Well, I’m sure. I guess you can probably give the Premier a call and ask him about that, because that’s what happened. They axed it.

Interjections.

I know it’s hard to hear, folks, but there’s a remedy. You can fix it. It’s not broken forever. Here’s the reality: We don’t like criticism. I don’t like the criticism I’m hearing right now. Nobody likes to be criticized. No one likes somebody shining a light on us coming up short. But do you want to know what, folks? All governments are going to come up short when it comes to this. We’ll never do enough, ever, ever, ever.

So we need people like an independent child advocate to speak up for children who don’t have a voice, and that’s their only job—not the rest of government. And kudos to the Ombudsman’s office for taking it on, but we need somebody whose job it is just to do that, nothing else. That’s why it was established. That’s why it was important. And that’s why it would be a really good thing, as my colleague from Ottawa Centre said, to re-establish an independent child advocate. I think we could all agree on it. Yes, we’re going to hear some things we don’t want to hear. We’re going to hear some things that will make us uncomfortable—not just the government, but all of us. We need that. We need that because those children don’t have a voice.

The measures in this bill to make sure that children have the language of their choice in terms of being communicated to—that’s great. That’s really important. But what about hearing their voice? How do we hear their voice? We only will be able to hear their voice if we actually are intentional about ensuring that they have one, and that they have an independent one, and it’s one that reports to all of us.

I think what happened with axing the Child Advocate was something that was done in haste. You got rid of the Environmental Commissioner and anyone else who, at the time, would say something that would tell the government what they didn’t really want to hear or anybody else to hear.

It’s healthy to have critics. It’s healthy to have people who shine a light on things. It only makes us better.

I am going to support this bill. We’re going to support it. It’s a good bill.

Two things that the government needs to remember: All these new penalties, all these new laws don’t mean anything if we don’t enforce it, if we don’t put money behind it, if we don’t put money behind preventing the things that are happening from happening, if we don’t pay social workers enough, if we don’t ensure that there’s enough support—I don’t want to use the word “supervision.” We don’t supervise our children growing up, as parents. I don’t know what the right word to use is. Here’s the reality: Children in care—we’re their parents. We’re responsible for them. So if we’re going to put this law forward, we better put something behind it, all of us.

Number two: Children in care across this province need an independent voice. They need an independent child advocate because they don’t have a voice. I shouldn’t say they don’t have a voice. They have a voice, but they’re not heard. They need somebody whose only job is to say, “Here’s what’s happening over here. Here’s what’s happening to kids who are in our care. And here’s what needs to be done.” We may not like what they say. We may not like what we see. But it will only work if we force ourselves to listen and see those things that need to be fixed, even though they make us feel uncomfortable and coming up short.

I’m happy to take any questions.

I think the Premier was abundantly clear in how his views were on that.

I will say to the Leader of the Opposition, it is not in the tradition of the Conservative Party to compel its members to do anything. There was a free vote, and members expressed—members on whatever side of the House expressed their opinions on that. So I can assure the member opposite that we will not be compelling our members to do anything. It’s not what Progressive Conservatives do. We allow them to represent their communities.

Interruption.

We have amongst us the most diverse caucus in the history of this province—

Interruption.

I come from a caucus that is the most diverse caucus in the history of this province.

I don’t take any lessons from the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to how marginalized people feel. I’m an Italian Canadian who, in the 1970s, was spit on for being a “wop.” I don’t need any lessons from her on what it means to stand up for marginalized people. I do it every single day, and so do the rest of my caucus mates. We bring people together; we don’t divide them.

Speaker, my question through you, to the Premier, is around his government’s flip-flop on the Hazel McCallion Act, an ill-conceived and poorly-thought-out plan by the Premier to dissolve Peel region—a plan that resulted in chaos and an exodus of qualified staff.

Yesterday, taxpayers in Peel region were outraged to learn from the Toronto Star that they’re on the hook for a $1.5-million bill from the Peel transition board for “efficiencies.” Local leaders who only met with the four-person board once said it has been a “non-transparent process,” and residents are now being forced to pay for the indecisiveness of the province.

Does the Premier feel it is fair for property taxpayers in Peel to pick up a $1.5-million tab for his poor performance?

Speaker, through you to the Premier: Will he admit there is nothing efficient about this fiasco, and will his government pick up the tab for hard-working Peel taxpayers so they are not on the hook for his mistakes?

Interjections.

My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, this government’s scandals didn’t start with the greenbelt. A few years ago, the government was embroiled in controversy when they attempted to get accreditation for a private evangelical school led by the Premier’s close friend Charles McVety, who was well known for his anti-LGBTQ and Islamophobic statements. The government even put forward legislation to allow the school to be able to hand out bachelor degrees. Today, that same school is one of the very few private colleges that will get international students under the new cap.

Can the Premier tell us whether McVety’s insider connections played a role in his allocation of international study permits?

Speaker, a lawsuit on the matter of McVety’s school revealed a recorded call with a Conservative minister who said that he would guide McVety through the process of accreditation and ensure that McVety got where he wanted to go.

We now learn that McVety’s school is the beneficiary of another favourable decision by this government.

Again, to the Premier: Was preferential treatment involved in the government’s decision about which private colleges would receive international study permits?

My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, I’m sure all of us in this House enjoy the opportunities we get to take a vacation.

Unfortunately, last week, over 500 staff at GO Transit learned that they were not allowed to have vacation for the rest of this year, and why? Because, sadly, the government has not invested in staff appropriately to pay, to finance and to work with the 15% schedule increase they proposed for the GO train that will go through Milton—coincidentally, the place I’m sure this Premier wants to win a by-election.

Metrolinx has a million-dollar CEO. Meanwhile, they have 82 vice-presidents at Metrolinx, and they have a marketing department of over 400 staff. But we aren’t hiring enough workers for GO trains, to make sure people can take vacations.

Can the Premier explain to this House if this makes any sense?

Meanwhile, while this government is building the paycheques of 82 Metrolinx vice-presidents, 400 marketing staff, this government has nothing to say—not a word—about the fact that people can’t take a vacation for the rest of this year.

So I want to ask my friend opposite, seriously: Can he commit to this House that he personally will look into this matter? Will he flow the funds necessary from the treasury to make sure GO Transit workers can take the vacation they earned—and Metrolinx executives can finally be called to heel on their incredible greed and compensation at the taxpayers’ expense?

Interjections.

My question is for the Premier.

Last week, the Premier finally admitted that oil and gas greed was raising gas prices in Ontario. He said, “It’s disgusting what the oil companies are doing. They’re gouging people.” Yes, they are.

In 2022 alone, the carbon tax went up two cents a litre, but fossil fuel giants raised their profit alone, per litre, by 18 cents. The same year they made record profits, and the same year their executives gave themselves a 20% pay raise. Unlike the carbon tax, you don’t get any of that money back; they get it.

My question: If the Premier really wants to get big oil out of our pockets, will he commit to a credible clean energy plan that benefits all Ontarians, not just the CEO of Enbridge and his million-dollar friends?

How could they have used their time? They could have come up with a credible climate plan that cuts pollution and puts money back in people’s pockets to save on household energy, transportation and food. Instead, they play politics to distract from the fact that they don’t have a plan.

Speaker, to the minister: If he’s so concerned about cutting costs for Ontarians, what will he do to get Ontario off the greed-powered roller coaster ride of fossil fuel prices?

My question is to the Premier.

Last year, representatives from Niagara region came to Queen’s Park with several straightforward asks, one of them being a commitment to funding for the South Niagara Falls Wastewater Solutions project. Although members in the region were able to get that commitment, funding was only guaranteed if the federal government introduced an infrastructure program that would support the cost-sharing structure. The provincial and federal government must each do their part, but the region stated that they must move forward with this critical project now.

This government says they want municipalities to build thousands of more homes and they’ve given targets, yet we all know when we continue to build, we must ensure municipalities’ infrastructure keeps pace. When we build more homes, we have more water waste. Ensuring we have appropriate waste water treatment infrastructure in place in Niagara as it continues to grow is vitally important to our community—