I caution the member to refer to the Minister of Housing.

Get it done wrong.

I miss him.

Yes, I miss him. Come on, bring him back.

So don’t be fooled, right? Back to what I said about what this government is peddling: Don’t be fooled by the tag line. Don’t be fooled by the marketing. These changes? They’re not minor. These are major changes that this government is making, and they’re going to have significant impact on regions and planning and our ability to build housing.

We know we need housing, 1.5 million homes. Where are those homes? How are regions and municipalities supposed to build those homes when their official plans have holes in them, are riddled and are a mess because of this government?

I heard the Minister of the Environment say that six million people are going to be coming to Ontario. Well, you don’t even have homes for 1.5 million. So stop with this interference. Stop with this working for insiders, and actually make good science-based, evidence-based decisions when it comes to planning in the province of Ontario. It’s really way past time.

Okay, now, this is—I see, sadly, I’m having more fun than I thought I would.

Interjection.

So I just have to say, news flash to the government, news flash to the people of the province of Ontario: This government has a carbon tax, and I don’t remember a referendum. Do you remember having been asked what we should do? Why does this government have a referendum? I really don’t understand why this government would be braying about a referendum when it just points out to the fact that they have already a carbon tax in this province.

Let’s go back, shall we. Ontarians were exempt from paying the federal levy until this Premier cancelled the previous cap-and-trade alliance that we had with Quebec and California. That cost us $2 billion annually, and I have heard that we still owe California money, that they still want us to pay up.

So cancelling that cap-and-trade cost us $2 billion annually. That’s money right out of the coffers, right out of the Treasury Board at a time when this government is running a record debt and deficit. This government is in more debt than any province in Canada with the exception of Newfoundland. You could have used that $2 billion not only to address climate change, but to pay for nurses, to pay for health care. That would have been some good money that we could use.

Just like the Premier advises that we need some sales and marketing lessons, I agree that part of sales and marketing is caveat emptor, buyer beware. And I can’t think of a more appropriate clause that this government has said that they’re going to introduce a carbon tax referendum that, number one, won’t bind any future government at all. It’s just completely performative. And the second part of all this is that this government—like any sales pitch, you have to read the fine print, like those drug ads when you have to listen to the disclaimers that they read really quickly. The fast-talking fine print in those ads is so that advertisers don’t run afoul of false advertising laws.

I would say that the biggest disclaimer that’s not mentioned in this schedule is that the PC government already has a carbon tax in Ontario. They launched a new carbon-pricing system on January 1, 2020—

I think it’s also really interesting to note that in committee, one of the members—

They cost money, and the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston agreed in committee. He said, “The government is made up of elected officials. They’re elected to make decisions on behalf and in the best interest of the public. Referendums”—sic—“cost money.... That’s why we have debates. That’s why we have committees. That’s why we have debates within the chamber.” Shockingly, I can’t imagine that I agree with the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston, but apparently he’s at odds with what his Premier thinks is important for us to do in the province.

I can see that I’m running out of time, Speaker. I think that I’m going to just cut to the most ludicrous of all, if I have to say; the most—how do I want to say it?—Orwellian schedule. The title of the schedule is Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. Have I got that right?

So we have this asset. We have it here. Take the tolls off it. Certainly you could take the tolls off for truckers, so that that would relieve congestion and make roads safer for the people of the province, and perhaps you don’t need to build your Highway 413, that big boondoggle that’s going to cut through the greenbelt.

Now, in addition, why is this government so beholden to this—let’s be clear: You have the power to take the tolls off the part that we still own; the part that you didn’t sell, that the people of the province, the taxpayers, paid for, that you sold. You have the power to do that, but you’re just refusing to do that. You’re refusing to do that. Also, we saw an instance where this government forgave—was it a billion dollars? And was it twice? I think it was a billion dollars twice. They forgave this for-profit corporation a billion dollars in penalties.

It was 2022.

She’s a teacher.

Congestion penalties—which basically means because this highway was so underutilized, based on the contract, they were required to pay a penalty of a billion dollars, and that was forgiven. Like, “Oh, don’t worry; a billion bucks between friends. What’s the deal? Buy you a coffee. That should settle it, right?” And so—

If you took the tolls off Highway 407, you would not need to burden the taxpayers with your giant boondoggle of a highway, and you would remove gridlock on the 400 series that you’re talking about. The evidence is quite clear. The evidence is in that—actually, there’s good consultants that provided really extensive reports, consultants that were contracted by this government that said, “You want to solve congestion? You don’t need to build another highway. You need to take a serious look at the 407,” because that is a way—particularly for drivers in Brampton, who do deserve faster and cheaper commutes, 100%. But you could do it. You could do it. You could reduce gridlock. You could ease commute times. And you could save taxpayers all kinds of money.

So having this schedule that says you’re going to remove tolls on highways but not on the Highway 407, I have to say, people don’t even need to read the fine print to see what a hollow promise this is. People that don’t even pay attention to politics—God love them—they just hear this and they know that it’s complete bunk. They know it. I don’t know who this government thinks that they’re fooling, but they’re not fooling the people of the province of Ontario when it comes to their Highway 407.

Let me spend the time that I have left talking about why this bill—not only is it a failure to meet the moment, not only does it not address the critical concerns that people are facing in the province, it’s like an out-and-out insult. Do you think the people of the province of Ontario are buying what you’re selling anymore? I say they do not buy it. They’re not buying it. They know what you’re up to. They’ve seen it time and time again. And they’re all waiting with bated breath to see what the RCMP investigation will reveal. Because I think that the investigation will just confirm the baked-in belief, the baked-in conviction that Ontarians have that this government is not working for them. This government is working for insiders. This government is working for their donors. This government is driven by profit, not what’s in the public interest, what’s in the best interest of the people of the province of Ontario. There have been so many troubling things that have happened under this government’s watch, but even particularly just in the last session, in the last few months.

I want to start by saying I am shocked that this government has not learned from the greenbelt scandal, has not learned from an RCMP investigation and hasn’t learned from the fact that the people of the province of Ontario don’t any longer take what you say at face value. My suggestion is, it’s not that you haven’t learned—or it’s not that you feel that you actually are a government that’s supposed to be looking out for the people of the province of Ontario. It’s not that you’ve learned that the people of the province of Ontario cherish the greenbelt. It’s not that you learned that a loss to our environment is not only a loss for the future generations and our responsibility to steward the province—it’s not only those two losses, but it’s a loss, a substantial loss, in people’s faith and trust in this government.

I don’t believe that you’ve learned that. I think what you have learned is that you’re just going to go at it another way. You’re just going to come in the back door with these cute, clever bills that still get the same thing done. You’ve masked them. The cover story is, “These are going to save people in the province of Ontario money,” but the fact of the matter is that there’s more to lose here than what you ever are going to give them by saving them $7 every six months on a licence fee. It’s not a lot.

I sit here a lot, and I happened to notice this carving right above my head. It’s Latin, and it’s “gubernatio bona fructumparit.” I looked it up, and it means, “Good government bears fruit.” But what I have to say, and I don’t mean to be funny, is that this government’s actions have been fruitless for the people of Ontario who need your help. Let’s just start with the fact that you have wasted so much time in this House—staff time; taxpayer dollars—putting forward half-baked bills, putting forward bills that have to be rescinded because they don’t rise to the level of integrity and honesty that the bills in the province of Ontario should.

It used to be that bills and statutes in the province garnered a certain level of respect; that you would be very careful before you threw them out there; that it would reflect on your government as a government, as we say, that knows how to govern wisely and well. But instead, we’ve seen a government that has flip-flopped and has had to rescind and repeal so much legislation.

In fact, we’ve estimated that this government has spent a total of about 19 days and counting—because we’re still working on this bill that is just a rescindment of bills—undoing things that you put forward. You had to withdraw Bill 124. You had to reverse the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, like Bill 150 and Bill 136, which were the reversal of the greenbelt grab and the reversal of the urban boundary expansion, which was greenbelt grab number two. We spent time debating them, but not as much time as we should have because you used your time allocation, which means you rammed it through. Shockingly, on Bill 150, people weren’t even allowed to come to depute on that.

So we are now here again with another bill reversing the changes that you had to reverse. Basically, my head boggles, but you’re wasting time with your incompetent, poorly thought-out bills that are not intended to do what they say they’re intended to do. They have some other purpose and people see through that.

Let me just close by saying that this House has been seized for hours and hours with these reversals at a time, as we have said—as we’ve all been saying—when the people need your help and they need your help urgently. Instead, what do we see? We see a minister who spends time closing ServiceOntario centres where people access the things that they need—which are small businesses—unilaterally, without notice, closing those and giving those contracts to Walmart and Staples. And if that wasn’t enough, these small business owners that spent their own money to renovate their storefronts did it on their own dime; Walmart and Staples are getting their spaces renovated on your dime, on your tax dollars’ dime.

I also want to say that this government’s move to stack the courts is completely chilling and shocking. I mean, the Premier said he’s quadrupling down on this. Appointments for insiders and friends and an RCMP investigation aren’t enough; he says they want to appoint “like-minded judges.” But what we want is fair-minded judges. Isn’t that what we want? Don’t we want a justice system that delivers impartial justice?

Again, this government is eroding any trust that the people in the province of Ontario have in systems that they used to be able to count on. There is nothing that this government won’t meddle with. There is no level of respect for fundamental law and order, for justice in this province. You see it all as a sales and marketing job. It’s all just sales and marketing, that the Premier, to get re-elected, would talk about the courts like it’s just another way for him to build his popularity, when it should be about a fundamental commitment to justice in this province.

I just want to close by saying this government—a quote by Margaret Atwood, who said, “Here comes tyranny: Rubber stamping judges are a litmus test for #Totalitarianism.” And Margaret Atwood is the author of The Handmaid’s Tale, which is about a totalitarian state. So when an international icon of Canadian literature like Margaret Atwood calls this government totalitarian, you can believe other people think that, too.

Congestion penalties.

Madam Speaker, I find that the members opposite do love to pick the pockets of Ontario’s families, whether it be a tax or a toll. I would like to bring to the attention of the member schedule 6, Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. The first section states, “No toll may be charged for travel on a highway where the road—

I’d like to bring to the attention of the member the wording in schedule 6, Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, section 1: “No toll may be charged for travel on a highway where the road authority is the crown, unless the toll is authorized by an act.”

So my question to the member opposite—I’d like to ask them if they believe that it’s appropriate to charge a family more to use public roads for them to get to work or school.

We’re going to move to questions.

With the track record of the NDP, they love to put more burden on Ontarians’ shoulders, so I’m very proud to put it to a vote for families in Ontario to decide whether a carbon tax fits their needs. They don’t like it. When they’re talking about democracy, they don’t like it when we ask for Ontarians’ opinion. If this bill passes, we are giving Ontarians more freedom to control their finances and preventing Liberal and NDP governments from overtaxing hard-working families.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite how they would vote in a carbon tax referendum. Would the member vote to take money away from the hard-working Ontarians or learn from us and put money into Ontarians’ pockets?

I appreciate that the member just spent an hour breaking down this bill for us, which—the bill really was already fairly broken anyway.

Schedule 6 is the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act and, as you’ve already said, it prohibits tolls on provincial highways unless the toll is authorized by an act, and that this schedule would prohibit tolls on highways that already have no tolls, except for the toll highway, the only one that exists. And earlier today, I asked the Minister of Transportation—read a resolution from the region of Durham, from their council, calling on the government to remove the tolls from the 407 east which, for the folks at home, is the part that’s still owned by the province. I got a bunch of malarkey. But basically, it would be interesting to see, because they’ve already refused one request to temporarily remove it when we’ve got major construction in the area.

So when they’re refusing a municipal ask for this kind of alleviated pressure with the toll removal, why are they braying about taking the tolls off when they actually aren’t?

I listened to the tirade from the member opposite—a whole lot of insulting language, which is common coming from the members opposite. They think that passes for debate and ideas.

But I’m really proud of our government for taking on the carbon tax and for trying to keep life more affordable for people. I wanted to ask the member opposite if she is in favour of a carbon tax and if she would support our legislation, which is trying to make sure that we get rid of a carbon tax by requesting a referendum in the future, because I’m worried that the members opposite would vote to take money away from hard-working families who are already struggling to make ends meet.

I feel like this is this Bizarro World, because that’s a question I’d like to ask you. Do you feel it’s appropriate that the people of the province of Ontario have to pay tolls on a highway, the 407, that they already paid for with their taxpayer dollars? The Progressive Conservative Premier Mike Harris sold it for a song, and now they have to dig into their pockets to pay. They paid once, they paid twice, and they continue to pay.

So absolutely, if you want to help people to be able to afford groceries, take the tolls off the highway. Take the tolls off the highway. If you want to expropriate farms, expropriate the 407 back. That’s what I suggest to you.

But the whole point of this is that you cannot have a referendum that binds future governments. All they will do is undo it with legislation, so it’s completely performative. It’s completely performative. It is a sales and marketing pitch, a ploy that is perfectly fitting for a Premier who sees this province as something that is all about selling and profiting.

This complete gimmick of a referendum that not only will cost taxpayers untold tens of millions of dollars to hold—a member of the PC Party spoke against referendums, and what will it accomplish? Nothing, so stop wasting our time, the people of the province of Ontario’s time, with these performative bills that John Michael McGrath said are nothing more than the power of a “damp Kleenex.”

So, yes, I have learned from this government that they seem to have no compunction to charge Ontarians, to increase taxes and to take away people’s entitlements, all at the expense of your insiders, your donors and your corporate lobbyists.

I’d like to thank my colleague from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas for her presentation this morning. As I listened to her presentation, I thought of the journalist John Michael McGrath. I’d like to quote him. He said that Bill 162 is a “profoundly silly” act that doesn’t accomplish “anything concrete.” McGrath goes on to say, “We could call it a stunt, but stunts are usually captivating or entertaining,” and that this act itself is “performative nonsense.”

The member talked about how the Conservatives chose to implement the Conservative carbon tax on Ontario, but I wanted to ask the member what needs to happen to Bill 162 to make it more than simple performative nonsense.

I am pleased to be able to rise in my place and debate Bill 162, the Get It Done Act, or the so-called Get It Done Act, and I’m able to stand here as the official opposition critic for infrastructure, transportation and highways.

This bill, despite its catchy title, is mostly performative, and it actually doesn’t get much done. It certainly doesn’t get anything done to fix health care or build housing or make life more affordable.

What we have seen in the last stretch of time is a government that has had to backtrack on many major policy decisions. I’m starting to look at bills now that they’ve tabled and think that each time a new bill hits the table, we’ve entered that pre-repeal time in a bill’s life in this House, because so many have had to be reversed. But this government is—I’m going to assume; I won’t impute motive, but I would image that they’re quite desperate to distract from their never-ending scandals, and I don’t think they love it when we remind about the RCMP investigation etc.

This is a bill called the Get It Done Act, and they can’t get it done on the biggest issues facing Ontario. We have a strained health care system, worsening housing crisis and the skyrocketing cost of living—although, like I had discussed with my colleague, can’t get it done or won’t get it done? I mean, this is a government that has now been in power, been in charge for coming up on six years. So this is not first day on the job. They could be doing better, and to see a skimpy little performative piece hit the table here in this bill—I’d say it’s a missed opportunity.

People across the province are struggling. They’re not interested in symbolic gestures. They’re interested in meaningful, serious solutions. I would say we have been focused on delivering real solutions for housing, health care and the rising cost of living.

This government—we have talked in this House about Super Bowl ads, about this government’s fascination with advertising, how much money and investment they’re making into getting their message out to folks. So they are probably wondering what the audience response is to this particular piece of legislation, and I would say that people don’t believe the hype, nor are they excited about this nothing bill. In fact, I’d like to share from a TVO opinion piece entitled “Doug Ford’s Omnibus Bill Is Bad Policy That Will Accomplish Nothing.” This has been written by John Michael McGrath. I’ll read:

“MPPs returned to the Legislature for the spring sitting on Tuesday, and the government’s first priority is a beefy new omnibus bill dubbed the ‘Get It Done Act.’ Much of the bill had been previewed last week in press conferences by” the Premier, “who announced that the government would introduce new legislation that would prohibit the use of road tolls on provincial highways and that, in a separate section, would prohibit the province from introducing a carbon tax without first submitting it to a referendum.”

He goes on to say, “They are profoundly silly acts to put before the Legislature: They don’t accomplish anything concrete, they can’t do what they claim to, and they can’t be changed into anything meaningful without committing a form of constitutional vandalism. And that’s before we get to the part where they’re also bad policy.”

There’s a section that I’ll come back to that is quite interesting about their carbon tax referendum piece, but as he frames it, “That’s the reality of governing, though: doing meaningful things usually costs money, while performative nonsense is free....

“In the meantime, we’re left with the irksome elements of the so-called Get It Done Act. We could call it a stunt, but stunts are usually captivating or entertaining. This bill is a dull retread of an idea that was bad the first time. And if it does anything at all, it will be to make the electorate even more ill-informed about governance than it already is. In a better world, the government would never have introduced it.”

That’s some of the audience reaction to this piece of legislation.

Because we’ve had an hour from our critic responsible for the environmental pieces, I’m going to stay in my lane—pun intended—as the critic for transportation, highways and also infrastructure.

Looking at the schedule 2 changes, there are changes to the Highway Traffic Act, and it sets a statutory driver’s licence fee of $7.50 for each six-month period equal to the—wait for it, Speaker—“existing” fee, which is set by regulation.

Schedule 4 is the Photo Card Act, and it sets a statutory photo card fee of $3.50 for each six-month period equal to the “existing” fee, which is set by minister’s orders.

Why I highlight the word “existing” is because this is not a change in the experience of Ontarians—drivers or those getting their photo card. These prices, these fees, these costs have already been determined in regulation. What this bill does, or barely does, is now put it into statute, into actual law and out of regulation. It’s a nothing burger. It’s the status quo. There’s no change. We’re not saving anybody anything. It’s the same as what they’ve been paying as determined by regulation.

Another part that is accomplished by schedule 2 is, it establishes a framework enabling an automatic licence plate renewal system, with details to be determined by regulation.

Speaker, while we’re here, and since the government has brought it up, let’s talk about licence plates, because that’s what they brought us here to do. I’m a little out of practice, though. It was an everyday thing, that I got to stand in this House and talk about licence plates—but it has been four years since the absurd mess of their PC vanity plates that can’t be read.

I would like to remind us, with a recent piece—because folks haven’t forgotten. This is a piece by Allison Jones of the Canadian Press from February 14:

“As of this month there are 124,000 blue licence plates on the road....”

The Premier’s “government has a plan to get its blue licence plates off the road, four years after discovering they are barely visible at night—and that plan is to sit back and wait.

“The blue licence plates are set to simply disappear through attrition....

“That approach has been in place since November 2022, according to a senior government official not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.”

This is from a press secretary for the public and business service delivery minister: “After carefully considering potential options for implementing a dedicated collections program, the Ontario government has decided to naturally phase out existing blue licence plates.”

Speaker, it’s interesting, because every year around this time, mid-February, marks the anniversary of these blue licence plates, and every year the media tries to figure out what the government’s plan is, after they had committed to getting those licence plates off the road. And now the plan—and there is a plan; it was actually decided in 2022—wasn’t communicated. In fact, various FOIs were unsuccessful based on the grounds that the government wasn’t ready to announce it yet. It turns out what they weren’t ready to announce but had decided was, “Shh, let it go away”—as they put it, decided to naturally phase out existing blue licence plates. Sure.

But here’s the thing—and this is my question to this government, since they’ve brought up licence plates. It has been four years, and still we’re talking about the Premier’s blue licence plates. There’s still 125,000 or so left driving around on the roads, and each one of them is that true-blue reminder of the epic fail that this whole mess has been. The government promised that they would get them off our roads. It has come to light, as I just read, that the new plan is a passive phase-out. Ontarians know and, Speaker, you may remember—the folks at home certainly remember—these plates disappear in bright sun. They disappear at night. They disappear when being scanned at the US border. They disappear in heavy rain. And now this Premier wants them to disappear from our memories. So, the PC Party blue vanity plates, while impossible to read, are impossible to forget.

So, I guess I have an ongoing question: Why can’t they just fix this? Why won’t they just “get it done” when it comes to licence plates? And look, the Premier had said the other day that we needed to learn about—I don’t even remember—marketing and branding and stuff like that. But here we have physical, tangible, visible reminders of an epic and ongoing fail, of ineptitude or a rush job or—I don’t know, but people look at them and yes, it’s a safety problem. I mean, they’re appropriate for a getaway car, sure, but other than that, people see them, and except for those who are a bit sentimental and are keeping them as collectors’ plates, I think folks every time they see them think, “Oh, yes, man, they sure can get it done, can they?” So, if you want to talk about branding and you want to talk about marketing, maybe that’s a case study for the Premier.

But, Speaker, I will continue. Speaker, schedule 6—I will continue with that one. I’m going to skip a few of the others because, as the critic for transportation, I’m going to stay focused on what the government has given me and that is Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, schedule 6. It prohibits tolls on provincial highways unless the toll is authorized by an act. Schedule 6 would prohibit tolls on highways that already have no tolls—so we’re prohibiting tolls from where they aren’t and don’t exist—but would not prohibit tolls on the one Ontario highway that does have true tolls, Highway 407.

And remember that the Highway 407—people may think of it as one long stretch, but there are two sections: privately owned, the Highway 407 ETR—that’s the part that got sold for a song and all of us are still mad about it and paying for it—and then there’s Highway 407 east. The 407 east and the 412 and 418, those highways are still owned by the province, okay? They haven’t yet sold them to some foreign consortium—still ours.

So only one highway in Ontario has true tolls, and the tolls are authorized by the Highway 407 Act and the Highway 407 East Act, and those are untouched by this nonsense piece of legislation in front of us. The fact that the government keeps choosing not to rein in the high tolls on the 407—the government is missing an opportunity to make better use of the underutilized highway. They could be reducing or removing tolls for transport trucks; the NDP has proposed that. They’ve been hearing that across various stakeholder groups.

Also, in 2021, the Ford government inexplicably waived a billion dollars in congestion penalties that was owed by the private 407 ETR operator for setting tolls too high and allowing traffic to fall below minimum volumes required under the agreement with this government. So, legitimately, they didn’t meet their obligations, even though during that time—because you may remember it was around COVID time—the other 400-series highways were congested. People were on the roads. Highway 407 was so underused that a plane was able to land on it in the middle of the day with no problem.

We have called on the government to go after the 407 ETR for those congestion penalties, but this government—and I won’t put words in their mouth, but what’s a billion dollars? They waived it. It legitimately was owed that and chose to waive it.

Speaker, Bill 162 would prohibit tolls on provincial highways unless the toll is authorized under an act. The funny thing is, as the Auditor General noted in her 2022 report on highway planning, “The ministry does not have authority under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to implement tolls on provincial highways.” Literally, the provincial government doesn’t have the authority to implement tolls on provincial highways.

So here in this bill, they’re like, “We’re going to ban tolls.” They don’t actually have the authority to implement them—fun fact. They don’t have the authority without a highway-specific act, which brings us back to the Highway 407 Act and the Highway 407 East Act, which are unchanged by this schedule.

Speaker, earlier today I took the opportunity to ask the Minister of Transportation directly about a resolution that was passed today by the region of Durham, by their council. It was a motion requesting the permanent removal of tolls on the provincially owned portion of Highway 407, between Brock Road in Pickering and Highway 35/115. I won’t read the whole thing, but I will set it up for folks at home:

“Whereas Highway 407 from Brock Road ... in Pickering to Highway 35/115 is provincially owned and tolls are set by the province;

“And whereas the province introduced legislation that if passed would ban tolls from provincially owned highways including all 400-series highways except for Highway 407 which is located almost exclusively in Durham region;

“And whereas if excluded from the proposed ban on tolls, Highway 407 would become the only tolled provincially owned highway in Ontario, resulting in unfair economic impacts to Durham region residents and businesses;

“And whereas”—I am reading more of it than I was planning, but they say good stuff—“the province of Ontario has previously removed tolls on Highways 412 and 418 located within Durham, demonstrating the willingness to removing existing unfair tolls on provincially owned highways and should therefore include the provincial 407 as part of the proposed legislation; ...

“Be it resolved” that they request “that the province of Ontario include the provincially owned portion of Highway 407 in any legislation banning tolls on provincially owned highways.”

Speaker, the minister said—not in response to me, but in his remarks—something about “give our municipal partners what they need.” Well, I will reiterate to the Minister of Transportation and the folks at home that we have here a municipal partner asking to have this section of a provincial highway included in this act so that the toll could be taken off the provincial portion, the 407 east. I won’t hold my breath, but it’s a legit ask. I’ll tell you why I don’t hold my breath, Speaker: Because the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

On January 31, in echo to the town of Whitby’s resolution on January 16, the Durham region resolved:

“Whereas the temporary removal of tolls on Highway 407 during Winchester Road construction work would improve overall travel times and alleviate the traffic impacts on surrounding regional and local municipal roads.

“Be it ... resolved that:

“The province be requested to temporarily remove tolls on Highway 407 in Durham during the duration of the planned Winchester Road construction work.”

Speaker, they asked this. They sent it to the province, and that was January 31. By February 6, the answer was no—a resounding, definite no. It says here, as was reported in the paper, “An effort by Durham regional councillors to press the province to temporarily remove tolls on the Durham section of Highway 407 has received a quick curt response: ‘No.’”

The quote here is the response from the Ministry of Transportation six days later: “The ministry (of transportation) is not considering subsidizing or removing tolls for use of Highway 407 at this time.” And then, how many minutes later, and we’re dealing with Bill 162, which, with all of its fanfare—“We are going to be prohibiting tolls from provincial roads, except where they already are.” I obviously take exception to that, because why is Durham the exception? And this is a provincial government that says, “We’re not going to toll folks.” Well, you know what? Their behaviour is taking a very detrimental toll on the people in Durham region.

Speaker, unsurprisingly, I’ve used up my time, but I want to say that there are actual things this government could choose to do to help Ontarians. There’s a lot in this bill that’s kind of lip service and nothing burgers and really doesn’t change things or advance things, and that’s a missed opportunity. Where are the interventions to make people’s experience with our health care system better? Where are real affordability measures? How are we housing people because of this bill?

Thank you. That’s it.

We don’t have time for another back and forth. We’re going to move to further debate.

Unfortunately, there’s no time for questions.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

This House will stand adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, February 29.

The House adjourned at 1811.

We’re here for this late show debate tonight because this government just won’t take seriously the conditions in our provincial schools. Students, parents, alumni, teachers and advocates have been raising concerns for years. They’ve been trying to get meetings with the minister or the deputy minister but have been stonewalled. Journalists have reached out to get answers and have gotten the blow-off from the ministry.

So earlier this week, I asked the minister what it’s going to take for him to act. Sadly, Speaker, the students, the families, the teachers who are waiting for answers still did not get any. These schools serve children who are deaf, blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind. These are some of our most vulnerable students in Ontario. They deserve more attention and care, not less. But these kids are being forced to learn in horrendous conditions, conditions that no parent in Ontario would find acceptable for their children, and these schools are under the direct control of the Minister of Education. He could change things today if he wanted to.

The minister said he needed to introduce Bill 98 because school boards weren’t doing a good enough job so he needed to have more say on how schools are run in Ontario. Well, here are the schools that he oversees personally, and look what kind of shape they’re in: serious allegations of abuse, discrimination and neglect; severe teacher shortages—in fact, 17% of the teaching workforce—crumbling and unsafe buildings and children not getting access to the facilities and services they need to learn life skills safely; safety plans that are so absurd that when I tell people about them they think I’m joking because they can’t believe that any serious school in Ontario would do this. That’s the minister’s record.

Let’s look more closely at what’s happening in these schools on the minister’s watch. Students are travelling up to an hour and a half to school by bus, but because supervision doesn’t begin until the school day starts, they’re left waiting outside for half an hour when they arrive. They don’t have access to a bathroom, so some students have had to resort to urinating outside. Because they communicate with their hands, they have no option but to take their gloves off even when it’s minus 15 outside. Once they’re allowed in the building, students are being forced into large classes that exceed safety regulations because the teaching workforce has been reduced by 25% over recent years and there are not enough occasional teachers to fill gaps when teachers are sick or on leave. In fact, there are so many staff shortages that students are frequently arriving at their classroom to find a note on the door stating there is no teacher for the day and they’re to go to the library instead. Teachers who provide specific support, such as the special education resource teacher or the oral language teacher, are being pulled from their assignments to cover classrooms instead. If there’s an emergency during the day, a hearing teacher needs to be alerted because there is no way for a non-hearing teacher to call for help, and many of these teachers are non-hearing teachers.

At Ernest C. Drury, such emergencies were initially dealt with by requiring the classroom teacher to leave the room in the middle of an emergency and find another teacher or student to hand a card to. After this system was criticized as ineffective by an inspector from the Ministry of Labour, the school implemented a new system which requires classroom teachers to ring a cowbell, which obviously no deaf or hard-of-hearing student or teacher can hear.

Following a violent incident at one of the schools in December 2022, the Ministry of Labour flagged that student safety plans had not been updated for years. One of the reasons they weren’t being updated was because the special education resource teacher was being called upon repeatedly to fill in for classroom teachers.

Students are also not getting assessments. When the chief psychologist resigned in 2022, he stated in his resignation letter that senior management had removed all of his clinical duties and prevented him from explaining to parents why their children weren’t getting assessments. He further said he was forced by senior management to prioritize care to children whose parents had hired a lawyer or complained to their MPP.

I could go on, Speaker, with another five minutes of disturbing stories about what’s happening in these schools. But let me just conclude with a question. Why, if the minister thinks things are so great in these schools, is the government facing three new lawsuits only a couple of years after the province paid out $23 million to settle two class action lawsuits? Does the minister think that a lawsuit is a sign of success?

I stand today to speak about the provincial and demonstration schools. Thank you to the member opposite for bringing the matter forward.

Speaker, from day one, our government has been and remains committed to the provincial and demonstration schools in the province of Ontario. These are schools that lodge the most vulnerable students in our province. These students receive an individualized education to fully participate in a full school experience, including music, sports and leadership opportunities.

Speaker, before anything, being a mom with one child that has graduated and another in the public system that enjoys the benefits of a modernized curriculum, I, like other parents, worry about my child as all parents will, and I can’t imagine a parent, especially as they grow and navigate life, would not worry, especially about getting well-paid job offers and living a life to be successful in society.

So the topic of provincial and demonstration schools resonates with me because whether it’s my kids or others’, our government’s priority remains to ensure all kids have a full, safe and educational experience in our public schools.

Speaker, we are proud to be the only province in Canada to maintain provincial schools with lodgings for students with exceptionalities, and we remain steadfast in continuing to support and promote provincial and demonstration schools in providing quality opportunities for students who attend these schools. We remain committed in unlocking the potential within all our learners and serve effective educational practices for students who are deaf, blind and have learning disabilities. And we see results, Speaker.

When we talk about student success, in the spring of 2023, E.C. Drury School for the Deaf participated in the math competition finals at the Rochester Institute of Technology for the deaf in Rochester, New York. The students competed along with the other top 15 teams from across North America and the result was a seventh place finish. This is an outstanding result in a pool of 40 teams.

Speaker, our government funds an average of $125,000 per student per year. In the 2023-24 school year, there are 520 students enrolled in the provincial and demonstration schools with a total of 610 full-time and seasonal staff. This, to provide students a sense of belonging where their unique learning needs are met to actualize their potential.

Speaker, we have planned and approved capital projects over the next three years, with several new projects initiated to optimize school and student lodging conditions. It was under our government that a permanent executive director was hired to oversee the day-to-day operations, including all issues related to educators, students and staff. It was under our government that annual inspectors were appointed to ensure yearly inspections of provincial and demonstration schools

Contrary to the opposition’s rhetoric, Speaker, in the 2022-23 school year, each lodging program had an overwhelming compliance rate over 85%, which affirms a safe, healthy and nurturing environment for students in lodging. We heard from inspectors who applauded this work and the dedication of provincial and demonstration schools in providing a safe, healthy and nurturing environment for students.

It was our government that invested more than $250,000 in the first blind and low-vision program for francophone students in Ontario. This groundbreaking initiative for this provincial school ensures that francophone students who are blind or have limited vision get the quality education they deserve in French.

It is our government that has invested in transportation to provide reliable transportation for the students in these schools.

It was under our government that new policies and procedures were introduced to support provincial schools and demonstration schools.

All of this to say that it’s our government that continues to work to better enhance our schools—all our schools, including provincial and demonstration schools—to ensure that the most vulnerable students continue to be set up for a path to success. We can accept nothing less, especially for our most vulnerable.