Maybe the minister doesn’t really understand what’s going on here. This is passing on an additional cost to consumers in this province, on their gas bills.

On the morning of the OEB ruling, the chief of staff to the Minister of Energy reached out to the Premier’s staff and called an urgent meeting to prepare a response in case the OEB ruled against Enbridge in favour of consumers. It just happens that the minister’s chief of staff is—guess what?—a former lobbyist for Enbridge.

So my question to the Premier again is, was this chief of staff in a conflict of interest when he decided to put the interests of his former employer ahead of the interests of Ontario gas consumers?

Government lawyers warned the Premier’s staff and the former Enbridge lobbyist, who now, I will remind everybody, is working as the minister’s chief of staff, that intervening in the OEB decision carried legal risks. They did it anyway. They announced a plan to overrule the OEB only 15 hours after the decision was published. I have never seen a government so determined to overrule an independent regulator and drive up gas bills for Ontarians.

Why is the government risking legal action in order to give preferential treatment to this gas monopoly over the interests of hard-working Ontarians?

Interjections.

As millions of Ontarians struggle to find a family doctor, private companies are seeing an opportunity to make a profit.

Instead of making sure everyone has access to primary care, the government is letting so-called executive health clinics continue to charge patients thousands and thousands of dollars to see a doctor.

Does the Premier believe people who can afford it should be able to use their credit card to skip to the front of the line?

I want to make sure that the government truly understands this. These concierge clinics are promising patients 24/7 care and access to a dedicated team, but there’s just one catch: Patients are expected to pay a whopping $12,000 a year. In the middle of a severe primary care shortage across this entire province, this is clearly creating a two-tiered health care system where those who can afford it are going to move to the front of the line at the expense of everybody else.

So my question, again, to the Premier of this province: Why is this government allowing for-profit clinics to compromise the integrity of the public health care system?

Interjections.

Public health care providers out there are calling this government’s strategy for funding primary care the “Wild West.” The government isn’t just allowing these companies to take advantage of patients; they are, in fact, encouraging it.

I want to ask the Premier, why are you allowing these for-profit clinics to get away with this while ignoring the model that we know works here in the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

Good morning, Speaker. This question is for the Premier. If you’re one of the 2.3 million people in Ontario without a family doctor, if you’re a young family looking to find an affordable place to call home, if you’re a parent feeling deflated for having to cut back on your child’s extracurricular activities or if you’re someone who is shuffling between two or three jobs to keep up with the rising cost of everything, the Conservative budget is not for you.

So I want to hear from the Premier: Why didn’t the budget contain any new measures to help make life more affordable in Ontario?

The government voted down our plan to take away the administrative burden on family physicians that would have delivered on care for millions of people. The government’s plans will barely cover a fraction of the 2.3 million people who don’t have a family doctor.

Why has the Premier spent so much more but failed to address our doctor shortage?

So my question back to the Premier is, how does his government justify spending so much more to deliver so much less?

Interjections.

Good morning, Speaker. Yesterday, the government finally released its business case for relocating the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place, finally, after they tried to hide it for so long. It showed that the cost of building a new science centre at Ontario Place would be double the cost of repairing the existing science centre. All the so-called savings come from the lower cost of operating a half-sized science centre over 50 years.

So, my question is for the Premier. Why would this Premier force the people of Ontario to pay twice as much for a science centre that’s half the size?

Let’s talk about kids. Let’s talk about children. Schools from across the province visit the science centre. Kids and families learn about science and the world around us. The government is slicing it in half and reducing its capacity, planning to fire science centre staff—that’s how they’re going to find savings—and making it harder for kids to actually go there.

Back to the Premier: At a time when we need people to go into the sciences, why is this government making it even harder?

This question is for the Premier.

Yesterday, the Minister of Infrastructure told Ontarians that it was “much more expensive” to repair the Ontario Science Centre than it would be to just tear it all down—much more expensive than tearing it down, refurbishing the pods, building a whole new building, and then moving all of those jobs out of Flemingdon Park and next to the Premier’s new, elite, private spa. But when she was asked how much more expensive, she couldn’t or wouldn’t say.

So, Speaker, I would like to offer the Premier a chance: How much will it cost to remove the Ontario Science Centre from its heritage property in Flemingdon Park?

The minister also referred to a business case for this whole scheme. Considering that there has been exactly zero consultation with local communities, no transparency as to how this whole plan came together, and with this government’s very dubious track record when it comes to land deals, I think it’s on the minister to show her work.

Back to the Premier: When will you show Ontario the evidence that this scheme is actually in the public interest?

Back to the Premier: What role did Conservative-connected developers have in this decision?

Interjections.