, if you will, on the assault on the greenbelt. The greenbelt grab was so clear and obvious. The meddling in municipal planning, the MZOs that are currently under investigation by the Auditor General, the greenbelt grab—this was fully in front of us: “We are going to take these lands, and we are taking them on behalf of our developer friends.” It became quite clear that that is what has happened.

Many people across the province fought this. I had never seen people so engaged because they knew that this was not in their interest, and they could see with their plain eyes that this government was working against their better interests. People all across the province, young and old, rallied and protested against this, and the noise became so loud—I really have to say, I remember when we were in communities in front of MPPs’ offices, people were outraged—outraged—by the cynicism of this.

But now what we see is a government that—do we think this government has stopped this greenbelt grab? No. Evidence is showing that you haven’t stopped it. You have just learned to do this a little bit more by stealth. What you are doing now is not a full, obvious assault on the greenbelt; it’s little pieces in all your bills, all these, I could say, skirmishes, like little guerrilla warfare to get done what you still want to get done, which is to take public lands, to take farmland, to take good planning away from the people of the province and give it to developers. This bill before us is one in a series of assaults that you can find in this government’s policy and legislation.

Let’s not forget about the role conservation authorities play across the province in making sure that development happens in appropriate places. That’s their job: to protect wetlands, to protect people’s basements from flooding. This government now is asking conservation authorities across Ontario to audit the lands under their protection to see if there’s surplus land that can be made available for sale. They’re also taking away the conservation’s authority, undermining their ability to protect these lands and forcing them to issue development permits under duress when conservation authorities identify that this is not in the best interests of the people.

We also have the government that’s going to change the provincial policy statement. Despite the fact that municipalities across Ontario have already made infrastructure plans and fiscal plans related to these policy statements, this is going to be changed.

We have Bill 185 right now that is in committee. Bill 185, again, puts the thumb on the scale of justice on behalf of developers. Bill 185 is a clear assault on planning in the province—good planning. What it does is, there’s a clause in that bill that will allow developers at any time to go to any municipality and ask for land to be rezoned. If a municipality says no, they can then take it to the Ontario Land Tribunal, which we know is being stacked as quickly as it can by Ford insiders who will side on behalf of the developers. If the municipalities say yes and agree with developers, no third party can appeal. So this is all skewed in favour of development that may or may not be in the right place.

It also provides absolutely no ability for municipalities to plan their infrastructure costs. Let’s be clear about it: These costs are borne by taxpayers. Who pays for these unplanned infrastructure requirements if a developer, all of a sudden, in the middle of a municipal planning session, now says, “Okay, we’re going to make this development, and we need roads and we need sewers and we need schools and we need fire,” and whatever—all the infrastructure? That’s on the backs of municipalities and municipal taxpayers to provide that, whether or not the municipality has the ability to fiscally plan and provide for that.

Again, this is stealth: little pieces here, little pieces there that are going to accomplish exactly what the greenbelt grab was trying to do. They haven’t gone away. They’re not over it. They’re just doing it in a sneaky way, hoping people won’t actually be able to identify it because there’s parts in all these bills that the government is putting forward. This bill is also proof positive that the government is still at it, still working on behalf of not the people of the province of Ontario, but insiders and developers.

Schedule 1, which I’ve talked about extensively before, amends the Environmental Assessment Act, which will expedite the expropriation of property without an environmental assessment. Many of the people in Wilmot who are set to lose—is it 7,000 acres in Wilmot? It’s a huge amount of farmland. They point to this schedule that means that land can be taken and rezoned without an environmental assessment. That’s in this bill.

What I want to focus on in this bill is schedule 3. In schedule 3, the government’s at it again. It’s a mystery as to why this government keeps insisting on expanding boundaries and jurisdictions that over and over and over again have said that they don’t want that. So schedule 3 outlines a number of changes to official plans across municipalities such as Barrie, Belleville, Halton, York. Waterloo, particularly, is one that’s aggrieved by this. Why are these here? These were moved before, had to be withdrawn, and now they’re back again. So why does this government continue to do this when there is clearly municipalities that said loud and clear that they do not want their boundaries expanded?

We had a—what do we call it? We had a ministerial briefing. I couldn’t remember what it’s called for a second. In the ministerial briefing, we asked for evidence as to why these 13 changes are in this bill. Who asked for them? Where did they come from? They were not able to provide any answers as to where the requests came from or whether there was any evidence that these changes met with the provincial policy statement or met with existing planning and zoning regulations in the province. There was no answer to that. So again, who is running the show here? Like, how are we doing planning in the province? Is it all being driven by the Premier’s office? There is no clear answer as to what municipality and why they had requested this.

We know that this government is really concerned with upper-tier municipalities and wants to download the responsibility to lower-tier municipalities. I’m going to talk about Caledon in a bit and show what complete planning chaos that has resulted in when lower-tier municipalities, who don’t have the complex of expertise in planning, can actually be persuaded by developers and by perhaps other actors in the scene to move forward on things that aren’t good planning and good policy.

We moved a number of amendments as we always do. And of course, every single amendment that we moved was voted down by the government.

I just want to say, one amendment that we moved was with respect to a change that was being made in Burlington. The amendment we moved would have removed the minister’s re-designation of certain environmentally sensitive lands in Burlington from north Aldershot policy area to urban area. The lands in question are part of the Eagle Heights properties owned by Penta Properties, now known as Alinea Group Holdings. These properties include greenbelt lands and are very environmentally sensitive. This is why Halton region established special policies for north Aldershot, including these lands, and reaffirmed these policies when it adopted its regional official plan.

Interestingly enough, the Integrity Commissioner report described how Penta had hired a Ford friend and lobbyist and Ford wedding guest to lobby the government to have these properties removed from the greenbelt—more evidence that we’re still at the same game here. It’s insider influence. It’s special treatment.

We tried to move an amendment to take that out. The government, of course, at committee used their majority to side with this insider preferential treatment.

We did the same thing—we moved an amendment—to remove the ministerial amendments to Waterloo’s adopted regional plan that forces the region to vastly expand various urban boundaries.

We know that the affordability task force made it clear that the housing crisis was not caused by a lack of land. Let’s be clear: This was your government’s own hand-picked affordability task force. I should also note that BC is killing it when it comes to housing starts. They said quite clearly that they were inspired by and used the recommendations from the province of Ontario’s affordability task force. So we are laggards here—laggards. I think we’re building one tenth I think, if that, of housing that’s happening in BC. Had this government listened to their own affordability task force and not spend so much time trying to tip the scales, we would have been so further ahead.

So that is another amendment that we tried to move to make sure that the region of Waterloo’s good planning would continue.

I also would like to note, because we’re talking about tolls on highways, we moved an amendment that would allow the government to exempt truckers from tolls on Highway 407. So we know that moving traffic to the underused 407 from the overused 401 would reduce traffic and would reduce burdens on commuters. And if the question is really about saving commuters time so they get home to their families sooner and safer—which is important—why is this government continuing to vote down this idea about removing tolls for truckers on the 407 so we can expediate traffic in the province?

I want to just also say it’s really important to talk about this Wild West of planning chaos that this government has unfolded. If we look at Caledon—I’m going to quickly read from an article the highlights of what has happened in the town of Caledon: So Mayor Groves “faced angry residents and made a series of misleading statements, claiming bylaws under her name that suddenly appeared out of nowhere on a council agenda … to push through huge developments along the controversial GTA West Highway”—which is the 413—“will ensure proper planning and the types of homes people need.

“Lawyers and consultants hired … to make recommendations on the massive 35,000-unit development” also wrote the mayor’s bylaws—were in a position of conflict of interest.

“Residents demanded to know if the lawyer … hired under Groves” was working for the same developer who stood “to make billions of dollars from the scheme.” They found out that they are.

So the same interest developers that are working to make sure that the 413 goes through and that the housing developments go through by changing the planning rules work for the developer. It’s a huge conflict of interest. This is happening under this government’s watch and, I would say, with this government’s encouragement.

“The regional reports ... from Caledon ... show $12.9 billion would be needed just for water infrastructure to support only a third of the … units” that were being built, and “no explanation … about how tens of billions of dollars will be covered to create all the infrastructure needed....

“Facing mounting backlash, including calls for a criminal investigation, Groves suddenly” backtracked, just like this government is backtracking.

I think it’s interesting that some of the constituents that were there had—the same sort of things that we’re saying—to say about this government, about what they’re forcing them to do. I would say one constituent said quite clearly: “‘Stop hiding behind the excuse of a housing crisis,’ one delegate replied.”

And so, I think that’s the point here. This government talks about the housing crisis, which there is, but we have to ask the question: Why is this government continuing to meddle, but not making any progress when it comes to building housing in this province? I mean, who is this government working for when they build on farmland and then they don’t protect precious soil? Who is this government working for when they don’t focus on food security but instead focus on development for their friends?

Finally, I would say, we do need housing and we need it now. So why is this government prioritizing building on land which is the costliest and slowest to develop? We need housing now and we need to see a government—instead of putting these sneaky little pieces of legislation that will ensure you continue to get what you want for the insiders and the preferential treatment behaviour that you’re under investigation for, we would like to see a government that prioritizes people that actually need homes to live in.

I’d like to thank the member from Brantford–Brant for his presentation.

In particular, when we take a look at Bill 162, one thing that I am passionate about is our architectural heritage across this province. Some of the consequences of this government’s plowing ahead with changing different laws without considering their impacts is that, with Bill 23, it’s putting 36,000 heritage properties at risk. They will actually lose their very meagre protections on January 1, 2025.

I wonder if the member could speak about the heritage properties in his riding and how he’s trying to convince the government to give an additional five years so that these properties will continue to have protection.

I appreciate the question from the minister because it’s absolutely true. We live in a world that, in so many ways, is so connected, and yet how often—I’m sure she would say the same thing—that my family could be together in our living room and we’re all on our devices. We need to spend more time together, but in order to do that, I think it behooves us as a government to be able to enable that.

We know people have to travel. We know, with the housing crisis, people have to live farther away from work. And so, what are the concrete pieces that we can do, a whole-of-government approach, to make those things a reality for the people in the province of Ontario? And that’s why, you know, just simple pocketbook issues: decreasing the costs; not having to renew your licence plate stickers every year; taking off the tolls on highways; committing to not having new tolls on highways, which I honestly can’t understand why that’s not mentioned by the opposition.

But the reality is, we care. We want people to spend more time—

But in the meantime, we are committed to making sure that workers spend more time with their families, that their day-to-day costs go down and that, quite frankly, Speaker, we just make life easier for the people of Ontario, all while building critical infrastructure, building the highways, building the subways, building the transit, building the hospitals, building the schools that the people of Ontario need every single day.

And to close off, because we’re running out of time, very, very quickly, I would just ask that member, because I know how passionate he is about the people in London, that he would support us in this legislation so that we can unanimously vote the Get It Done Act through.

Further questions?

It’s now time for questions.

I was moved by my colleague’s speech and I have to reveal something, and if I face repercussions from caucus because of this, then so be it, but I want to reveal one of the groups that this bill is getting it done for. And the fact is that one of those groups this bill is getting it done for are the hard-working, good, honest, decent people of Hamilton. It’s true.

I wonder if the member could share with those same residents of Hamilton—I know she intends to vote against the carbon tax referendum. Is that because the member supports the carbon tax, why she doesn’t want to give them a voice on the carbon tax referendum?

I don’t think you revealed much there. I was just wondering what you were going to come up with. It looked like it was going to be really, really titillating. but, in fact, it was a bit of a letdown, but that’s okay.

This government wants to have a referendum on the carbon tax. My question is, where was the referendum on your carbon tax? You have an emissions performance standard tax in this province. You collect tens of billions of dollars from the people currently. So I would say, if you want to stand up for your residents in Brampton North, just like I am standing up for residents in Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas, give them the money back that you are collecting from your carbon tax.

You really railed against the Liberals, and rightfully so, for having a debt-to-GDP of 40%. Yours is 39.9%—so some little bit of creative way to make sure it stayed under 40%. You’re spending big on a highway with an unlimited costs—$10 billion, $15 billion; we don’t know what the cost will be—while this government is still pulling up the rear when it comes to spending in health care and education. This government is last—you’re first when it comes to debt and deficit per capita; you are last when it comes to spending in health care and education in this country.

What I want to say to you really is—you talk about the carbon tax, and it is true that people in this province are struggling to pay all kinds of bills, all kinds of bills, but I think you need to be upfront with the people of the province. You have this huge amount of money that you’re collecting right now for your carbon tax, so why don’t you come up with a creative solution to give that back to people, with a way that you can return that money to people who are most impacted by climate change and who are most impacted by the carbon tax? Take money that you’ve collected and redistribute it in an equitable and environmentally positive way.

One of the things about being from Hastings–Lennox and Addington is certainly that I drive a lot. It is a very large riding, and most of the constituents I talk to are very concerned with the cost of driving. It is ridiculous just how much driving costs, specifically because of the carbon tax. That’s why this government is lowering taxes so that my residents and residents all across this province can succeed.

But can the member opposite explain to me why she believes it’s caring to tax hard-working families who are in dire financial struggles, like the federal government wants us to do?

It might come as a surprise to the member who just asked the question and to all that we’re actually in a Conservative majority government, meaning they can and pretty much do whatever they want. So if they want to do something about the carbon tax, they can do it and they don’t need a referendum.

But we also know this is a government that loves spending money, and a referendum would allow them to spend even more money, probably in that way. Do you believe that this is just part of their desire and almost addiction to spending taxpayer money? Because they have spent more than any government in the history of Ontario.

So I’ve been thinking about it, and considering that the Premier has about 100 staff working in his office making more money than MPPs, do you think one of those staff is actually an auto insurance executive themselves? I can’t understand any other reason, other than the fact that these insurance execs are writing their policies on auto insurance.

I was listening very intently to my colleague, and she was just talking about action. It occurs to me, when I go back to their platform in the last election, they were calling for a ramp-up of electric vehicle sales. They had a 100% target by 2035, so it’s curious to me, when we’re taking action to bring investment to Ontario and we’re unlocking everything from mining to manufacturing, why the NDP are voting against every single thing that we’re trying to do. Or was it their platform that we should ramp-up electric vehicle sales made in other countries?

Further questions?

It’s now time for further debate.

Would I be shocked to hear that former lobbyists work in the Premier’s office? I’m just shocked—shocked.

But what I would like to say is that, again, this government can really deliver for people in meaningful ways, like reducing insurance costs, attacking that discrimination by postal code which people see in this province. That’s a huge expense for people, and it’s a huge expense not for people that drive, but for people that need to drive to make a living, particularly in the Brampton area. So get on that.

We’ve been talking about this for eight years now on this side of the House, and no action on that side of the House. It’s time for you to take action. Instead of writing letters to Trudeau, which is completely a waste of time, in my opinion, get some real action and get some real relief for drivers in Ontario.

Now, the supply side—I mean, good on you to finally get moving, like, you finally saw the light that the entire world has seen, but by the way, if all of this relies on the Ring of Fire, this is going to be a long time to get that piece of the supply chain nailed down.

And they’re spending big bucks in the Premier’s office. We see time and time again that they have absolutely no qualms and no—like, missing a chip when it comes to doing the right thing, when it comes to conflict of interest.

You know, we have judges that are Ford friends and relatives being appointed. How does this speak to a good government that will engender trust and faith in government when people just know what you’re up to? They don’t trust what you’re up to. They see what you’re up to, and it’s unfortunate not just for your government friends—