All right, thank you. Hello everybody. So Jeff said that he was going to be very brief in his introductions of us and In my case I thought he went a little bit too long at the beginning of this session because he said the economist Dr. Ben Powell if he had just shorted it to Dr. Ben Powell given today's seminar topic you all would have thought I'm the type of doctor who could help people instead Now the gig is up. You know, I'm an economist, which I'll tell you what I do in my day job Then I'm a professor at Texas Tech University where I run a group called the free market Institute where we train people To become professors and talk about ideas about free markets and Austrian economics and such and I tell you just briefly where I come from on this Because it's relevant with our host today When I grew up around here I did my undergraduate at UMass Lowell and I didn't have any single free market professor there as you might imagine But I stumbled across the writings of Ludwig von Mises, Mario Rothbard, Frederick Hayek while I was there became interested in these ideas and learned that there was something called Mises University down in Auburn and When I this is late 90s when I was an undergraduate I started to think maybe I'd like to become a professor one day And I went down there and spent a week with them studying Austrian economics seeing the passion of the professors that they had And I left that week knowing exactly what I want to do the rest of my life So I'm always appreciative of the Mises Institute and and happy to be able to speak for them Not particularly happy to be able to speak for them here in New Hampshire because I can flip back into my native Merrimack Valley Cadence of speech and you all don't need seatbelts to keep up with me Versus when I go down and visit Auburn with some people are online and slow it down for all them all So it'll feel more comfortable today So my topic is a little bit different than other people here I'm gonna be talking about the pandemic and how it relates to economic science and the rationale for regulation So people told us this last year follow the science and when they did they always seem to mean listen to Epidemiologists or medical doctors, but that's not the relevant science That's just measuring one type of outcome that has to be weighed against other ones I know a science that deals with weight weighting values against each other when we have scarce resources It's called economics. It's the economic science People need to listen to to figure out if there is a rationale for a type of government regulation during this pandemic And if so what that looks like and I'll tell you what it does not look like is Lockdowns or any of the policies that we got over this past year. So to start with knowing You guys nice, but you're gonna slow me down so If there's going to be a case for regulation during this It doesn't come because the disease is deadly or any other physical characteristics as lots of things in the world That can be deadly or bad for us But that doesn't mean that human interaction needs to be regulated by a government or anybody else If there's going to be a case from it that case has to come from the science of human interaction or Economics so if our is going to try to make a case for it based on economic science The case has to come from something we talk about as externalities or spillovers where one individual's decision-making where they weigh cost and benefits to themselves Results in spilling over some of those costs to other people because if it's all internal to yourself And there's a dangerous disease out there make your own choices if you get it you get it It's a bad outcome But you rationally weighed the cost and benefits what mattered was not your life expectancy But the subjective value in your mind of doing the activities That's why I've simply the deadliness of something does not matter Where the case for the regulation would come from is that my putting myself at risk spills over risks onto other people that they then have To account for when making their decisions about what risks to take on Incidentally note the other thing people have got sidetracked on this Economists are known for measuring this economists are really popular Measuring the statistical value of life and putting a dollar figure on people's lives And then some people have been trying to weigh the costs and benefits of dollar value of lives saved first No, that's the wrong calculation to not even in mainstream economics. Do you get that answer? The externality is the extra cost people take on themselves Because of the increased cost to them of risks other people are taking that number is a whole lot smaller than the statistical value Of lost life to start with so if we're going to be thinking about this then we have to be thinking about how would regulations regulate us spilling over some of these risks on to others and make us account for them more so that we when we make our own Calculations engage in the kind of optimal amount of risk-taking When we account for not just our own but everybody else's so first off We have to realize these things are partially internalized anyway first actually something That's not even on the slide to the extent that the news scare mongers everything and people overestimate their own risk I've seen no shortage of young people who way overestimate their own risk To the extent that they're doing that their internal cost-benefit calculations from themselves Probably brings them closer into line to what they should be doing to caring about other people who are more at risk Second to the extent that it makes you care about grandma or somebody else who might be at more risk When I think we probably all know people who contracted that contracted their risk-taking activity at particular points over the past year when they were new they were going to Interact with somebody that's of higher risk. That's taking account of other people. You don't need regulation there I just social norms do that part of it finally and interacting and this is what this is about in places of business a Lot of this is all internalized to our behavior already Not because we intrinsically care about the other people in the business But because the owners of the business have to care about the people in their business caring about other people spilling risk Over on them. So this is the exact same. Well at step one. It's the exact same as smoking regulations There is no people talk about smoking is like air pollution that spills over and other people don't Like it so you're not taking account of them. Well, not if it's in a restaurant or bar the restaurant or bar owner has to weigh the benefits smokers get from being able to smoke with the The cost of other people not liking that smoke and then has to set policy accordingly in a world where owners are free To choose in the years past this look like smoking in non-smoking sections some restaurants that were smoke free most bars That had smoking now over time those were changing because market forces Dictate that the owners respond to it. I live in a city that still has smoking freedom. Believe it or not Lubbock, Texas allows bar owners to decide for themselves And there was a case a couple years ago where people were trying to get an ordinance that would make the whole city Non-smoking there and they said well look it's all going that way anyway And I'm like well the point is you don't need the regulation then Because as norms have changed over the last 20 years and more people don't like smoke and fewer people smoke More and more bars went non-smoking. This is market regulation. Don't snuff it out at the few places left for the rest of us So this is an internalizing of the extra night because the business cares about the profits and those profits have to care about the Preferences of both the smokers and the non-smokers Ditto during COVID for people who want to be in a social environment Some place more of a value than others on being spaced out on having masks on having plexiglass Whatever the various mitigations are and each business owner has to decide for himself What his optimal policy is how much extra safety should we be doing? Based on the wishes of my customers both who want to interact and who want more distance So the spread within a bar or a restaurant is not a spillover. It's not an externality now It might happen, but just because it happens doesn't mean it's not an externality It doesn't mean excuse me that it is an externality It's something that's a bad outcome of something that was rationally chosen not an externality So what remains so it's not completely like the smoking story because the smoke from one bar doesn't spread into the smoke from to The next bar imagine you're sitting on Bourbon Street and who goes to Bourbon Street and goes into one bar not me Maybe some of you do you go from one to the other to the other right? But that means any thing that you catch in one you then bring into the next that you go into into the next that you Go into etc. So that means one bar is optimal risk mitigation is contingent upon what the risk mitigation is going on In the other bar and similarly from there to your supermarkets to your all the other places that you interact So that's the remaining Externalities so it's partially internalized so a big part of the rationale for regulation has been taken away but there is a piece of this that remains and For our finer points for I know this fans of Mises Institute who come to lots of Austrian things here Externality within Austrian economics. You can't really value it. It's not traded on the market So we don't have a demonstrated price for it. The concept is still there Maria Rothbard talked about it in law or property rights and air pollution in the early 80s article that he had did But just because you can't derive it from that doesn't mean that the concept's not there It just means we're not gonna be real precise with trying to measure this thing But we can kind of get a scope on a hand on what the scope of this is as we think through this so Next step then okay, so some externality remains that means there's gonna be some inefficently too much amount of spread and by the way, I'm taking For the purposes of this talk at least taking as given that the spread of it is a negative externality there is a positive aspect to it, right if Young people transmitted among themselves who aren't at greater risk. It helps build you closer to herd immunity That's a positive externality just like people get in a vaccine is a positive externality So to some extent that's mitigating it's against that negative aspect as well I'm just gonna take as given that if it remains that there is a net negative of the transmission So if there is we know with COVID and we knew really early on that it varies significantly by age and health status as an oversimplification the old and infirm have very high risk from it the young and healthy don't have very much risk from it So the spread the value of that externality between young health people. It's really small Probably not worth doing anything about the concern has to be more about does their activity then spread it to people who are at A much higher mortality from it So what would a regulation like that look like well, we also know that externalities are not unidirectional So if a tree falls in the woods and there's no one there to hear it. Did it make any sound? Well, if there's no old and infirm people to spread COVID to there is no externality from the young people towards them Which means the existence of old and infirm people is itself an externality on the younger people if you contract their activity This is both directions If we don't have people at risk from it then the people who aren't at risk don't have to bear a cost But that means if we impose so we have to decide then how are we going to allocate these rights? Do we allocate the rights to the young and healthy or do we allocate rights based on the preferences and characteristics of older and infirm well I've got a picture of Ronald Kos up there, which means if Walter Blockworth is here today He had bouncing in his seat saying Kos is a commie but But with this idea for I like Kos and I those aspects of my life And it's a very relevant insight that he has here both on the reciprocal nature of an externality a spillover and then If you care about overall efficiency, how to assign the rights And what you say is you assign the rights thus that the least cost of order is the one who bears the consequences Least cost of order bears the consequences Well young and healthy people are trying to get their education Work and provide a livelihood for their families older and infirm or disproportionately Retired and not doing as valuable or activities. This means step one would be allow the young people to interact and say older people You're gonna have to severely Contract your activities if you're worried about the risk in order to mitigate it You try to put the mitigation effort on the person who does it more cheaply It seems in this case lockdowns get it asked backwards They lock everybody down contract very valuable activity While doing that to slightly lessen the risk for an older group that otherwise could be a lower cost of order So governments just following by the way not unique Austrian points on you just straight up normal economic price theory Got it asked backwards Now that doesn't mean a normal mainstream economist will then take from that and say next up Okay, so we should do nothing what they say is lockdowns get it backwards. So how should we regulate? Did say well, we should do something to make them contract activity on the margin that will reduce some of this spread Now what did we actually get once lockdowns and stay at home were done we got command and control So here's one example of it. Como is unnecessary obligated menu options with your freedom fry or Como fries for $1 This is when in order to order a beer you also have to order a meal So if the bars are serving $1 meal meals my personal favorite in my town of Lubbock a bar brewery to remain nameless Started impose it because they have to have 51% of the revenue come from non-alcohol in order to qualify as a restaurant and be open So all of the sudden each beer was half price But each beer came with a tasting fee equal to the price of the beer and the tasting fee was a non-alcohol revenue Which I thought was fantastic so When you're doing command and control regulation like this your regulators would actually have to know the subjective valuations of the mitigation costs that they're imposing the subjective valuations of the cost to the businesses doing them and to the People who are jumping through the hoops and doing the song and dance to comply with their command and control regulations Something as simple as wearing a face mask. What is the cost of wearing a face mask? It's not just a monetary cost It was in Joe's remarks at the beginning of today's and how great it is to see everybody's face It's the last in value people have to not seeing each other's face when they enter an act and wanting There's no way some regulator knows the cost of that for every different people Person that can calculate the optimal amount of that. That's simply not there or the optimal amount of Spacing in the restaurant or an epidemiologist don't know the subjective trade-offs or the subjective costs of all of the mitigation Which is what it would be necessary to know if their damn rules were actually the optimal ones for regulating this now This isn't rocket science to economists or even normal mainstream economists either We've known about this for pollution for instance for a long time If there's a carbon pollution that goes into the air and you want to make factories account for that We could do command and control and tell each factory exactly what production process used to use which scrubbers to install to decrease their pollution or They can set a tax equal to the value of the externality and let each firm figure out for itself How to mitigate that in order to lower their tax rate or to keep polluting and pay the tax Or for some firms who might get rent of it all together and other firms don't know mitigation at all and pay it That's if you could set the tax equal to what the value of the externality is which as of already said We don't actually have a precise number on it because it doesn't fall out of market-based choices for the central plan Is but at least that's how you'd start approaching it not Locked down not locked down light of command and control But something that gives a price for people to internalize so concerts still can happen But there's an extra tax on their tickets depending how many you sell some people who live their lives going to bars I mean I don't know any Who really value that maybe that's a really high value activity Even if there's lots of transmission and they should just pay a penalty to account for them spilling it over to other places But still be able to do it because they get so much value You got to leave people more freedom to choose if you're going to find the lower cost ways to mitigate this while leaving The more valuable activities still happening because no planner knows what those actually are So that's what an economy a mainstream economist would say about kind of getting to optimal regulation But as a guy who does comparative analysis, I look and say if you give the power to the government to do this What are they actually going to do they're not going to follow the advice of some economist in a lab coat What they're going to do is they're going to base their policies on politics Just like we've seen over the last year and this means that policy is going to be driven by fear and news media and Hyped fear in a population Interest groups that want to get revenue from themselves or shut down other businesses where mom and pop stores have to close But big box retailers can stay open You're going to get policies that the demagogues use to keep themselves in power and get more power for themselves going forward And of course, this is exactly what we've gotten but I have been Embarrassed that my fellow account of my profession has been so quiet about this Numerous people have talked about the unemployment effects and other things But not about just the logic of there is no logic for this regulation instead I've seen lots of economists debating the epidemiologist statistics and other things and I'm like you guys are missing the boat It's your bread and butter where you need to be talking even to get the conversation to where I just got it Never mind to get it to this next part about what's political economy going to give us So instead, I mean if they ever did get to that point Just like what we've seen in the stimulus bills and what spending goes to the taxes would be Set not based on externalities, but based on what businesses they wanted to contract first Which ones they wanted to favor more and then the revenue allocated from it would also go to the favorite interest group So that you pay off teachers unions who haven't worked in a year Who don't want to go back to work because that's the one that Biden wanted to support in that instance And if it was the Republicans, it would just be somebody else who is getting the payoff This isn't a R or D type thing So what I'd say that is In light of what political economy we get you even if there's some spillover that remains What's a better date way to deal with it say first look and this pits more with the theme of a lot of what the other speakers have To say in this conference first look at things that would lower the value of this externality meaning making this less deadly and more manageable Which means freeing up existing regulation and health care that made health care not as good at dealing with this as it otherwise could So deregulate to remove barriers to medical competition and innovation So doctor and physician licensing the state-based nature of this the telemedicine things that we've seen Temporary rollbacks from various states during the pandemic more of this widespread all around so that the market becomes more flexible It can deal with places where there's a surge and when there's not a surge by actually Reallocating medical supply across lines that politicians draw on maps for no good reason Then things like we saw warp speed and people talked about what a great development this was warp speed They developed the first vaccine almost as soon as they had sequenced the virus Then we waited nine ten months for the FDA to get around to approve it That's warp speed at government speed How about the first time the scientists figure that out you get the right to try Anybody who wants to use it go ahead and use it it doesn't work out well for you you had the cost and benefits It was your risk you took it, but guess what you had provide actually a positive spill over because what I'll learn from you And that would help us better understand it going forward of which ones work and which ones don't that would be warp speed It's just freeing innovators to offer their products to consumers who are free to try Did oh we saw it of course with the government's botched testing And for that matter thinking about the once vaccines did become available the government being a monopoly purchaser of it And then having command and control regulation of who's going to be able to get it and where it's going to be distributed to And by the way would they say it's obvious just older people first. It's not obvious to me Yes, mortality is higher in them, but if we're talking about people undertaking mitigation to reduce risk to others There's one strategy for reducing risk to others Contract activity. There's another get the virus. Excuse me get the facts Well, I guess that's what is one way but get the vaccine and then go out Who's the lower cost mitigator the government central planners don't have who's the lower cost one? Who should we get government central planners have no knowledge of who that should be instead?  If you're really concerned with spill overs instead We had the botched command and control version of this now I think the good news of this is Over time the value of the externality gets smaller and smaller and smaller and the optimal strategy even in an unconstrained Political economy world gets closer and closer to nothing Because as more people have vaccines or natural immunity via infection transmission goes down and it becomes More like a normal disease spread rather than what we had seen at times during during this past year so Even in a market where you did not do any regulation and you just let it play out its course My main point is business mitigation and civil society take care of a good chunk of this And then the longer it goes the closer we get to actually the that being the optimal policy anyway Instead of course what we got was hygiene socialism or foshism if you want to make it sound like fascism So that's our lockdown. That's our command and control. That's our government speed of warp speed Ed What I'll say is that what worries me the most is the dangerous Higgsian racket so ratchet So Bob Higgs who's done so much great work and spoke many times at the Mises Institute Talks about the ratchet effect and the growth of government and government scope scale power and we have a crisis it takes on extra powers when the crisis is over it lightens up a little bit but not back to where it was before and This has certainly in my lifetime probably in all of our lifestyles been the greatest encroachment on our liberties Domestically here in the United States that the US government has done. I believe 9-11 was a big deal, but a lot of that intervention went abroad As a proportion of it. It was much smaller of what we lost at home This has been entirely here and America's liked it. They're not going to give those powers back easily so I'm Worried that our fellow Americans are afraid to be free and that there's government bureaucrats who are all too happy To oblige them in that and keep these powers and try to regulate us going forward for much less serious things So I'm gonna wrap up there But with that for some of you that are BC's Institute veterans and have been to a number of talks You will have noticed without Tom Woods here There is considerably less same shameless self-promotion of selling books So I promised Jeff that I would pick up the slack for him a little bit So I did bring about a dozen copies of my latest or one of my recent books called socialism sucks Two economists drink their way through the unfree world Which is it's kind of an Anthony Bourdain style first-hand travel account as my co-author and I Bob Lawson went around the world drinking in these countries that mixes instead of you know Anthony Bourdain and food it's Economics and history being explained in between beers So we go from beer drinking to block quotes of Ludwig von Mises as seamlessly as possible and I'd be happy to Sell anybody a copy for 20 bucks who wants one and then instantly devalue it with my signature so that you can't resell it I'll say one last thing on the book did very well It made it all the way up to number five on Amazon overall best sellers But I was more pleased and this is the part you like that for over a month It was the number one best seller in the category of communism and socialism because Some books some books are more on more equal than others and also simultaneously the number one book in the category of beer So very pleased with that. Thank you all for your time today


Life is like playing twister, you know what I mean?   It's like, but you gotta figure out how to ride that wave cause life, it does that to you. Sometimes you gotta be more family-oriented. Sometimes your relationship needs you. Sometimes you gotta be more in your business for a couple of weeks or something. You know what I mean? So it's crazy.


It is now time for oral questions. I recognize the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Speaker. The post-secondary sector is at a breaking point with decades of chronic underfunding. Now, as we all know, Ontario's colleges and universities are bracing for the impact of a 50% reduction in international student permits. Through this government, provincial operating grants have been cut by 30%, and at least ten universities are projecting dramatic deficits. At the same time, international student recruitment has shot up. It's been outpacing, unfortunately, supports and housing. And that's happened since this Premier took office. Speaker, this government's plan seems to be to always break it and then privatize it. And it's us who pays for it. This time, it's the international students, too. So to the Premier, wasn't it the government's strategy all along to underfund colleges and universities and rely on the exploitation of international student tuition to make up the difference? And to respond, the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Thank you, Speaker. Let's do a little bit of contrast here. Under Liberal leadership continued to increase tuition in this province so that it was the highest in Canada. Under the leadership of Premier Ford in 2019 decreased tuition by 10%. Look at the NDP government voted against those measures. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's historic announcement, $1.3 billion in new funding for post-secondary education tax of our students. We will continue to make tuition affordable for every student in this province. The supplementary question. Thank you, Speaker. The Minister knows perfectly well that that is just half of what colleges and universities need. And these aren't just numbers, Speaker. These students came to Ontario with the promise of a better future, with good jobs and a safe place to live. And we need those skilled workers here. But they were sold a bill of goods and given false hope by this government. So, Speaker, what does the Premier have to say to those students who have had their dreams dashed because of this government's terrible decisions? And let's please take their seats, Mr. of Colleges and Universities. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know what this Premier said? $1.3 billion in new funding for post-secondary education. We, our friends in this province, have access and affordability in post-secondary education. We can all agree there's an affordability crisis in this province and across Canada. It's expensive to eat, to eat for gas. And we acknowledge that. And I see Usa in the crowd with us today. And thank you for your support. And this is why we are doing this. We want to ensure affordability and tuition in this province. Thank you to the Premier for his strong leadership in assuring that that will continue for another three years. Final supplementary. Speaker, the students know what this means. The government has left our post-secondary sector broken. Schools are struggling under the weight of deficits. Students are buried under the weight of tuition and housing and the least cost of living. But still this government refuses to properly fund post-secondary. For every dollar spent on colleges in other provinces, we are spending $0.44. For every dollar spent on universities, we are spending just $0.57. Speaker, back to the... Government's side. Come to order. Will the Premier face the facts here that he broke the system so that a select few could make a profit and our students, our economy, are suffering because of it? The member for Essex will come to order. The member for Sault Ste. Marie will come to order. Start the clock. Minister of Colleges and Universities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, is she in favour of increasing tuition, just like the Leader of the Liberal Party is? She'll hike taxes, she'll hike tuition. What we are hearing from students, I want to thank Vivian Chem from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance. For this quote, the decision to maintain the domestic tuition freeze for the next three years is very welcoming news to students. Amid a cost of living crisis and limited opportunities for income, this move will help with post-secondary affordability and allow students to put money towards basic necessities like rent and food. We appreciate the Ministry's consideration of this and look forward to having more conversations about other wraparound and sustainable avenues to support students. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we announced the largest investment in post-secondary education in more than a decade. $1.3 billion and not on the backs of our students. Question once again, the Leader of the Opposition. Thank you, Speaker. The Premier has made some pretty shocking statements about his intention to politicise the judicial appointments process. On Friday, the Premier said he intentionally placed former staffers on the Judicial Appointments Committee to select conservative judges. The Premier's office then tried to quickly walk back the comments, but yesterday in this chamber, he doubled down, saying he plans to personally interfere in the process to ensure that like-minded people are appointed. These statements are being widely condemned as disgraceful and dangerous, Speaker, so my question is for the Attorney General. Do you endorse the Premier's comments on who gets appointed to the Judicial Appointments Committee? Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to double down. I'm tripling down now. We're going to triple down on making sure our communities are safe. We're going to triple down on getting judges that believe in throwing someone in jail when they kick the doors in, put a gun to people's heads, terrorising their kids, terrorising the parents to the point that the kids don't want to stay at home anymore. They're terrorising communities. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? They're letting them out, not going out on bail once, not twice, not three times, not four times, up to eight times, put little Johnny back on the street, give him a gun until he can kick the next door in and put the gun to the next person's head and hand over the keys. I'm sick and tired of judges letting these people out on bail. We're going to hire tough judges, tough JPs. That's what we're doing. Take their seats. Order. We start the call. Supplementary question. Speaker, I will remind the Premier that it is his government that has overseen the complete collapse of our court system in this process. This is not just my opinion. The Federation of Ontario Law Associations has called the Premier's comments a quote, juvenile misapprehension. Order. Saying that the implication is irresponsible. Hormful and dangerous to our democracy. They say that the Premier's comments have put the Attorney General in a, and I'm going to quote them again, position of disrepute. So my question back to the Attorney General, maybe the Premier will let him answer the question, does he stand behind this Premier's undemocratic agenda or will he stand up for the integrity of our legal system? The Attorney General can reply. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And there sure is a lot of finger wagging about how the system works or should work, Mr. Speaker, but there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what judicial independence is, and it's not appointing the judges. They are not to be appointing their own. We are democratically elected to select judges and then they have their independence. So I'll take no lectures from the NDP on how this system should work. Mr. Speaker, it is true that there's a group. It's called an advisory committee, Mr. Speaker, and they are free to do their work. A quarter of that group are judges. So, Mr. Speaker, they do good work. We take their advice. And we don't meddle with them, Mr. Speaker, but Howard Hampton, the NDP Attorney General in 1992, did meddle with the committee and you can Google it. There's court case on it. Mr. Speaker, I'll read in my supplementary his experience as Attorney General with the meddling in the Bob Ray days. I'll remind the members that we do not use props in the chamber. Order. Order. Start the clock. Final supplementary. I'll remind the Attorney General again the Federation of Ontario Law Associations called the Premier's comments a juvenile misapprehension. He has placed two former staffers on the committee to advance a political agenda in our courts. The Advocate Society has sent the Premier a letter saying that his approach opposes and I quote, a substantial threat to the independence of judges and the Administration of Justice here in the province of Ontario, Speaker. They may not like it, but that's what they're saying. So, Speaker, back to the Attorney General again. He must make clear right here and right now is he going to move forward on this or will he show some integrity and condemn the Premier's comments? Put the book down. Put the book down. Put the book down. The Attorney General. Mr. Speaker, and I hope I have enough time. Maybe I'll talk about how in 2011, the Liberals appointed 12 judges and 2012 they did 10 and 2013 they did 12 and in 2014 they did 27, Mr. Speaker, and guess what 2014 was? It was an election year, Mr. Speaker. So, I had a look at some of the donors in their years, Mr. Speaker, in a period in 2008 to 2010, one-third were multiple donors to the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, and to nobody else, Mr. Speaker. So, we can talk about the record and we can be sanctimonious about how the system should work. Mr. Speaker, Howard Hampton said that there was, you know, he didn't get along with the Toronto left-wing bar. Their hope was that whoever had the AG's job would be someone close, someone they knew, someone they felt comfortable with, Mr. Speaker. The left-wing bar did, in fact, have an agenda, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to have the debate later on. The next question. The Leader of the Opposition. It's chilling to hear the... Speaker, it is chilling to hear... Okay. The member for Essex will come to order. The member for Sault Ste. Marie will come to order. If you ignore the Chair's request to come to order, we will move to warnings very quickly. Start the clock. Leader of the Opposition. Thank you, Speaker. And I understand why they're so shaken. These are chilling comments coming from the Attorney General of this province. I'm going to shift here a little. Good side. Come to order. I'd like to get some clarity on the questions that I asked yesterday. After getting caught giving this leading testimony to the Integrity Commissioner under oath, the Premier's former Policy Advisor and his former Minister for Public Business and Service Delivery both changed their testimony before resigning. To the Premier, my question is has Mr. Sackville or any other official in the Premier's office changed their testimony to the Integrity Commissioner? Parliamentary comment. About the... To reply, Government House Leader and Minister of National Affairs in the House. The Leader of the Opposition has uncovered section 219 of the Integrity Commissioner's report. So great investigative work on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. Had they read beyond 218, they would have seen the consistency of both the Chief of Staff. What we're doing in the Province of Ontario is continue to support the people of the Province of Ontario building more homes across Ontario. For 15 years they supported a Liberal Government that put obstacles in the way of building homes. We are systematically removing every single one of those obstacles so that people of the Province of Ontario can share in the dream of home ownership that the Liberals took away. The Liberals have gone so far as to elect a Leader who has the worst record in building new homes across the entire Province for crying out loud. In fact, Mississauga is so bad, it is so bad Mississauga that the population of the Province is growing. Mississauga's population decreased and that's what happens when you raise taxes, when you put obstacles in the way people find other places to go and thankfully they've got a government here to support the problem. The supplementary question. Speaker, that makes three times since yesterday that we being told there were no inconsistencies in Mr. Sackville's sworn testimony. But, Speaker, there was an inconsistency. Mr. Sackville said under oath that he did not discuss green belt removal criteria before being briefed for the first time on October 27, 2022. In fact, we now know that he was briefed on green belt removal criteria 10 days earlier. A whole lot can happen in 10 days. We have the email. There's evidence in writing. It was sent to Mr. Sackville's personal email account. So back to the Premier. How can people trust this government when top staff in the Premier's office are repeatedly giving conflicting information about the green belt under oath? And what will the Premier do about it? And to reply to the Premier. Mr. Sackville, minister, Mr. Sackville and Houseman. The leader of the opposition is uncovered in section 219 of the integrity commissioner's report. But, having said that, we're going to continue doing what we've done since 2018. We've been focusing on building a bigger province of Onterra. You know you look like George who went on the GO train in mysissauga who got on the go train He said he's actually making money before he even gets to his new job in a new long-term care home, Mr. Speaker, that wasn't there before this government came to office. You know how he got that job because of the supports that the minister of colleges and universities put in place to allow him to get that job when he gets home? He's saying to himself, I wish I could live closer to the GO train station, but because of a NIMBY mayor in Mississauga, he couldn't. Thankfully, the license plate sticker and his fees have been frozen because of this government, Mr. Speaker. We're getting the job done for the people of the province of Ontario. We'll continue to do that for all people, Mr. Speaker, because it's the right thing to do. Thank you. The next question to member for Mississauga Lakeshore. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Associate Minister of Transportation. Across our province, many seniors are currently struggling to stretch their income, the cost of food, as well as everyday goods and services keep rising. For seniors with limited income, transit fares add on to their financial burden that they are already experiencing. They should not have to struggle to pay for the things they need in their everyday life. That's why our government must continue to protect seniors and reduce transit fees. Speaker, can the minister please tell the House what the steps our government is taking to make transit more affordable for seniors in Ontario? The Associate Minister of Transportation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the member from Mississauga Lakeshore for that question and for his advocacy for one fair. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many seniors across GTHA who tell me that costs continue to rise. Unlike the Liberals and in DP, we are the only party focused on making life more affordable. Mr. Speaker, the successful rollout of new one fair program is putting money back into the pockets of seniors as double fares are now gone. Mr. Speaker, on average, this saves commuters $1,600 a year, which goes long way for seniors who travels across the region. Mr. Speaker, the Liberals couldn't do it. The NDP and Liberals voted against the one fair under this Premier, Premier Ford. We got it done. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Associate Minister for that response. It is encouraging to see our government providing tangible financial relief for seniors. Seniors in my riding in Mississauga Lakeshore will be pleased to know that they can save money while travelling within the transit network. Speaker, the minister also raised an important point. Not only did the previous Liberal government not remove double fares, but both the Liberals and NDP voted against the one fair program. That is unacceptable. Unlike the members opposite, our government is putting more money back into the people's pockets where it belongs. Speaker, can the minister explain how our one fair makes life more affordable for the people of Ontario? The Associate Minister of Transportation. Speaker, Bonnie Cromby hiked the monthly pass for seniors 10% in her first year as Mississauga Mayor. Speaker, over her 10 years as Mississauga Mayor, she raised transit fares and raised taxes making life unaffordable for people. With one fair, Mr. Speaker, we are eliminating double fares. So people, including seniors, can visit the place they love, can see the people they love, Mr. Speaker. We are the only party under the leadership of Premier Ford and Minister Sakaria that's eliminated double fare and putting money $1,600 back into people's pockets. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Speaker. For years this government has been doing everything it can to drive teachers out of our education system, massively underfunding schools and driving up class sizes, refusing to address the rising crisis of violence, suppressing wages with Bill 124, attacking the dedicated professionals who support our children every single day. Now that the Minister of Education has finally admitted that Ontario has a teacher recruitment and retention problem, what is his plan to reverse the damage his government has caused? Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward and planning for changes to demographics as educators retire and as population rises. That's a responsible action of government but it's a wake up call to the NDP because this government started three years ago to cut certification times for new educators by 50% which the members opposite opposed. We hired 2,000 net new teachers this year. The members opposite supported by the Liberals opposed that effort as well. Mr. Speaker, we also created a transitional certificate to allow teacher candidates to work in schools that's opposed as well. Mr. Speaker, we have been systematic in reducing red tape, increasing access to certified, qualified educators, which is why we abolish Reg 274 that allows the best educators to get the job, not those basic sorority. But Mr. Speaker, by the members logic, if the Premier's response for this change that I suppose in your supplementary you'll condemn the BC NDP Premier who in their province of teachers federation calls it a crisis of teacher I'll remind the members to make their comments through the chair. Supplementary question. Tears in power in this government has only managed to make the teacher shortage worse. That's quite a record Speaker. Teachers and education workers have been raising concerns about the labor shortage for years and have offered to meet with the government to identify meaningful solutions that will address the real reasons why workers are leaving our education system. Will the minister commit today to actually sitting down with teachers and education workers listening to their concerns and consulting on solutions before they are announced? Minister of Education. Like in Quebec or in NDP BC we do not have a teacher crisis like the provinces east and west. We have been determined to plan ahead, hire more educators and reduce certification by 50% for the next generation of teachers. But Mr. Speaker every effort we have taken has been opposed by the Liberals and the new Democrats and that seems inconsistent with our collective responsibility to ensuring qualified educators. But Speaker if the logic of the members opposite is government is responsible for the exodus of individuals from the workforce then they will condemn the NDP Premier of BC who said in their province the teachers federation called it a crisis. The Liberal Government in Newfoundland Laboratories scrambling quotes to fill dozens of teacher vacancies. It's a national challenge but this province unlike the rest of the country has a plan perhaps you should support it. Thank you. The next question the member for Thornhill. Thank you Speaker. To the minister of transportation at a time when costs continue to rise the federal government has increased the carbon tax five times. So since the implementation of this punitive tax the people of Ontario have been paying more and more every single day for food for services and for transportation and even worse the federal Liberals Liberals are planning an additional seven increases by 2030. So the carbon tax is making life more expensive for everyone including the trucking industry which plays a critical role in transporting the goods we need in our daily lives. Speaker can the minister please further explain the impact of the federal carbon tax on the Ontario's trucking industry. And to apply the minister of transportation Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. This government is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our truckers all across this province Mr. Speaker whether it's about making sure our grocery shelves are stocked whether it's our hospitals get the equipment that they need or the manufacturers get their parts that they need to build Ontario made products this government has always stood with truckers and we have always stood against the carbon tax Mr. Speaker. We know that the carbon tax makes life more unaffordable. Mr. Speaker for a long haul truck driver the Ontario Trucking Association estimates that the 17.4 cents per liter fuel costs 15 to $20,000 per truck every single year Mr. Speaker. This is a hard working truck driver that could spend that $15,000 on their family, on their child putting them in hockey practice putting them in hockey or extracurriculars but the failed policies that are supported by Bonnie Clombie the Liberal I mean the NDP and the federal minister of environment. Thank you The supplementary question to the minister for his response and his dedicated work for the people of Ontario it's the hard working men and women in our trucking industry who deliver the goods that keep Ontario moving but the impact of the carbon tax on the trucking industry ultimately affects all families and businesses in every corner of our province the cost to fuel the trucks to transport the goods is passed on to consumers as they purchase the daily necessities unfortunately the Liberal members are ignoring their constituents concerns about the rising cost of living our government must continue to stand behind the people of this province and call on our federal counterparts to do the same can the minister please explain how the carbon tax impacts the trucking industry and all Ontarians Mr. Speaker 15 to $10 every year taking out of the pockets of hard working truckers in this province money that could have gone to their families Mr. Speaker the carbon tax is a tax on hard working families that need to fill up their cars, heat their homes and rely on truckers but Mr. Speaker the federal government has not listened to our request to make life more affordable in fact they've doubled down their federal environment minister said he's not going to invest in any more roads or highways Mr. Speaker that's why he invited him to join me to drive on the DVP to drive on the Gardner Expressway the 427 and 410 to see how out of touch they are with the realities of the people that live in the GTA in Ontario and all across Canada Mr. Speaker we call on the federal government to drop the carbon tax and to build more roads and highways all across Ontario. Thank you the next question member for Niagara thank you speaker three to the premier while housing starts fell 11% in Ontario in British Columbia where that government actually implemented many of the Ontario housing task force recommendations housing starts rose 11% this province ignored the advice of their own experts then took over $3 billion in development revenue away from municipalities with bill 23 many of them are now facing double digit tax increases this premier broke his promise to return lost revenue and make municipalities more home owners are now paying for this government's broken promise when will this government follow the advice of its own task force stop stealing revenue from Ontario cities and start treating municipalities as true partners in that's in temperate language I'm going to ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary from us and to reply the government thank you very much Mr. Speaker shows you just how out of touch the NDPR so the member is getting up in his place today on the day when we have Habitat for Humanity in the galleries he's getting up on his place and saying that municipalities should charge people like Habitat for Humanity for building home street development charges you know what we've done we've alleviated those development charges for affordable housing Mr. Speaker you know why we've done that because we've got more homes in the ground in this province over the last three years than at any other time in the province's history you know why because we're removing obstacles not putting them in the way in the members own community in the members own community last week they just voted against building another 120 new affordable homes on a highway for crying out loud that is who the member supports that is who we protect you know who we support and protect those people that want to build homes that want to give people a dream Mr. Speaker to want that dream to come true like Habitat for Humanity who do not have to pay development charges on their properties Mr. Speaker you know why because we made the changes and we're going to continue to support our members for Niagara Centre. Speaker through you and a recent op-ed AMO's executive director stated provincial municipal financial arrangements are not working for communities businesses industries property taxpayers and the homeless with bill 23 constraints on development charges municipalities are turning to their only available options their hiking property taxes and user fees to increase revenue or cutting services to fund central infrastructure investments. Speaker 24 municipalities have now failed to qualify for this government's failed building faster fund because this premier and minister can't seem to figure out that a municipality is responsible for issuing approvals not putting shovels in the ground. When will this government end this incompetence and return this lost revenue to our municipal partners as they promised? It just shows how completely irrelevant the NDP have come on the day to day lives of the people the province of Ontario that he gets in his place and tries to defend taxing the people the province of Ontario more taxing people who want to build homes taxing people who want to move into the homes taxing a dream that is the NDP we've seen that happens when you do that Mr. Speaker you know what happens they did it in Mississauga and you know what happened in Mississauga Mr. Speaker people left Mississauga you know why because in Mississauga the mayor of Mississauga who is now the leader of the liberal party put obstacles after obstacles after obstacles in the way and while the rest of the province was growing people were leaving Mississauga now George who I talked about earlier who's got a job he used to be in manufacturing he left manufacturing because it's a hallmark of liberal policies when he was in they left when conservatives are in manufacturing is back and strong the liberals ruin Ontario the NDP are completely irrelevant in the province of Ontario the only one that stands up for the people in the province of Ontario and gives you the dream of home ownership and gives you a key is the people in this caucus over here and it is this premier and conservatives will always be there members will please take their seats Order Resert the clock the next question the member for Don Valley West Thank you Speaker Speaker Ontarians have been subject to a bombardment of government self praise in recent weeks the government spent taxpayer dollars on one of the most expensive advertising spots you can buy a Super Bowl ad to give themselves a pat on the back to make matters worse they won't tell Ontarians how much of their money was spent last week the Minister of Finance said he would get back to us with that number we're still waiting I wonder if he checked under all the brown envelopes in the premier's office it's just one more example of this government's irresponsible spending and refusal to be transparent Super Bowl ads and foreign spas while universities beg for help 2.2 million Ontarians don't have a doctor cities declare opioid crises and Ontarians use their credit cards to access health care Mr. Speaker when will the premier tell Ontarians how much of their money he spent on a Super Bowl ad while failing to deliver for the people of this province and to apply the Minister of Finance Thank you Mr. Speaker Thank you Thank you for the member opposite for the opportunity to answer this question Mr. Speaker who is against promoting Ontario anyone in this house it seems like the littles aren't well maybe they would promote the fact that they drove 300,000 jobs out of this province Mr. Speaker this government has supported the conditions so 700,000 new jobs were created in this province that's the party that they haven't seen a tax or a fee that they didn't want to increase Mr. Speaker it's this government that's got the backs of businesses and people and workers in this province we're reducing the cost of everything including cutting gas taxes reducing fees making it easier to wish and freezes etc so that the people of this province can have the best province in all of North America may I say sponsor the whole world Thank you Mr. Speaker The supplementary question back to the member for Don Valley West Thank you Speaker Ontarians know all is not well despite this government's desperate and expensive attempts to change the channel does the minister do the minister and premier know that since July 300,000 full-time jobs disappeared in Ontario all while he's been doling out taxpayer money to his friends the premier is looking for a way to hide from the 8.3 billion dollar green belt scandal the back room deal to give away Ontario plays to a foreign spa for 95 years and lucrative sole-source contracts he gave to large American companies at the expense of small Ontario business owners the premier needs to remember he isn't spending his own money it's the people's money and they have a right to know how it's being spent Speaker back to the premier how does he justify spending millions of taxpayer dollars to pot himself on the back when business confidence is at historic lows unemployment is rising and he's nowhere close to building 1.5 million homes And to reply the minister of economic development, job creation and trade Let's talk about a few numbers As of this morning since this premier was elected we have 700,000 new jobs created in the province of Ontario Last year alone, 180,000 jobs were created here in Ontario We've said it yesterday and we said it last week but we'll say it again In 2023, Ontario created more manufacturing jobs than all 50 US states combined Ontario led the nation in job creation Nearly 24,000 new jobs were added in our economy just in the month of January 9,700 of them were in construction Ontario accounted for 65% of all jobs created in this country We are leading the nation in job creation The member for Newmarket Aurora Thank you speakers My question is for the Associate Minister of Transportation There are families and individuals in my writing of Newmarket Aurora who rely on public transit as their main form of travel But speaker, they have told me that they are concerned that steep transit costs are adding further pressure to their household budgets Communities are looking to our government for solutions that will make traveling easier and more affordable We must continue to deliver on our commitment to bring financial relief to transit users Speaker, can the minister highlight what our government is doing to keep costs down for commuters across the GTA? The Associate Minister of Transportation Thank you speaker Thank you to the member from Newmarket Aurora for that question and for her advocacy for One Fair Mr Speaker, as we have many young people in the gallery today because of One Fair and the leadership of Premier Doug Ford Students like them, when they commute five days a week to school Mr Speaker, they save $1,600 Mr Speaker That is why we implemented One Fair a fully funded initiative by this government and Mr Speaker, this is going to be a game changer not just for students, for their parents, for seniors as well Mr Speaker As a reason, when I graduated right after university my first job was in Miss Saga So I used to commute from Scarborough to Miss Saga paying double fare, triple fare, every day Mr Speaker I understand the struggle this government understand the problem this Premier understand the struggle our caucus members understand the struggle Mr Speaker but the Bonnie Cromby, they don't understand the need of everyday Thank you speaker and thank you to the Associate Minister for that reassuring response Speaker, there are people in my riding who rely on public transit to go to work, school and to rent errands Having convenient and affordable transit options is essential to save them time and money That's why our government must ensure that we are making proactive changes that will provide financial relief to commuters across the province We must keep costs down for the hardworking people of this great province Speaker, can the Associate Minister provide further details on the one fare program and how it improves Ontarian's public transit experience That's a good Associate Minister of Transportation Thank you Mr Speaker With one fare, it's all about affordability Ontarians can use any form of payment now Presto card, debit card, credit card, asset free Mr Speaker Mr Speaker, students like them when they commute starting yesterday Mr Speaker there is no change in how they tap there is no change in how they take transit there is only one change Mr Speaker they are going to save money like seniors, like parents or more than 600,000 students across GTHA they rely on public transit every single day Mr Speaker and this is not just the impact on students this impact on seniors this impact on their parents Mr Speaker as I mentioned when I used to take public transit from Kennedy Station to Kipling, take TTC and go to Misaga during that time under leadership of Liberals we pay double fare under the leadership of this government we are paying one fare Mr Speaker Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources 7 months ago 4th fires across Ontario travelled 1000 kilometres to meet Minister Smith to talk about the tragic realities they face to be reclassified and recognized as firefighters their minister told them he couldn't make any promises because he wanted to make an informed decision Speaker, the fire season is upon us again the Minister of Labor said yes yesterday that forest fire firefighters can receive presumptive WSIB coverage for occupational diseases but they voted no last week to an NDP motion to do exactly that to the Minister can you confirm how this will be done for immigration training and skills development Speaker, I'm happy to it will be done just like how we delivered and working for workers for the NDP members opposite put forward a good private members bill Speaker, but you know what if we accepted their private members bill on esophageal cancer firefighters the proposed retroactive coverage only applied after 20 years of service we lowered that to 15 years because we learned you know we can sit down and get to a better result like the Bowman family stop playing politics on this come to the table work for firefighters as this premier and this government's done and let's get it done stop with the cheap shots Members to make the comments through the floor the next or the supplementary is by the member for Thunder Bay Superior Norm I have yet to hear this Minister actually say the word forest firefighters so you voted against an amendment that would have included forest firefighters under WSIB coverage so I'm glad that the minister has finally decided to come to the table even if it is late so we need to know exactly how and when the government intends to recognize wildland fire rangers as firefighters in legislation legislative recognition also means supplying them with the proper PPE so that these firefighters have a chance not to become sick in the first place recognizing wildland firefighters as firefighters means better training and having a retention strategy which means better pay so there's not a shortage of available fire crews as wildfires threaten our communities earlier and earlier each year will the minister commit to including wildland firefighters as firefighters in legislation with the necessary reports to protect these workers from exposure to toxins the start of this year's fire season Please take your seat Minister for Natural Resources and Forestry Thank you very much Mr. Speaker I want to thank my colleague the Minister of Labor for his comments that have been very clear about what our plans are for the future for our wildland forest fighters we continue to make investments not only in our forest firefighters but in communities all throughout Ontario to keep them safe we are making investments to make sure that our firefighters have everything they need to do the job in this province in fact the previous government their budget was $69.8 million a year we raised that base budget 92% to $135.9 million a year to make sure that our firefighters have what they need to do the job Mr. Speaker we care about their safety we care about the safety of communities, individuals and infrastructure here in Ontario we will continue to work with our forest firefighters and in fact it is recruitment time right now Mr. Speaker and I call upon the office Minister for Natural Resources Minister will take and see the next question the member for Kitchener's Centre Speaker my question is for the premier I didn't see the part in the Conservative playbook where it says we need bigger government and subsidies for monopolies but last week the government chose to reverse the OEB's decision that supports fairness for all ratepayers and would have created an open and fair market to help Ontarians get off fossil fuels and switch to cheaper cheaper cleaner alternatives but the premier is sticking you and you and you and you and all of us with the bill again will save $2 billion in the next five years but they sided with Enbridge and the $19 million CEO last year global spending in the clean economy was $1.8 trillion up 17% from the year before but we are missing out on jobs and investments why because ratepayers are subsidizing fossil fuel gas will the premier commit to subsidizing heat pumps and stop funding a gouging, greeting, polluting energy monopoly to respond the minister of energy thanks very much and thanks to the new member of the Green Party for the question I believe it's her first question in the legislature I missed the first one you know what it's really really important that the people of Ontario understand that the Green Party has been fairly consistent in their views on where we're going while the NDP liberals continue to try and figure out what it is that they want to do what I can tell you is what we're doing here in Ontario as the government of Ontario and the progressive conservative government is ensuring that we have a diverse energy system one that is reliable for the people of Ontario so that we will continue to see the growing economy that we've been experiencing that the minister of economic development just explained to the liberal members in their small caucus here is that we are seeing thousands hundreds of thousands of jobs coming back to our province because we have a reliable, affordable and clean energy sector here in Ontario one that's seeing Ontario become the engine of Canada's economy supplementary question back to the member for Kitchener Centre Mr. Speaker what raises energy bills is making four million rate payers pay more and giving those dollars to Enbridge a company that paid $16 billion last year in profits so that you can pay you can pay and you can pay for a bad investment that's what the OEB said it's a bad investment this will raise energy bills it will stick homeowners without data polluting technologies and higher heating costs for decades technologies that make us sick that are burning our province down and the fires are coming this summer we are in a housing crisis and we need to build more homes that need retrofit in a few years for years we've seen report after report after report showing that renewables are cheaper safer and cleaner than fossil fuels so why the double standard Speaker will the premier save Ontario's money will they create jobs and allow Ontarians to start switching to clean energy sources instead of giving money to Enbridge and make a fair market that will create jobs for everyone and the Minister of Energy Speaker this is why the Green Party has hit their ceiling two seats in the legislature Mr Speaker they're on their way up but this is as far as they're going to go if this is the way they're going to talk to the people of Ontario Mr Speaker because you know what we need is a diverse energy sector now the Green Party members and the NDP can look up at the members of the Canadian Propane Association who are here today and tell them get out of our province we don't want you anymore because basically that's what they're saying Mr Speaker when there are people across this province that live in rural and northern parts of our province that need propane Mr Speaker they need natural gas to heat their home they need a reliable, affordable clean energy system and we're lucky we're very very lucky that we live in one of the cleanest jurisdictions in the entire world when it comes to energy the net of the province's emissions are coming from our electricity sector but they want us to shut down natural gas plants Mr Speaker the NDP energy critic wants to shut down natural gas and nuclear Mr Speaker where would that thank you next question the member for Peterborough for thank you Speaker I've got a question for the Minister of Finance when I meet with businesses and residents I constantly hear how the federal carbon tax is putting pressure on the local economy and making businesses far more expensive to run Speaker that's why I find it so disappointing that the federal government continues to play politics and not eliminate the carbon tax in fact they're going to increase it in just a month or so at this time families individuals and local businesses in all communities across Ontario need to feel supported by their governments and not penalized this government under the leadership of Premier Ford recognizes that the carbon tax is unfair to hardworking Ontarians especially those in rural Ontario and that's why we continue to advocate for every one of them Speaker can the Minister please explain how the federal carbon tax is hurting the people of Ontario Good question Mr. Speaker and thank you to the member opposite with one of the best named writings Peter Burrell thank you very much for that question as I said before in my previous answer to the other question the independent liberals never found a tax they didn't love in fact just last week their party refused to support the great member from Simcoe Grey's motion to eliminate the carbon tax and make goods more affordable Mr. Speaker the Bank of Canada has said that carbon tax drives up inflation and even some in the NDP have finally abandoned it Mr. Speaker yet somehow these liberals continue to support this regressive and punitive tax Mr. Speaker instead our government is the one standing up for hardworking Ontarians day in and day out Thank you back to the member for Peter Burrell Thank you Speaker and that is Peter Burrell not the Burrell of Peter Thank you to the minister for his response we've heard the experts we've heard from other governments and we've heard from the people of Ontario the carbon tax harms families it harms businesses it harms everyone across this province with the Bank of Canada's high interest rates and the cost of living so high it's never been more important for governments to try to keep cost down for people and businesses our government has been very clear we're working to put more money back into the pockets of the people of this province that's why it's perplexing that the independent liberals have failed to once again stand up with us against attacks that's driving up prices and making life more expensive through you Speaker can the minister please explain why we need to fight the carbon tax to provide support to the people of Ontario and the businesses in Ontario you can't afford Thank you again Mr. Speaker and thank you to the great member from Peter Burrell for that question you know the independent liberals are following the lead of their federal counterparts in playing politics with the people of Ontario this is the party Mr. Speaker who's interim leader called our gas tax cut a relief measure and yet later Speaker guess what happened when the camera wasn't on he voted against extending the gas tax cut and voted against bringing down the price of fuel for Ontario families and businesses Mr. Speaker and this is the party whose new leader refused to say that she was against the carbon tax yet supporting fewer taxes for the people of Ontario Mr. Speaker it's time for these independent liberals to decide if they are for the people of Ontario or if they are for an expensive and tax loving federal government Thank you Speaker my questions for the Premier 134,000 people in the Ottawa region don't have a nurse practitioner or a family doctor or a million people in Ontario that don't have that coverage these neighbours rely on unsuitable walk-in clinics or crammed hospital emergency rooms to get basic healthcare needs for weeks I've heard the government talk about plans to open 78 primary care practices but we don't have any details will the government today commit to providing a public list of the 78 clinics Mr. Speaker to respond to the Deputy Premier and Minister of Health once again talk about the expansions that we are doing in primary care multidisciplinary teams 78 teams across Ontario all of course who have been notified whether it's in Woodstock whether it's in Aurelia whether across Ontario we have expansions happening in the province of Ontario and as well as that our investment is going to ensure that the existing multidisciplinary teams whether they are a nurse practitioner or a fit or a full family health team is also getting additional operating dollars because frankly they've been ignored for 12 years zero operating expansion in the past 12 years we are making sure that not only the primary care multidisciplinary teams that are operating across Ontario today but as well as the 78 new and expanded we are getting it done for the people of Ontario Thank you Thank you Speaker back to the Minister I would hope that getting it done in primary care requires telling the people of Ontario who fund our work which 78 clinics are being funded and we still don't have an answer from the Minister today which successful 78 clinics are going to be funded I hope in her response we are going to finally hear a commitment to produce that list because what I do know about the government is that in 2022 they promised to spend $2 per billion and a budget of $200 billion to expand primary care and they didn't spend the money so now we are hearing about expansion but we don't have a list so again Speaker very clear yes or no will the people of Ontario get this list of 78 clinics today Minister of Health As I have mentioned all primary care expansion teams, multidisciplinary teams have been notified of their successful application we have had multiple announcements that have been so well received in community including of course in the Ottawa region we will continue to make these investments because as we expand access whether it is through additional physician seats whether it is additional nurse practitioner or RN seats in our post secondary institution we are also making sure that those job opportunities are available here in Ontario in communities whether it is in hospitals whether it is in our public health units whether it is in community care or of course expansions of primary care multidisciplinary teams we will continue to do this work to make sure that everyone who wants and needs a primary care physician has that opportunity with these expansions thank you Speaker the next question the member for Mrs. Saga Malton thank you Mr. Speaker my question is for the Associate Minister of Transportation Mr. Speaker I still remember the chilling winter of February 2000 my first winter I got a part-time job and I had two choices number one take Brampton transit to Westwood Mall take TTC and pay five dollars or walk five kilometres Mr. Speaker as a newcomer I picked five kilometres many times and I had to struggle to make those tough choices thankfully we have a government proudly rolled out our one fair program that the residents like me don't have to pick between tough choices or money in their pocket Speaker resident in my writing of Mrs. Saga Malton and across GTA a thrill to learn about the saving and the impact this will have on their household budget you know Mr. Speaker far too long transit needs of individuals and families across the province were neglected under the previous Liberal government in contrast our government is continuing to make transportation improvement through strategic investment so Speaker Thank you Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you to the member from Mrs. Saga Malton for that question and for his advocacy for one fair Mr. Speaker through you the successful launch of one fair means and how impactful this is for Ontario's Mr. Speaker thanks to Mr. Sarma for initiating this and thanks to Mr. Stanchill for his hard work Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker Members across the aisle from Ms. Saga across the region they know under the previous Liberal government transit became unaffordable Mr. Speaker Liberals and NDP had the opportunity to support the people of Ontario by voting in favour of one fair Mr. Speaker Liberals and NDP voted against one fair not just one Mr. Speaker they voted against twice Supplementary Thank you Thank you Associate Minister for your response and recognising the wonderful work this whole caucus is doing and the ministers are doing is great to hear how this government is standing up for the public transit riders when we were elected in 2018 we were affordable for the people of Ontario that's why we must continue to make historic investments in public transit so that we can put more money back into the commuters where it belongs I know the minister has spoken to the riders across the GTA including his own community of Scarborough Rouge Park and about what they expect from their public transit experience through you Mr. Speaker can the minister explain the successful launch of one fair means for the commuters and whole Ontario Thank you Mr. Speaker The Associate Minister of Transportation Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you again for the member for his advocacy for one fair Mr. Speaker I had the opportunity to visit regions across GTA from Durham Region, York Region Mississauga, Brampton Berry, Hamilton Mr. Speaker I spoke to transit workers students, seniors and daily commuters and one thing is crystal clear Mr. Speaker under the leadership of Premier Ford we are making life more affordable for the people of this province Mr. Speaker while other parties are distracted we are focused on keeping costs down and putting more money back into the people's pockets Mr. Speaker our government launched one fair and this is going to enable seniors, parents and students go from one transit region to another transit region Mr. Speaker only pay one fair Mr. Speaker that will save $1,600 Mr. Speaker start up earlier this week Thank you Mr. Speaker my question is to the Premier at pre-budget consultations the Executive Director of Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex told the committee that as of October 2023 London had and I quote not otherwise in need of protection but for lack of access to these mental health services is this government aware the children are being placed into protection simply so they can access mental health services and what can the Premier say to families who are living with the pain of surrendering a child because they need access to mental health services in social services very much Mr. Speaker and I thank the member for the question every single child every single youth in this province deserves to have a chance and a life to succeed and thrive in their communities Mr. Speaker and we take the protection of every single child every youth very seriously Mr. Speaker and that means making sure we provide them with the right supports and services and that protection throughout that state Mr. Speaker and that means having the investments to protect the youth in every corner in this province Mr. Speaker if you look at the Ready Set Go program Mr. Speaker Ready Set Go program that we have set Speaker we are providing supports for children and youth in care as young as 13 years old with the life skills to succeed in their communities at 15 and with financial support right up to their 23rd birthday Mr. Speaker that support never existed and that's because we said from day one we will never leave anyone behind in this province Mr. Speaker whether you're in care or not I conclude your question period for this morning this House stands in point of order the member for Sault Ste. Marie Speaker did not get a chance to do this earlier but I'd like to be able to introduce Party and welcome to the House today Katie Blunt CEO and Allison Schmidt chair of the Board of Habitat for Humanity in Sault Ste. Marie I know they were just in the room and left a little bit early but I just want to thank them for being here and look forward to seeing them later today Thank you Minister of Transportation as a point of order he's standing up Stephen Pickett who works in my office in the gallery today as well just want to welcome him to the House for being no further business at this time this House stands in recess until 3 p.m


The reforms I am announcing today are intended to make ICBC financially sustainable and are the first critical steps to allow us to keep rates affordable for British Columbians for years to come. Our focus of these initial reforms is on reducing legal expenses and using the savings to direct more care to those injured in crashes and keep insurance rates affordable. First, as of April 1st, 2019, a new limit of $5,500 on pain and suffering awards for minor injury claims will be in effect. Redirecting costs currently spent on legal fees, courts and litigation towards direct care of those injured in crashes. Second, minor ICBC injury claims disputes will be directed to the Civil Resolution Tribunal to be decided quickly and affordably by independent adjudicators. And third, the savings from these initiatives will allow us not only to get ICBC's finances back on track to ensure lower insurance rates, but will allow us for the first time in 25 years to make major changes to ICBC's accident benefits which will dramatically increase the care available for anyone injured in a crash.


The form may not be real, but… The High Fructose Adventures of Annoying Orange was a show on Cartoon Network that ran for two seasons. It featured a group of talking fruit crew, together with their human friend Nerdle, went on many adventures presumably throughout time and space. If not that, then they'd perform their actions during the night, when no one else but Nerdle was around. But have you ever wondered why the fruit rarely came to life in front of other humans? Or why everyone else regarded Nerdle as insane for talking to the fruits? Well that's just it, Nerdle was insane. It's all from his imagination. Nerdle was an employee at Danebos, where he was commonly seen on the show, as the one who worked the night shifts as the janitor. But have you ever noticed that he rarely worked during the episodes? He always interacted with the fruits instead. By theory is Nerdle worked during the day as well, where he desrounded by other employees. Because of his odd and weird personality, he could be considered an outsider, and no one talked to him. Deep down, he really wanted to be friends with his coworkers, but couldn't work up the courage to go and talk to them, as he believed his personality would put them off. Instead, he observed each employee, taking in every detail of their personality. Even he'd imagine scenarios where he was friends with all of them. He couldn't properly do that during the day, of course, because it would distract him from his work. But whenever he was alone on night shift, where no one else would be there to pay attention, he would slip into his fantasy.  Even there, he'd play out the stories you see in each episode of the show. Orange's human counterpart was the most well-known employee at Banebos, and had the biggest personality, which is why Nerdle commonly placed him as the lead figure in his fantasies. During work, he aimed to make people laugh and smile, which is why he'd constantly tell jokes. However, he was oblivious to the fact that he could sometimes annoy or even insult others with these jokes. He knew he was kind at heart, however, so if anyone had an issue, they turned to him to make them feel better. Pear was the most respected out of the employees, and none more so by Orange, which is why the two of them were best friends. Pear is one of the least affected by Orange's jokes, because he endured them for the longest. He was very intelligent, often working on accounts for the store, which is why he was often depicted as a nerd in the episodes. Before any of the employees had a fight, Pear would rush to the rescue and try to calm them down, often being the voice of reason. Little Apple had dwarfism, hence why he was so small. Unfortunately this led to Orange, often teasing him about his height, and calling him a bigot. Despite his best efforts to get people to refer to him as little, nearly everyone kept forgetting and called him bigot, which led to the running gag present in the show. His best friend, Marshmallow, was also quite small in height, and so he never insulted Little Apple like everyone else. Marshmallow also had a unique trait, he was transgender. Although he was referred to as he by his friends and family, others could sometimes be confused as to whether he was a boy or a girl, due to his high pitched voice and love of girly things such as unicorns and rainbows. He always had a positive outlook on life, which is why he was never insulted by Orange's jokes, even going as far as to see him as his best friend after Little Apple. However, if someone insulted him personally about him being transgender, he would adopt a fierce temper, which could result in people being injured. Little Apple was usually the one who has to calm him down if his temper got out of control. Because he was one of the most unique employees, Nerdle projected his personality onto a Marshmallow instead of a fruit. Then comes the love triangle characters. Passion Fruit was one of the few female employees, and had a huge crush on Orange. She wasn't secretive about it, and everyone was aware of her affection towards him. The only one who wasn't, was Orange himself, who was so focused on making everyone laugh and smile, or in Nerdle's stories, being so focused on saving the day, that he never noticed Passion's crush on him. Great Fruit had a huge crush on Passion himself. He'd constantly try to win her heart, but Passion dismissed him due to the belief that she and Orange would be together someday. Because of this, Great Fruit hated Orange, and constantly tried to pick fights with him during work, or get him into trouble. With the belief that he was muscular, when he was actually just obese, he would sometimes threaten to beat Orange up, but Orange would constantly make jokes about his weight, which made Great Fruit self-conscious about himself, and he hesitated to hurt Orange. This is why, although he was sometimes the villain in Nerdle's stories, he never physically hurt Orange or his friends. Grandpa Lemon was a senile old man, who was close to retirement, but worked at Bane Bows to increase his pension sum. Because of his old age, he could be forgetful at times, and mix up numbers and statistics during work. He sometimes fell asleep at the checkout, with one of the employees having to always prod him awake. And finally, Apple was a stuck-up and pessimistic employee, who nobody liked.  Apple always thought of himself as the best, and was constantly critical of everyone else. But in actuality, he was a coward, who shied away when faced with a dilemma. In Nerdle's stories, Apple feared he would be bruised if he took part in the adventures. Nerdle himself despised Apple's human counterpart, and so would often cut the Apple in half with a knife, as an act of revenge. Because of the pleasure he obtained in doing this, he would always bring Apple back to life by getting a new Apple every night. And every night, that Apple would meet aggressively end. The enemies of the show also had human counterparts. For example, the broccoli alien overlord was actually the manager of a rival store, Gu's aim was to shut Banebo's down, so he could make more profit. However it came to a point, where the employees from Banebo's went from being threatened by him, to just getting bored of his constant threats, which is why the fruits get bored with broccoli's schemes in the show. Another example is the zombie's vegetables, which was actually a gang, Gu broke into the store one night, whilst Nerdle was playing with the fruits. He was knocked unconscious by the gang, and dreamt that the fruits went on to destroy the zombies and save the day. Nerdle became so addicted to his fantasies, that when his night shift was over, he wouldn't leave the store, and instead slept on a shelf. This meant he would stay close to the fruits, and never have to go back to reality. During the day, he would continue to observe, and find out new facts about each of his coworkers, such as Pear being a black belt in karate, or how marshmallow used to be called Linky as a nickname. Now that the series has been cancelled, that might symbolize the store finally closing down. The question is, what happened to Nerdle, now that the origin of his fantasies is gone? Did he move on with his life? Did he go completely insane with grief? Or does he still find a way to continue his fantasies?