Speaker, inexplicably this government doubled down, saying that the retention and—

Interjection.

Inexplicably, this government doubled down, saying that the retention and recruitment of doctors is not a major concern. Excuse me? Some 2.3 million Ontarians don’t have a family doctor, yet nothing is happening because we are told the cupboards are bare.

It is true that this year’s budget forecast a $10-billion deficit, and it is also true that in the past six years this government has added $86 billion to Ontario’s debt. So the money is being spent somewhere; just not in health care.

Speaker, I want to ask the Premier how he could possibly think that spending $1 billion to expedite beer and alcohol sales should be his priority instead of solving the family doctor crisis.

Speaker, I want to ask the Premier once again: How could he possibly think that the priority of this government should be renegotiating beer contracts instead of investing in the solutions that Ontarians urgently need?

I too would like to welcome members of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs: Paul Boissonneault, fire chief, Oakville; and Robert Garland, deputy fire chief, Markham.

Whereas commercial building vacancy is still very high after the pandemic and barriers prevent the conversion of previously commercial buildings to residential use, this bill would remove one significant barrier to building conversions.

This bill amends section 177 of the Environmental Protection Act so that a regulation providing for an exemption from clause 168.3.1(1)(b) will not include a limitation based on the height of a building.

I’d like to warmly welcome representatives from the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, the First Nations Technical Institute and the Friends and Advocates of Catholic Education in Ontario. Welcome to your House.

Mr. Speaker, it’s a great pleasure to introduce Harsimranjeet Bhatia from the Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors. Harsimranjeet practises in my riding, and I look forward to meeting with them and the association later today. Welcome to your House.

Speaker, I had the pleasure to meet with civics classes at All Saints and Earl of March secondary schools in my riding. It’s such a pleasure to meet such smart young people learning about the democracy that will affect the rest of their lives. They asked such good questions.

Students today are informed, active, and they know that what is happening in government is important. They know that asking the right questions is the first step to making change. Only with smart people asking smart questions do we get a government that is accountable, that is responsive to our needs and that invests in people for a better future for all.

There are people who intentionally make politics ugly because they don’t want people paying attention. So please, like I told those students: Stay informed, stay active, keep asking those good question and, when the time comes, vote like your life depends upon it, because it does.

I thank the honourable member for his question, but I think it’s really dangerous, Speaker, and I think it’s dangerous to all of us. If we put a bill forward, we put policies forward, with no money attached, then the danger becomes that it’s just performative and it’s only just to make a point; it’s not to make a difference. And I think that’s what all of us here want to do: We want to make a difference.

So, I think it’s very dangerous to put forth policies without funding because it creates expectations that you’re not going to be able to fulfill.

If we centralize all of that power, all of that influence, over our colleges and universities inside the minister’s office, that is not the right way forward when it comes to academic freedom, when it comes to the kind of future and what we want for our students.

I thank the honourable member for her question.

No one could argue against anti-racism, mental health or fee transparency policies. They all make perfect sense. Everyone deserves a safe and welcoming post-secondary experience. The challenges our students are facing are real, and they deserve real support, real advocacy and strength, funding and respect.

Putting out a piece of paper with policies but no money attached is wrong. This government needs to invest in safety from racism, help to overcome challenges in mental health, and the security of financial transparency.

The money this government has allocated to post-secondary recently is just half of what was recommended by the government’s own experts, and that’s even before the international students were capped.

Speaker, anti-racism and mental health both touch vulnerable and marginalized communities. The fact that this government wants to hand down policies without consultation, not only is awful for academic freedom, but I believe it’s a reckless approach to policies that will have serious consequences on people’s lives. This lack of consultation is completely unprecedented.

When the previous Liberal government asked post-secondary institutions to have sexual harassment policies, there was a defined and rigorous consultation process that led to good policy. That’s what we need. We need good policy.

The Premier himself even said, “Universities and colleges are really good, and it’s up to the dean to govern their universities.” I wonder, what makes it that a minister will know more about how to deliver good programs for students than the people that are on the front lines in those institutions every day. Speaker, all of these institutions already have these policies. They just need proper funding.

Also, the minister has repeatedly refused to state how they plan to penalize non-compliant institutions. Will the minister financially penalize institutions? We can’t say. This is the glimpse in the lack of transparency that we can expect in the future. This bodes poorly for this bill. When the government mandated free speech policies in 2018, it was explicitly with the threat of funding cuts. I’m a little worried that they’re refusing to give the details this time around.

This government’s approach to this bill, with no formal consultation taking place, is not the way forward for dealing with complex social issues that require input from across a broad spectrum of stakeholders. We could end up hurting people if we don’t do this right, so why not take the time to actually listen to those experts, listen to people with experience in mental health and other things? How do we prevent these policies from being hijacked for personal benefit or political gain? What processes are there in place to make sure that that doesn’t happen? I don’t see them, Speaker, and that worries me.

These policies currently exist, and I think that the universities and colleges did a good job of creating the kind of policies they need. Could they be improved? Absolutely. Now, that would have been a bill, to mandate that the policies that are in the universities and colleges need to be reviewed every three years, every two years. Now, that would make sense, because that would make sure that they’re addressing the most current issues that are out there and that things that we’re learning about today that we had not thought about five years ago are included in the policies. That’s something that would make sense, and it would also make sense in terms of funding if we’re funding mental health.

We don’t even know what these policies will look like if they’re handed down from on high. What one college in northern Ontario needs and a university in southern Ontario could be two different things. We don’t know. But I would like to see that whatever money comes into these kinds of policies, which I think—I think they are really important; they’re absolutely essential if we are going to do a better job of making our education system more inclusive and more welcoming and more open and more successful to more people.

I believe that the experts are at the coalface, as we would say in the military. They are on the front lines, are at the colleges and are at the universities, and are at the mental health agencies. We need to listen to the people who know, and I worry that these decisions will be taken up to the minister’s office without that consultation we need in order to make them as good as they could possibly be, in order to make them so that they will serve the greatest number of people and serve them well.

I don’t think that handing down extra policy requirements is addressing the reality of the current situation. The government is happy to tell you that our students are their priority, but I’ll tell you what, Madam Speaker: Show me your budget and I’ll show you what you care about. We’ll say that over and over again. Coming up with policies of this nature that are so instrumental—can be instrumental—in people’s future without transparency, without consultation and without funding is just plain wrong.

In closing, no one could argue against anti-racism, mental health or fee transparency policies. Everyone deserves a safe and welcoming post-secondary experience. The challenges our students are facing are real, and they deserve real support, real advocacy and strength, funding and respect.

When you ask the people of Ontario if they’re better off now than they were six years ago, the answer is a resounding no. Patients, nurses, doctors, teachers, students—including the autism community—farmers and renters, all dealing with restrictions, slowdowns and cuts to essential services.

But I will tell you who isn’t dealing with cuts. This government has the largest, most expensive cabinet ever. This Premier’s office is also the largest, most expensive Premier’s office in history, doubling in size and salary. If this isn’t the gravy train, I don’t know what is.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain what exactly his 28 extra staff members, each earning over $100,000 annually, are doing for the people of Ontario?

Interjections.

What exactly is the Premier paying this enormous staff to do?

This government insists on tightening the belt for everyone but themselves. They’ve cut the salaries of nurses and health care workers, teachers and education workers, even air ambulance drivers, but a quick look at the Premier’s office, and you will see his budget has exploded. His staff are being paid $6.9 million, the most expensive Premier’s office in history—not just in total, but 48 staffers are earning more than $100,000 every single year.

When this Premier was running for office, he said he’d be the one to stop the fat cats, to stop the gravy train, but he’s worse than any of his predecessors. Spending $6.9 million every year, the Premier is the most expensive Premier we’ve ever had, more than double any other Premier. When Ontarians face austerity, how will the Premier explain his runaway and self-serving expenses to the people of Ontario?

Now, it’s not a bad thing to reverse a bad decision, but you need to learn from your mistakes rather than continuing to follow an unintelligible ideology. “Measure twice, cut once” was my dad’s advice.

Why is the Premier okay with wastefully burning through Ontarians’ hard-earned tax dollars while expecting Ontarians to scrimp and save?

Speaker, it’s both an honour and a privilege to speak on Vimy Ridge Day. The bravery and incredible accomplishment of Canadians at Vimy Ridge has certainly earned international recognition for good reason. But I believe there’s another key feature of the Battle of Vimy Ridge that makes it speak so strongly to those of us here at home: Vimy Ridge lives on in the memories of Canadians still, not just as a commemoration, but as a shining example of courage, perseverance and the Canadian spirit of teamwork and innovation.

In the horrors of World War I, the Canadian Corps knew that continuing to sacrifice thousands upon thousands of lives was not acceptable. There had to be another way, and indeed they created one. The four divisions of the Canadian Corps employed innovative tactics and techniques. Through detailed reconnaissance, map study and rehearsals, Canadian troops familiarized themselves with the terrain. Commanders gave the everyday soldiers new orders, encouraging them to take the initiative, and then gave them the support and information needed to do exactly that.

The meticulous planning and preparation undertaken by Canadian officers and soldiers together, prior to the battle, was crucial to its success. The Canadian Corps at Vimy Ridge pushed the Central Powers back almost five kilometres, the greatest single Allied advance on the Western Front to that date. Still, Vimy cost almost 3,600 Canadian lives and untold injuries, but that was far fewer than the 150,000 Allied lives that had already been lost trying to capture Vimy.

That spirit of innovation, finding a new way in a dark time, lives on in Canadians today. It’s a blessing that we live with the freedom to do so—a freedom provided by the sacrifices of Canadians of the past. Their memory inspires us to be a strong, innovative, caring nation, standing together in the face of all that challenges us. We must always give thanks, and we must never forget the gifts that we have been given through their sacrifice.

Applause.

Last year, from April to October, 441,000 hectares of forest burned in Ontario. We all remember the orange skies, the unbreathable air and the community evacuations of last summer, which is why it’s such a disappointment to see that climate change is ignored in this do-nothing budget.

Do you know what this budget has done to firefighting? Since 2022, $100 million of funding has been slashed. Quebec is hiring more firefighters. Alberta has declared their wildfire season open in February. Ontario? We cut $100 million from the firefighting budget.

I have a question for the Premier. Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned around him. What instrument will the Premier choose?

But I’ll tell you what I’ll give the minister: I will give the minister a chance.

A lack of snow this winter and a dry spring spells disaster for our wildfire season. Ontario has historically hired 800 firefighters; this year, we’re projected to hire 440—that’s half of our firefighting teams.

The government is fully aware of this crisis. They commissioned a $100,000 third-party audit on firefighter retention, and then they didn’t publish it. They know what it will take to fix the problem, but they want to hide it because they’re not doing what needs to be done.

Will the Premier commit to publishing the final report of that audit?

Based on the overwhelming scientific consensus and lived experience, I know that climate change is real, and I believe it is our responsibility to act. Otherwise, it will be our children and our grandchildren who will be dealing with disaster after disaster.

It is a shame to see another budget that does nothing about the climate. This government loves to point fingers but refuses to lift a finger to do something themselves. The only climate measure they’ve taken, the cancelling of cap and trade, has been a disaster. It cost the government $3 billion in penalties, and it shifted the cost of carbon from corporate polluters to the people of Ontario—an extra $300 a year.

This government doesn’t care about the climate, and they don’t care about affordability. What will it take to have this government take the threat to the health, safety and security of Ontarians seriously?

This recent budget has done nothing to help Ontario families with mounting crises in affordability, health care, housing or the climate.

This government does nothing but point fingers, write letters and blame others so they can continue to reward wealthy, connected corporate insiders at the expense of everyone else.

I’d like to begin by thanking the member for Peterborough–Kawartha for bringing this bill forward to recognize the exceptional service of Murray MacKenzie Whetung, a member of the Curve Lake First Nation, who faced discrimination and mistreatment, but continued his commitment to his community and his country. We can barely imagine this kind of fortitude. What an appropriate way to acknowledge and celebrate Murray Whetung’s service by acknowledging the exceptional volunteerism and citizenship of a cadet within their own community and their own corps.

Young people who have already committed themselves to a life of service and community, whether they go on to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces or not, learn service, leadership and commitment, and having more cadets learn of Murray Whetung’s service and commitment is so very important because there is still so much to do. It’s not enough to talk nice words without the action to actually address the modern-day mistreatment of Indigenous people. Hopefully this award will contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the sacrifices and contributions of Indigenous veterans. If we educate our young people, they will carry Murray’s legacy of service forward. We owe a significant debt of gratitude to Murray Whetung and his family and all Indigenous veterans.

Let us continue to work to ensure that they receive the thanks and acknowledgement that they all so rightly deserve. Let us start moving forward together, and I’m sure that Murray would be pleased to know that his name is being used towards the improvement of conditions for Indigenous people and Indigenous veterans and that cadets are the ones who will be awarded this award in his name for their services.

Meegwetch. Thank you very much, Speaker.

Thank you, members, for your questions and contributions.

I just want to clarify a couple of things: An important aspect of how the guidelines are actually written is that they don’t stifle innovation. They’re goal-based. They seek a provincial understanding of best practices so that everyone has the most up-to-date guidance they need when they’re building to manage stormwater.

The engineers and the developers that I’ve spoken to have identified best practices—I think that’s a great idea—but they also think that it’s important that we have a formal standard around permeability. That will allow them to build safely and sustainably right across the province.

A wiki is not a regulatory tool. An update process needs to be formalized, and the regular updates that this bill requires will ensure that future governments will update guidelines on a regular basis. We cannot allow our stormwater guidelines to become obsolete again, whether it’s 15 years or 20 years that they have not been updated. This last lapse was way too big and shouldn’t be allowed to happen again.

When we prepared this bill, I wanted to design something that was practical, achievable and supportable by all members of this House, because we are all in this together. Protecting our constituents is at the top of all our lists. Protecting our constituents is our job number one, and your support will guarantee protections for the Ontario of today and into the future.

Time is of the essence. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you to all my colleagues. I’m here today to talk about Bill 168, the Stormwater Flood Prevention Act of 2024, and why I believe that it is so important that we work together to move this bill forward. I will briefly explain what the bill does and provide some context.

The bill asks the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to update the design guidelines with regard to the proper management of stormwater. The current set of guidelines have been in place since 2008. Since then, there is a wealth of new information and techniques that should be included in our guidelines. There is also a changing environment, and we must expect that our stormwater systems will be stressed and tested in new ways. It is vital that our guidelines keep up with a rapidly changing world.

Secondly, this bill requires the ministry to continue to report on the adequacy of stormwater management guidelines every 10 years. As I’ve just described, 15 years has left a gap in the province’s guidelines that needs to be addressed. A report every decade following this bill will help direct the upkeep of future guidelines and ensure that they are meeting the evolving needs of the province. I will expand on what these guidelines are later, but first, I want to discuss the need for these guidelines.

Firstly, Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. This is something that cuts clearly across party lines and is fully worth supporting. We found that 30% of the members in this House have had stormwater flooding in their ridings in the last 15 years. This is an issue that touches every corner of our province: 20 members of the government bench, 10 members of the official opposition bench and six independent members have all had recent stormwater flooding. If it hasn’t affected your riding, turn to one of your caucus members and ask them because I’m sure it will have affected one of your legislative neighbours and their constituents.

My riding suffered severe stormwater flooding on July 24, 2009; 1,200 homes in Glen Cairn were flooded. The community’s stormwater infrastructure was simply not designed to handle such a heavy volume of water. The storm sewers filled. The excess rainwater had nowhere to go except back up into people’s basements. That, in turn, filled the sanitary sewer system, overwhelming the pipes, causing further backups and filling homes with sewage. I would love to be able to tell those constituents this was a one-off situation that would never happen again, but they know better. It was the third flood in 13 years.

Now, post-disaster, some mitigation measures have been adopted, but this was a system built to suit the old standards and those old standards are the ones that are still in place today. Are those measures and old standards good enough to prevent future flooding? The planning and design experts don’t think so.

To pick an example from the government benches, I know the members from Essex and Windsor–Tecumseh have been severely impacted. In 2018, stormwater flooding cost the Windsor area $124 million. The title of the article in the Windsor Star was “Basement Flooding Can Cause Prolonged Harm to Mental Health, Study Says.”

Constituents from all ridings are being affected. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, as Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, took a notable step in 2019, appointing a special advisor on flooding for Ontario. The special advisor’s report recommended that the government implement requirements for stormwater, exactly like the ones in this bill. We agree, and it’s time to listen to the experts. There is a desperate need for a proactive strategy to manage stormwater in the province today. If not proactive today, then we know it will be reactive, waiting for the next disaster to push us into action.

The science is already in. We know that proactively managing stormwater and building to manage it is vital, not just to protect our environment but to safeguard our investments, be it homes, streets, towns and cities, or our businesses and our economy. By 2050, total annual precipitation in Ontario is forecast to increase by about 9%. As recently as in 2013, 125 millimetres of rain in just a few hours did $1 billion worth of damage across southern Ontario. The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario reports that, without adaptation, increases in rainfall—remember that 9% figure by 2050—will likely cost Ontario municipalities an additional $1.8 billion per year; $145 billion by the year 2100.

Every member should be invested in our infrastructure’s resilience. Talking to engineering associations, they tell us that programs to prevent infrastructure damage are one tenth the cost of repairing that infrastructure. That’s exactly the preventative, precautionary mindset we need to have right now.

We’re talking about floods which disrupt all aspects of life in the province: our profitable economy, the movement of goods and, importantly, the homes that Ontarians work so hard for. Everyone wants more homes, more affordable homes. Everyone wants a home to call their own in this province. I support increased density and infill. However, it’s so vital that these homes and the supporting infrastructure are built to last, that they are safe and secure in the case of weather extremes.

Unfortunately, flooding has an especially damaging effect. Water can seep in and erode someone’s home. They might think they have escaped, only to find flood damage in the basement and in the walls of their home. Constituents of mine still talk about the 2009 Glen Cairn stormwater flooding. It’s left such a clear community trauma.

We see now in jurisdictions all over the world that flooding is becoming such an issue that insurers won’t even cover homes. This is a real risk that deserves the full attention of government because now is the time for action.

Truthfully, this bill and these guidelines are not enough to fully mitigate the forecast increase in precipitation, but it’s the important first step of a concerted update of our provincial approach to flood mitigation and stormwater management. The province’s own Provincial Climate Change Impact Assessment lists flood mitigation infrastructure and urban and rural stormwater management systems in every region in Ontario at high risk. Proactively adapting the stormwater management techniques of Ontario reduces the risk of flooding and is the most cost-effective strategy in the long term. That’s exactly what these guidelines seek to do.

The first requirement of the bill is that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks publish and endorse the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Guidance Manual. This is a manual that was prepared by the Ministry of the Environment. It’s an excellent document: 350 exhaustive pages of research into what could best help our developers and municipalities use the most modern best practices, techniques and standards for stormwater management.

So what considerations does the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Guidance Manual actually address? It is, firstly, an expansive description of the techniques that can be used to manage stormwater in a way that reduces runoff. But it also establishes a vital new guideline around watershed permeability: i.e., how much water a geographical area should be able to absorb when it rains. What this guideline establishes is that, if we get a storm in the 90th percentile, the watershed as a whole should be able to handle all but 10% of the water. That 10% can be runoff, as in nature, as long as it is absorbed on site.

At 10%, there is a limit above impermeability. Above that—i.e., when we pave over green spaces with concrete and asphalt—flooding vastly increases. Floods that in the past we would only predict to happen once a year will happen with 10 times the frequency. So by setting the guidelines for 10% permeability, the guidance manual sets a bar that keeps our homes, families and investments, and the province’s investments, safe for future generations.

The current guidelines have not been updated since 2008. Since then, not only is there a slew of new techniques to incorporate, but there is better understanding of our changing environment that we must adapt to. Speaker, I do hope that the members listening will take the time to consider these guidelines. The province deserves a government committed to the newest techniques and the best practices. We have a chance here to greatly reduce potential stormwater flooding, protect valuable infrastructure, protect our citizens and communities from flooding, protect our economy, reduce the cost of insurance, and save money by avoiding costly infrastructure repairs. If enacted, this bill will save increasing numbers of Ontarians the heartbreak of stormwater flooding.

Thank you, colleagues, for your time and consideration.

It’s an honour to stand before you today and advocate for the establishment of Croatian Heritage Day in Ontario to be celebrated annually on May 30. I believe all members will agree that Ontario should take the time to commemorate the cultural heritage, the achievements and contributions of Croatians to our province and beyond.

Croatian Heritage Day would not only serve as a celebration of Croatian culture but also as a recognition of the rich tapestry of diversity that makes Ontario such a vibrant and inclusive place to live. It would be a day to honour the achievements of Croatian Canadians in various fields—arts, sciences, sports, business, politics—highlighting their positive impact and contributions to our society.

The Croatian community has a long and proud history in Ontario, dating back over 100 years when the first Croatian immigrants arrived on Canadian shores. Since then, Croatians have played a significant role in shaping the cultural, social and economic fabric of our province, contributing their talents, their traditions and values to the mosaic of Ontario’s identity.

By establishing Croatian Heritage Day in Ontario, we would not only pay tribute to the contributions of Croatian Canadians, but it would also be a day to celebrate the shared values of respect and solidarity that unite us all as Ontarians, regardless of background or heritage.

Furthermore, the Croatian Heritage Day will provide an opportunity for all Ontarians to learn more about Croatian culture, history and traditions, fostering a greater appreciation and understanding among different communities. It would be a day of cultural exchange, dialogue and friendship, strengthening the bonds of unity and harmony that make Ontario such a great place to live.

Speaker, I was fortunate enough to visit Croatia on a number of occasions as a member of the Canadian Forces—Zagreb, Split, Dubrovnik—and I was always struck by the elegance, by the beauty, by the art and culture that I saw everywhere. It inspired me so much that my husband and I went back for a 10-day holiday, and we loved it. I would highly recommend anyone who ever has that opportunity to do that. Time and time again, we were struck by the beauty of its landscapes, the friendliness of its people, the elegance of its food and its art and its architecture. They have so much to offer, and I wanted to say thank you to the people of Croatian heritage for sharing that with us. How lucky are we that you have chosen to share that grand heritage and culture and art with the people of Ontario?

In conclusion, I heartily support Bill 81 to officially recognize May 30 as Croatian Heritage Day in our province. Let us come together to celebrate the rich cultural heritage of the Croatian community and reaffirm our commitment to each other. Together, we will celebrate Croatian heritage and history and we will celebrate a vibrant Ontario for future generations.

This government is relentless. If there isn’t a ready-made opportunity, they will create a way to insert their friends and insiders into every public good in Ontario. They did it with the greenbelt. They did it with Ontario Place. They did it with ServiceOntario. And now they’re putting their own former Conservative staffers into the judicial system.

My question is for the Premier. How can Ontarians trust a court that has been overtly and intentionally poisoned with blatant political bias?

Interjections.

Trust in our judicial system is absolutely key to the functioning of our democracy. One only needs to look to our neighbours to the south to see where the politicization of justice leads.

How could the Attorney General possibly think that this overt and blatant politicization of our judicial system won’t erode that trust—unless that is the endgame.

Interjections.

This bill would enact the Stormwater Flood Prevention Act, 2024. It would require the minister to publish a final version of the Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Guidance Manual, which is a document that provides technical and procedural guidance for planning, design and operation of stormwater management practices. The current stormwater design guidelines have not been updated for 15 years.

The act also requires the minister to prepare a report 10 years from the day the guidance document is published and every 10 years thereafter reviewing the adequacy of the guidelines and to publish that report.

We have an affordability crisis in Ontario.

Interjections.

Interjections.

We have an affordability crisis here in Ontario. When this government was elected, they promised a 20% tax cut for the middle class. This government has been dragging its feet for six years. So what’s their priority? It’s certainly not the middle class. It’s not our most vulnerable. It’s not Ontarians on ODSP or at food banks, or those on surgical or autism services wait-lists.

But what do we have? We have an $8.3-billion greenbelt giveaway, now subject to an RCMP criminal investigation. We have a $650-million Therme spa parking lot, now under Auditor General investigation. Somehow there’s always enough for handouts to developer friends, but for Ontario families, the cupboards are bare. We have grocery chains and the fossil fuel industry gouging Ontarians.

Speaker, a question for the Premier: Will he keep his campaign promise and cut middle-class taxes?

The provincial government does have the most applicable tools to help the people of Ontario. If they wanted to, they could bring back rent control; they could raise ODSP; they could raise the Ontario Child Benefit. It’s not good enough to write letters if one has the power to actually ease people’s distress. Mr. Speaker, Ontarians are still waiting. They’re lining up at food banks. They’re struggling.

Apparently, the voters were wrong to take this government at its word; we know it, the RCMP knows it, and now Ontario knows it.

Will the Premier and his provincial government actually use some of the tools that they have available to them to help the people of Ontario and cut middle-class taxes?