The then Minister of Colleges and Universities said the process and their actions were “the most transparent thing that could exist.”

Now, a leaked recording of a phone call between McVety and that same minister found the minister was working overtime to help McVety get his school accredited, even asking him to make the submission “as easy as possible for me to sign off no matter what.”

Back to the Premier: Is the Premier concerned about the ongoing pattern of preferential treatment his friends are receiving?

I have another quote for you, Speaker. Weeks after that recorded phone call, that minister told this House, “We cannot interfere with these types of procedural safeguards. It’s wrong. It violates the principles of fundamental justice.” But privately, he was telling McVety something very different: “We’re going to guide this process through and we are going to make sure you got to where you wanted to go, and right where you want it to get.”

Back to the Premier: Why was your government saying one thing to the people and a different thing behind closed doors?

This time, we’re going to talk about urban boundary changes.

To the Premier: Two weeks ago, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was asked whether he would reverse the forced expansion of Hamilton’s urban boundaries. He said, “No, Mr. Speaker, I will not reverse the expansion of the urban boundaries.” But just two weeks later, the minister suddenly reversed course.

To the Premier: What spooked his minister so much that he would completely reverse a position he was doubling down on just two weeks ago?

Last week, we asked the minister about this government’s overuse of ministerial zoning orders to give preferential treatment to their favourite speculators. Once again, the minister doubled down and defended his government’s abuse of MZOs. Now he’s reviewing them.

Back to the Premier: Why does it take an RCMP investigation for this government to understand why preferential treatment is wrong?

Interjections.

Today the CBC reported that certain amendments to Hamilton’s official plan were written word for word by a well-connected developer and Conservative donor, Sergio Manchia, the very same Sergio Manchia who received preferential treatment in the greenbelt grab, the very same speculator who bought tickets to the now-infamous stag and doe from the head of the Conservatives’ fundraising team. The Integrity Commissioner’s report has evidence the Premier repeatedly called Mr. Manchia prior to the changes to the greenbelt and Hamilton’s official plan.

Speaker, back to the Premier: In any of those phone calls, did the Premier discuss changes to Hamilton’s official plan with Mr. Manchia?

Speaker, earlier this week, the government shut down our motion to cancel the really sketchy Ontario Place deal. You’ll remember this deal will see more than $600 million of hard-earned public funds subsidize the private profits of an Austrian spa developer for 95 years. You’ll remember that the people of this province do not support this deal.

The deal makes no sense. What could possibly justify this unprecedented giveaway of prime waterfront property and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Therme? Maybe we should ask Carmine Nigro, chair of Ontario Place and a close personal friend of the Premier.

My question to the Premier is, what would we find on his personal phone about the Ontario Place deal?

The appointment of people whose only qualification seems to be a big enough donation to the Conservative Party calls into question the competence and integrity of vital services like the Landlord and Tenant Board and the Human Rights Tribunal. The people of Ontario want to know, and so do I: How many of these unqualified appointees would we find on the Premier’s personal phone logs?

We know. But if they really want to see this spa built, then the city of Toronto mayor, Oliva Chow, has graciously proposed an alternative: the Better Living Centre, which would also, I think, perhaps be a better fit.

All the people of this province want to know is, how much is this really going to cost them? The official opposition NDP care as well about public accountability for their hard-earned tax dollars.

But Ontarians also want to know why, since 2018—that’s five years of this Premier’s government—an annual report for Ontario Place has not been published once, not once—all of a sudden, no published reports. They’ve kept secret how much revenue has been brought in from tenants like Live Nation or expenses that Ontario Place has incurred during this time. These reports are supposed to be published around the same time as public accounts every year. Ontario Place Corp.’s financial results are consolidated annually by the government of Ontario. Let me be clear what that means: This government knows. They know, but they aren’t going to tell us. Why? Why is this government so bent on hiding facts and the truth from the very people who pay their salaries, from the very people who will be paying for this absolutely nonsense deal? We see absolutely no transparency, no responsibility from this government, and I think the people of Ontario are asking, “What are they hiding?”

We’ve got them under investigation by the RCMP right now for a deal that was bad—a bad deal. I want to say, the people of this province have said enough is enough. They want to know what this Premier has signed them up for, why he won’t release the terms of the 95-year lease of our public lands, our waterfront, that he is gifting to a private foreign company. Why the secrecy?

The questions just keep coming. Who stands to benefit? Who stands to benefit from this backroom deal? Because it certainly isn’t the people of Ontario. This deal shows us that, once again, insiders are everywhere when it comes to this government. I’ll let you connect the dots, Speaker.

We have Mark Lawson, Therme Canada’s highest-profile executive, who worked in Premier Ford’s office and, guess what, before that, as chief of staff for the Minister of Finance. Then there’s Edward Birnbaum, a new hire announced about a week ago, who came from—also a friend of the Premier—Mayor John Tory’s staff. Finally, there’s Simon Bredin, a Therme spokesperson, who has worked formerly for Navigator, connected to the Conservative Party. Spacing magazine has noted that Therme’s top strategy consultant is John Perenack, another Conservative Party insider whose clients have included EllisDon, the general contractor for the Ontario Place site services replacement project.

Through freedom-of-information requests and questions before the legislative committee, the NDP has learned that there was no fairness monitor for the Ontario Place procurement. I want to remind the people of Ontario: This is standard practice for large procurements, because it’s there to ensure fairness and integrity. Why wasn’t there a fairness monitor?

The government has also been unable to show any scoring criteria used to assess the bids, or the scorecards for each bid. Without the scorecards, we don’t have any way of knowing whether the contract was awarded based on evidence or preferential treatment. Preferential treatment, Speaker: I suspect that’s going to be the real issue here.

Journalist John Lorinc—who, I think, actually is a resident of my riding, a constituent—was writing for Spacing magazine, and he found that the procurement process “lacked ... detail about project financing and public information on other proposals for the site.” I wanted to quote him here. He’s an award-winning journalist, and he writes, “What’s more—and this seems like a highly salient detail—the 38 other bidders were told, in the Call for Development document, that the site had adequate parking, and that they should fashion their proposals accordingly. It was only after the government (via Infrastructure Ontario) selected Therme that it announced the construction of a massive five-level parking garage—an unambiguous commercial benefit to Therme that was never made available to the other bidders.”

Speaker, none of this looks right. It doesn’t sound right. It doesn’t smell right. This government is tanking in trust and accountability—