role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 5, 2026

44th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2026-May-05 vol. A (PDF)

L069A - Tue 5 May 2026 / Mar 5 mai 2026

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 May 2026 Mardi 5 mai 2026

Orders of the Day

Building Billy Bishop Airport Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 sur la construction de l’aéroport Billy Bishop

Members’ Statements

Project Give Back

Sexual violence and harassment

Special Olympics Canada Summer Games

Community Care Durham

519Pursuit

Rotary Club of Cambridge (Preston-Hespeler)

Toronto waterfront

Police services

Sexual violence and harassment

Thornhill Community Health Centre

Introduction of Visitors

MPP athletes

Remarkable Women at Queen’s Park

Visitor

Legislative pages

Opposition day motion

Red Dress Day

Question Period

Student assistance

Hospital funding

Government jet

Government jet

Land use planning

Public safety

Red tape reduction

Indigenous community safety

Freedom of information

Housing

Energy policies

Freedom of information

Education funding

Indigenous economic development

Notice of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Visitors

Introduction of Government Bills

HST Relief Implementation Act (Residential Property Rebates), 2026 / Loi de 2026 sur la mise en oeuvre de l’allégement de la TVH (remises relatives aux biens résidentiels)

Introduction of Bills

Julian Pepper Capital Inc. Act, 2026

Black Health Equity Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 sur l’équité en matière de santé pour les Noirs

Petitions

Water quality

Transportation infrastructure

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Student assistance

Ontario economy

Affordable housing

Ontario economy

Health care workers

Highway 69

Water quality

Orders of the Day

Building Billy Bishop Airport Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 sur la construction de l’aéroport Billy Bishop

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Let us pray.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Building Billy Bishop Airport Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 sur la construction de l’aéroport Billy Bishop

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 4, 2026, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 110,

An Act to enact the Building Billy Bishop Airport Act, 2026 / Projet de loi 110, Loi édictant la Loi de 2026 sur la construction de l’aéroport Billy Bishop.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Further debate.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’ll be sharing my time with the member from University–Rosedale. I’ve got about 30 minutes to talk about the seizing Billy Bishop airport act.

Before I get into that, there’s something that’s been bothering me for about six weeks, ever since the Premier said it. It was an insult directed at the Toronto Islanders. He called them squatters. This is false. They own their homes, and the land the homes are on is under a lease signed by the government. So it’s slanderous, what he said, and it’s a horrific insult.

But there’s a pattern of this Premier insulting people who can’t punch back. Last week, he called a Liberal MPP, saying CP24 didn’t want her anymore. He said that First Nations people come cap in hand. When he gutted OSAP grants to add another $15,000 of debt to the low- and middle-income students, he accused students of taking basket-weaving courses. He’s insulted judges, saying they’re terrible bleeding-heart judges. He’s called councillors in Niagara a bunch of turkeys. He said that immigrants are to blame for Ontario’s housing crisis, that would-be immigrants were coming to Ontario to collect the dole.

And without evidence, he blamed immigrants for the shooting at a girls Jewish school in Toronto.

This is a right-wing strategy of launching insults and dehumanizing people, of riling up a mob against a small group of people. We cannot allow our Premier to continue to use his position to insult and punch down on people who can’t punch back. Many people have been victims of his insults, and if we allow him to continue, we’ll eventually all be victims.

So I am demanding that the Premier apologize to the islanders, to the First Nations people, to the students, the judges, the councillors and the immigrants that he has insulted. Personal insults are beneath the office of the Premier of Ontario. If he’s not willing to apologize, he should step down from that position.

Interjections.

Mr. Chris Glover: Yes, it is embarrassing. It’s embarrassing when your Premier, the leader who you support, insults people, when he punches down on people who are not able to punch back.

Interjections.

Mr. Chris Glover: Okay. I’ll get to the bill. I have three major points to make on the bill. The first point is that the land grab is worse than we thought. The second point is that this takeover and redevelopment of Billy Bishop will cost taxpayers billions of dollars, not just in subsidizing the building of the airport but in the lost investment on the waterfront. The third point I’ll be making is that Mark Carney is not just a casual observer in this episode but an active part of Ford’s plans at Billy Bishop.

I’ll start with what’s in the bill. The land grab is worse than we thought. I’ll go through some of the points in the bill. The bill gives the government the power to take control of land owned by the city of Toronto, including almost all of the Toronto Islands, Little Norway Park and Billy Bishop airport, and then once the province “prescribes” the land, ownership automatically transfers to the government, including all of the buildings, structures and improvements on it. The city is barred from selling, leasing or otherwise dealing with the land or related assets, and any attempt to do so, even before the bill reaches royal assent, would be considered void.

Currently, the city is renegotiating leases with boating clubs across the islands, and if this bill passes, all of those clubs will be at the mercy of the Ford government, which only listens to friends and donors. The city has legal grounds to fight the bill, to fight the takeover in court. What’s described in the bill is clearly an expropriation, which gives the city certain rights under the Expropriations Act. But the bill says it’s not an expropriation.

The danger for the city is that expropriation limits the province to only taking the land necessary for the project, so this is supposed to be just the land necessary for the Billy Bishop airport. If it’s not an expropriation, then they can seize any part of the islands and do whatever they want with them. So the Premier could start divvying up the island and giving it to his friends and donors to build private spas or private resorts or private homes.

The second legal ground that I believe the city has to fight this bill on is that it attempts to unilaterally take the city out of the tripartite agreement. The tripartite agreement is an agreement made by the city of Toronto, PortsToronto and the federal government, and it lays out the terms under which the Billy Bishop airport operates. One of the clauses in that agreement says that no individual partner in that tripartite agreement can make a change to the agreement without the consent of all three partners.

Built into this bill to stop the city from suing to protect its right, the bill states that the province can subtract costs related to the transfer from the total amount that it owes the city. In other words, I believe that it’s saying to the city, “If you sue us, not only will you have to cover your own legal costs, even if you win the court case, you have to cover our costs. We’ll deduct it from the amount that we’re paying for the takeover of the land.” So that’s what’s in the bill. This is why I think the bill is even worse—the land grab is even worse than we initially thought.

Now I’m going get into seven reasons why expanding this airport is a bad idea. This is another giant real estate scam. It’s as big as the greenbelt scandal or the Ontario Place scandal. The Premier said that he wants to increase the airport from 1.7 million to 10 million passengers a year. The problem with this is that the airport is too small. It is Canada’s smallest airport at 210 acres. The next smallest North American airport that handles jets is San Diego at 630 acres. The next smallest major airport in Canada is Winnipeg at 1,700 acres, and it handles less than two million passengers a year.

So to handle 10 million passengers a year, a massive expansion of that airport is going to be necessary.

What is not necessary, though, is an expansion of the Billy Bishop airport because, next week, the governments are going to be breaking ground on an expansion of Pearson airport, so it will be able to go from accommodating 47 million passengers a year to 70 million passengers a year. This will give it excess capacity for years to come, so there’s no need to expand the Billy Bishop airport.

The third reason that this is a really bad idea: The runway extensions would close off most off the harbour to boats and create a stagnant swamp on the west of the airport. In the Globe and Mail last week, PortsToronto said that they’re going to need to extend the runway by 900 metres. Most of that is going to go to the west, so towards Humber Bay. But on top of that, according to Transport Canada regulations, if you’re going to be landing jets at an airport, then you have to have another 600 metres of lighting on either side—that’s another 1.2 kilometres of water that would be taken over.

So it’s 900 metres of runway, then another 1.2 kilometres—2.1 kilometres of waterway that would be obstructed in order to accommodate these jets. It would basically destroy a lot of water traffic in the harbour, which is a major tourist destination, and it would probably close off access to the Hanlan’s Point ferry.

The fourth point not to expand this airport is that it’s not safe. The airport already does not meet Transport Canada’s safety standards—TP 1247, just for reference, if anybody wants to look it up. It currently has exemptions from the safety standards. The safety standards specify that around any airport, there has to be a “primary hazard zone.” There’s a diagram by PortsToronto in an environmental assessment that they did about 10 years ago. The primary hazard zone includes all of the Toronto Islands, all of the buildings along the waterfront, Tommy Thompson Park, the mouth of the Don that has recently been re-naturalized, and the Port Lands, where we’re supposed to be building housing.

Transport Canada says that “wildlife refuges” are high risk and “unacceptable land use” if within the prime hazard zone of an airport due to the risk of bird strikes. I want to emphasize this risk of bird strikes. This is not just some minor risk. In 2009, an Airbus A320 taking off from New York flew into a flock of Canada geese. They got sucked into the jet engines. Both engines died, and they suddenly had this massive glider. The pilots were able to land it on the Hudson River. It led to the movie Miracle on the Hudson with Tom Hanks.

The difference between jets and prop planes: When that happened, the CEO of Porter said, “Well, that won’t happen at Billy Bishop airport because we have turboprops. We don’t have jets”—because turboprops are quite different. If a bird hits a turboprop’s exterior propellor, it just gets bounced off. It’s probably not good for the bird, but it’s not going to take down the plane. But jet engines, the way they work—they’re basically a cylinder with turbines in them. They have massive suction into the turbines, and then massive expulsion of jet pressure. That’s where they get their thrust from.

So what happens is, if they fly into birds—whatever is in their way, the jet engines suck that in. Going from a prop plane every 20 minutes to a jet taking off—and the 10 million passengers—would mean that a jet plane would be taking off every two to three minutes, vastly increasing the risk of bird strikes.

In the Transport Canada regulations, it says that “other unacceptable land uses” within the primary hazard zone include municipal parks, picnic areas, marshes, swamps, mud flats, school yards, community and recreation centres, and marinas. This is basically a description of everything that is in the downtown waterfront, on the Toronto Islands and what’s being built on the Port Lands. Tommy Thompson Park is a massive wildlife refuge. All of this is in violation of the safety standards set by Transport Canada.

To expand this airport and to allow jets on it is going to put the people on the waterfront at risk, and it’s going to put the passengers in the planes at risk.

Let’s see, the other thing: There was a 2017 environmental assessment that was commissioned by PortsToronto. I’ll mention that PortsToronto is one of the members of the tripartite agreement, and they’re one of the advocates for expanding the airport and allowing jets there. But their own environmental assessment in 2017 said that adding jets to the airport would increase the risk of lung cancer, throat lesions and respiratory illnesses of the people visiting and living along the waterfront.

Don’t forget Billy Bishop airport is 300 metres from an elementary school. So what the Premier is proposing, and what’s proposed in this bill, is to have jets landing and taking off every two to three minutes 300 metres from an elementary school.

I was down there on the weekend. There was a Jane’s Walk organized by Deputy Mayor Ausma Malik. We’re going around, we’re learning about the history of the area, the history of Little Norway Park, its role in in training Norwegian pilots in the Second World War. As we’re going around, you get to a certain point when the plane is coming in or the plane has got its reverse thrusters on because it’s landing, and you have to stop talking for a minute because you can’t hear. Then about 30 or 40 seconds later, you smell the fumes coming in. That’s one turbo prop landing every 20 minutes.

What the Premier is proposing, and I believe also the Prime Minister is proposing, is to have jets landing every two to three minutes. So you will not be able to hear—anyway, you will not be able to have a conversation along the waterfront. You won’t be able to hear the concerts at Budweiser Stage, at the Harbourfront Centre, at the Music Garden, at any of the venues along the waterfront. You’re going to be in a constant cloud of jet fumes.

The last reason I want to mention about why this is a really bad idea: It’s a waste of money. This is like the Ontario Place boondoggle on the waterfront. Taxpayers have invested literally billions of dollars along the waterfront.

My father told me that when he was a child and his family was driving to the CNE, they used to hold their nose as they drove along Lakeshore Boulevard because it was full of abattoirs and soap factories. It smelled really, really bad. It was an industrial zone.

Over the last 50 years, we have invested billions of dollars into making it a home to 100,000 people and into making it Canada’s number one tourist destination, with 28 million visitors in 2025, generating over $20 billion in economic activity. This compares to Niagara Falls, which is a wonderful place, but Niagara Falls, which is the best-known tourist destination in Canada, gets 12 million. I want to pump it up; I think everybody should go to Niagara Falls, to my members from Niagara Falls here, but it has 12 million visitors a year. The waterfront has more than double the number of visitors to Canada’s second-best tourist destination, and all of that will be harmed.

That environmental assessment that I mentioned, commissioned by PortsToronto, said that the businesses along the waterfront do not want jets because of the impact that it will have on their businesses. Will people want to come down to the Caribbean Carnival, to the dragon boat races, to all of the concerts that are on the waterfront? All of the other events—there are 28 million visitors, and 1.5 million visitors to the Toronto Islands every year. Will people want to live down there? Will people want to visit down there?

Among the investments that the government has made, that our taxpayer dollars have gone to—$2 billion to rehabilitate the mouth of the Don and the Port Lands to accommodate 150,000 units of housing. Already, because of that primary hazard zone, those buildings that had been scheduled to be 40 storeys would have to be half of that or less, so less than 20 storeys. So we’re going to lose half of the housing that we’ve invested $2 billion in preparing the site for.

It’s a huge loss to our tourism industry. It’s a loss to housing. It’s also a destruction and a change in the use of the waterfront from a place for people to visit, from a place for people to live, to a place where it’s the hub for a major airport.

The next point that I want to make is that every argument that the government has put forward for expanding the airport is false. For example, the government said that expanding Billy Bishop for jets will take pressure off of Pearson. This is not true. Pearson, as I mentioned, is already being expanded from accommodating 47 million passengers a year to 70 million passengers a year. There’s no pressure to take off of Pearson, so that argument that they’re making is a false argument.

Let’s see. It says that flights will be cheaper at Billy Bishop. This is not true, unless there’s a massive subsidy. There was a study by Air Canada because at one point, about 10 years ago, Air Canada was thinking of expanding the airport and flying jets in there. They said it just doesn’t make financial sense because you’re going to spend—at that time, 10 years ago—a billion dollars to expand the airport. That was for an estimated five million passengers; the Premier wants to have 10 million passengers.

So you’re talking at least a $2-billion to $3-billion investment in that tiny airport, Canada’s smallest airport, to allow it to accommodate jets and 10 million passengers a year. It doesn’t make financial sense. Either the taxpayers will subsidize that or it will be added onto the airport fees. And if that’s added onto the airport fees that everybody pays when you buy a ticket, then the prices at Billy Bishop will be much higher than at Pearson; it won’t be cheaper. So this argument that it’s going to be cheaper just doesn’t make sense.

The other one is that it’s going to create thousands of new jobs and new travellers, but if people are flying out of Toronto or flying out of southern Ontario, they’re not going to say, “Oh, I’ll take an extra trip because Billy Bishop is there.” They’re going to say, “Where do I fly out of? Porter is now flying out of Hamilton, so do I fly out of Hamilton? Do I fly out of Pearson? Where do I fly out of?” You look at the deals. If there’s a flight available, you take the flight. This is not going to add new jobs; it’s just going to transfer the jobs and the travellers from Pearson to downtown Toronto.

The other thing about this that the government is afraid to mention: Billy Bishop airport is not only Canada’s smallest airport, it’s also situated in the most congested part of Canada’s busiest, most populated city, and the Premier wants to bring another 10 million passengers there. Many of them will be driving into downtown Toronto, not to visit downtown Toronto or to do anything here, but just simply fly out. Why bring people into the congestion, the traffic nightmare that is downtown Toronto already? Why bring people into that when they could go to Pearson and avoid all of that?

The other point that I wanted to make here is that Billy Bishop—it’s a bad investment because Billy Bishop looks like they’re losing money. It has chronically struggled to break even. Passenger volumes in 2024 were only 71% of 2019 levels, with approximately 1.7 million passengers last year. This compares to the 47 million at Pearson. I mentioned Billy Bishop has recovered 71% of the passenger volume since the pandemic; Pearson has recovered 93% of their passenger volume.

Previously, Porter reported its island operations were a drag on its business, projecting a $35-million net loss in 2019 due to the high terminal and flight fees at Billy Bishop. So Porter is moving out of Billy Bishop because it’s too expensive; it’s too small an airport; it’s not in the right location.

Why invest billions and destroy Toronto’s waterfront? Why would the government invest $2 billion to $3 billion expanding this airport, destroying the tourism industry and the housing and the potential housing over on the Port Lands—why destroy all that and invest all that money into this airport?

I’ve been doing some research, I’ve been following the money a little bit, and the main beneficiary of this investment and the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport is Nieuport Aviation, which is controlled by J.P. Morgan. Really, it’s a J.P. Morgan bailout act that we’re debating. This is a bill about seizing land so the Premier can do whatever he wants to it. It’s about taking over, spending billions of taxpayer dollars because Nieuport Aviation is losing money.

Porter built the terminal building at Billy Bishop airport for about $50 million. In 2015, Nieuport Aviation bought it for $750 million. But one of the things in the contract was that Porter gave the promise to have a certain volume of flights in and out of the airport so that Nieuport would be able to make money.

Nieuport sued Porter for $130 million just two years after they signed that deal and sold it because they were losing money, because Porter didn’t have enough flights flying in and out of the airport to actually meet their quota, according to the contract. So Nieuport has lost money. They invested $750 million. Nieuport/J.P. Morgan has invested $750 million into that terminal, and now they’re losing money on it.

So how can they make money? Well, they can make a deal with the federal and the provincial governments to expand the airport, to use taxpayer dollars to expand the airport, to allow jets there, and then they will be able to make money.

But in the meantime, they’re going to be destroying the businesses along the waterfront. They’re going to be destroying all the tourism. They’re going to be destroying the housing along the waterfront.

The Port Lands: $2 billion invested in the Port Lands to rehabilitate that land in order to accommodate 150,000 new residents, and that’s going to be cut in half. Really, who will want to live there when you’re just a kilometre away from the jets taking off and you have a constant stream of jets flying over your house? The housing there will not be nearly as attractive, so it’s squandering that investment.

The question, then, is, how do we fight back? The leverage point here is the federal Liberal government because airports are managed by the federal government. The Premier here, the Conservative government provincially, cannot do anything to that airport without the approval of the federal Liberal government.

In fact, I believe now, looking into this, that the Prime Minister has been involved in this for some time, because when the Premier announced his plans for Billy Bishop six weeks ago, one of the things he said was, “The feds are on board.” So when did the Premier start negotiating with the federal government to plan this takeover of the Billy Bishop airport and of the Toronto Islands and of Little Norway Park? When did they start planning this? That’s a question the Prime Minister really needs to answer.

Let’s see. Until this bill passes, the province has no legal role in the Billy Bishop airport. A gentleman from Environmental Defence was at a town hall that I was speaking at. He said that he believes the political strategy is to have the Premier take the heat, to come out in front, to take ownership of this project at the Billy Bishop airport, even though legally, when he announced that and until this bill passes, he has no legal role in the Billy Bishop airport because it’s managed and owned by the city of Toronto, PortsToronto and the federal government.

But he believes that Premier Ford is taking the heat on the redevelopment of the Billy Bishop airport in order to take the heat off of and to shield the federal Liberal MPs in Toronto. If we’re going to stop this—and I hope that we are able to stop this—the leverage point is the Prime Minister, and the leverage point is the federal Liberal MPs in Toronto.

In 2015, Marc Garneau was a federal Liberal minister. At that time, when they were debating adding jets to the Billy Bishop airport, he stopped it, kiboshed the whole project with a tweet. He said that the federal government would not be renegotiating the tripartite agreement to allow jets.

A tweet from the Prime Minister or a federal Liberal minister could put the kibosh on this entire project. And so that is the leverage point. That’s the group that we need to put pressure on because, as far as this Premier goes, this is just another real estate scandal. He’s got a dozen under way right now.

This one, though—he needs the partnership and the support of the federal government in order to make it happen. So I’m hoping that we can pressure him and the federal government to stop this because we need to save our waterfront. More than anything else, we need to save our waterfront and not allow this provincial government—and the federal Liberal government, if they work with this—to destroy our waterfront in order to bail out Nieuport Aviation.

That concludes my remarks. I’m going to pass it over to my colleague in just a moment.

But I want to acknowledge there are people here from the Toronto waterfront, from the Toronto Islands, who have come here for the debate. Usually, at the beginning of the question period, we’re allowed to introduce guests, but it’s limited to just a few minutes, and we’ve got over 70 guests in here. So I’m going to just quickly read the names to acknowledge them so that your names will be in Hansard as having been here to visit the gallery and watch the debate: A.

Garrison, Adelina Pipher, Alice Norton, Allyson Baker, Andrea Bossence, Angela Baker, Aydin Thompson McGuire, Barbara Paull, Bie Engelen, Bonnie and Doug Hamburgh, Brian Smith, Cathy Barr, Céleste Sansregret, Charlotte de Heinrich, Christian Mueller, Coman Poon, Corrine F. Murray, Daina Green, Daniel Trayes, Daria Essop, Darlene Edwards, David Kent, David Woodhead, Dawn Rivard, Dean Cameron, Demetri Manias, Edith Sinclair, Elizabeth Littlejohn, Frances Greenidge, Gillian Macdonald, Inge Johnson, Isabelle Espaldon, J.

Lindsay, Jaskanwar Singh, John Nishikawa, Karen McKinnell, Katherine Miller, Kathleen Doody, Kelly McCray, Laurie Stevenson, Leo Logashov, Linda Wilson, Louise Chenier, Lucie Sparham, Marcy Hewson, Margaret Copeland, Margaret Harper, Mark Brillon, Mary Louis, Michelle Dsouza, Nada Alhams, Nadezhda Sinclair-Owugah, Nancy Solway, Nicholas Di Genova, Nimit Malavia, Norm Di Pasquale, Nuala Doherty, Paul Wigle, Paula May, Rajan Sidhu, Ronald Mazza, Sally Thomas, Sally Jane Wilson, Sapna Sharma, Scott Ling, Shelley Gautier, Sonia Tanney, Stacey Semple, Stephen Richards, Susan Ogurian, Trevor Duwyn and Yaël Freudmann.

I also want to add a thanks to all of the members and the people who worked with NoJetsTO and Waterfront for All. The reason we have such a beautiful waterfront in downtown Toronto, that we’ve been able to develop it to become Canada’s number one tourist destination, is because of the advocacy of community groups like that. So thank you for your many, many contributions. Thank you to everybody who has come for the debate.

Now I’ll pass it over to my colleague from University–Rosedale.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the member from University–Rosedale.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you to the member for Spadina–Fort York for your excellent and thorough work campaigning to protect Toronto’s waterfront.

I want to acknowledge and thank the many people who came here today. I know how difficult it is to turn up very early and go through security to arrive here today, to not have your cellphones. I know the reason why you’re here is because you deeply care about the outcome of this vote and you deeply care about the waterfront.

I hope the Conservative members who are here in the Legislature today are listening very carefully. The reason why I say that is because the decisions that will be made in this chamber affect these people’s lives. They affect the lives of thousands of people who live along the waterfront.

I want to talk a little bit about what’s in the bill. It’s not a very big bill. It’s called the Building Billy Bishop Airport Act, and it authorizes the Minister of Transportation to take over lands owned by the city of Toronto. That includes the areas around Billy Bishop. It includes the beloved Little Norway Park. It includes most of Toronto Island.

Now, Doug Ford—I mean, the Premier—said, “Well, we’re only taking over a part of Toronto Island.” But the Trillium did some research and looked up the actual GPS points that are in the bill, and, in fact, the Conservative government is looking at taking over almost all of Toronto Island, including Hanlan’s Point, Centreville, the non-residential part of Ward’s Island, the Toronto Island Marina, the Gibraltar Point Centre for the Arts and the Island school—all of the land, all of the buildings, all of the structures, everything. The city is prohibited from encumbering or disposing of these assets, so they can’t just sell it off.

The act also exempts the city and this takeover from the Expropriations Act, which means that the city has less say over what kind of compensation they will be able to obtain as a part of this process of the Ontario government taking this land. The act also removes the city of Toronto as a party to the tripartite agreement to oversee the airport and the waterfront, substituting Ontario instead.

We are also hearing that the Ontario government wants to classify all this area as a special economic zone. Now, this was not in the law, but it was announced by the Premier in a press conference, which means that the activity that will take place in this area doesn’t necessarily need to follow workplace rules. The workers there do not need to be paid minimum wage. Environmental assessments and environmental standards do not need to be kept. Health and safety rules do not need to be upheld either.

What it means is that provincial and city laws do not need to be abided by, which is—as you can imagine, if you are a nearby resident to this development, you can imagine that this would set off alarm bells. That’s what is in the bill.

I want to talk a little bit about why this bill is an absolutely terrible idea. Two weeks ago, I attended a town hall on the Conservative government’s threat to expand the Toronto Island airport and permit larger jets. Maybe some of you were there. It was a very well-attended event. It took place on the waterfront, and there were over 200 people there. I would categorize the feeling in that room as deep anger towards the Conservative government for, once again, messing with Toronto’s waterfront, and also a feeling of betrayal and dismay that the Carney federal government has not yet stepped in to stop this project from happening.

I have always opposed expanding the Toronto Island airport, because it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a major industrial airport right next to a major city. However, I did not realize how breathtakingly stupid this expansion was going to be until I attended this town hall. I learned some additional facts, and I would like to summarize some of the things that I learned at this town hall.

The first thing that I think is worthwhile talking about is that what is being planned by the Conservative government is not a minor tweak. Their plan is to make this a major industrial project. And the reason why we know this is because citizens’ groups have used the freedom-of-information process—remember that?—to get information, to uncover what has actually or is actually being planned. It took them years to do it, and a lot of the information that I am sharing right now came from those freedom-of-information requests, which speaks to the value of the freedom-of-information process.

So what we know so far is that the plan is to extend the runway to a length of 900 metres. That’s a long runway. The government wants that runway to go into the lake, which means that parts of the lake will be paved over. Approach lighting would need to be installed up to 750 metres beyond the runway in both directions—pretty significant—and wall-like jet blast deflectors would be required to prevent boats from being overturned by engine thrusts, because jets create a lot of wind. It would mean that beaches on the Toronto Islands would be reduced.

The government has announced in a press conference that they expect Toronto Island’s traffic or passengers to increase from two million people a year to about 10 million a year. Based on calculations that have been made, that means that there would be a plane landing every two minutes. Right now, a prop plane lands every 20 minutes, so that is a massive increase in airport traffic.

It will also mean a massive increase in vehicle traffic because people will need to travel. Taxis and Ubers will need to travel down and back. Trucks carrying jet fuel will need to travel down and back. And the roads around the Toronto Island airport are pretty small.

You’ve been down Bathurst Street. Bathurst Street is what, two lanes in some areas, four lanes in others? That’s not a big road. I don’t know if it’s going to be able to handle the increase in vehicle traffic along that way. My sense is that this government, as is typical of this government, hasn’t really thought these details through. That’s the general impression I get.

They came up with an idea, someone approached them, maybe someone who has close ties with the Premier, and said, “We really want to do this. I know you’re obsessed with the waterfront. This is another way that you can mess up the waterfront. Make us some money. How about you move ahead with this idea?” They didn’t think the details through. It’s very concerning.

We still don’t know all the details of the project, but what we do know and what we can safely say is that this expansion will be significantly, permanently and deeply damaging to the quality of life of residents who live near the waterfront. That’s pretty safe to say.

I want to talk about some of those negative impacts, and I want to start with health. I remember, at the town hall, there was an individual who stood up. His name was Toby Heaps, and he described some of the concerns he had. I don’t know if you’ve seen it today. And he said, “I’m a parent of three.” He lives near the airport; he lives in an apartment, and he spoke about his concerns for his children’s health.

I’m a parent. Every parent is worried about their children’s health. They want their kids to grow up healthy. And he, unfortunately, has every reason to worry. An air quality study conducted by the Bathurst Quay residents’ association—I am imagining that some of them are here today. Thank you for your work. There are some scientists and professors at the University of Toronto conducting an air quality study, like I said, and they found that levels of ultra-fine particles near the airport regularly exceed World Health Organization guidelines.

And these levels spike dramatically during plane takeoffs and landings—no surprise there. These ultra-fine particles—they are about 1,000 times thinner than a human hair—can penetrate deep into the lungs and have been linked to serious health outcomes, including lung cancer.

Now, this is a study from the National Institutes of Health. They have found that high levels of ultra-fine particles—which will be inevitable if you send a jet down a runway every two minutes next to condos housing over 100,000 people. What they have found is that an increase in ultra-fine particles increases the likelihood of stroke, heart attack, lung cancer, cognitive decline, dementia, asthma, COPD and premature death. It also affects fetal development. If you are pregnant, do not move next to an airport if you can help it.

Those are the facts. That is the National Institutes of Health. I wonder how seriously the Premier is thinking about the health of the people who live along the waterfront right now—because he should be.

And this, the introduction of an expanded airport, is also occurring at a time when air pollution in Toronto is not great. I know we have closed down the coal-fired power plants in Ontario, which has led to an improvement in air quality in Ontario. But near the waterfront, we are already dealing with serious air pollution issues. That is because we have the Gardiner Expressway to the north; and we also have the gas plant to the east, which is running at far higher rates and for far longer hours than was originally intended. Adding jet traffic into this mix should alarm every single person who lives in the downtown core.

Next, I want to talk about noise. Now, for those Torontonians who live downtown, you know what happens on Labour Day weekend, when the jet show comes to town. We all collectively grit our teeth because it is extraordinarily loud. I remember having a small child, a toddler, and I would put her to sleep in the middle of the day, and, inevitably, during that Labour Day weekend a jet would come roaring over our apartment and she would wake up crying.

I remember at the town hall the MPP for Toronto Centre gave a good description of what it could be look to live in a condo with a jet coming by every two minutes, and they said, “Picture sitting on your balcony on a summer evening, having dinner with friends, only to have your conversation drowned out by a descending jet every two minutes. The conversation would have to stop. The jet would go by, and then you could continue your conversation for another one minute and 40 seconds until the next jet comes by.” You can imagine people would stop using their balconies after that because that is not a nice environment to have an evening dinner and appreciate the sunset. It’s very, very concerning.

We have heard talk about these whisper jets. Anyone who has ever stood near a runway knows there is no such thing as a whisper jet. There is no such thing as a whisper jet. Now, the Premier has said, “Oh, you know, these jets will be quiet, and we’re not even going to be allowing the bigger jets.” Why would we trust you? Before an election, you said you weren’t going to open up the greenbelt; after an election, you did. Before the election, you didn’t talk about how you were planning to bring in a two-tier health care system into Ontario—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Address the Speaker, please.

Ms. Jessica Bell: We have a private health care system and a public health care system for the rest of us. But then, after an election, you did. Your behaviour and your track record over the last eight years give me the impression, and a lot of people the impression, that you are not to be trusted when it comes to—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I will ask the member to address her comments to the Chair.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you, Speaker.

Not to be trusted—I think I’ve made my point pretty clear about that one.

The next issue is safety. At the town hall, we had an individual speak in the comment and question period, John Nishikawa. I wonder if he is here today.

Interjection.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Good. I was listening very carefully. I actually spent the whole time in the town hall—I was sitting kind of behind a plant. But I was spending the whole time in the town hall taking very careful notes because of what you were saying. The level of expertise and the stories you were sharing—I was learning a lot from them. John Nishikawa from the Toronto Ornithological Club raised another very serious issue about the expansion of the airport, and that issue is birds.

In his

summary, he said that just this week—I’m sorry if I get your

summary wrong, but I’m going to do my best here. John said that just this week, he observed 1,100 tundra swans, each weighing about 20 pounds, flying through the Toronto spit immediately east of the airport. You can imagine, if you think of a bird that is 20 pounds in size hitting a jet engine, that’s not good for safety. It’s certainly not good for the bird, and it’s definitely not good for safety.

Then he pointed out that there are roughly about 170,000 birds in and around Toronto Island, so this is not a good mix. It is not a good mix to have 170,000 birds—Toronto Island and the nearby spit is a migratory route and then, in that area, you’re looking at sending jets every two minutes. That is a safety issue, and this is not just me saying that. This is also Transport Canada.

Transport Canada has made it very clear and recommends that there should be no waterfowl refuge 3.2 kilometres or closer to an airport. Well, the Toronto Island expansion is a lot closer than 3.2 kilometres from Toronto Island and the migratory spit.

My question to the Premier and the government is, what is your plan—if you’re going to move ahead with this, which I actually don’t think you will. What is your plan to keep the birds away? Are you looking at using drones, sound cannons, habitat destruction? Have you even thought of it? Do you have a plan? These are very valid questions. I think everyone here, and people along the waterfront as well, would like to know the answer.

The next concern I have is around Toronto Island. Now, this didn’t come up in the town hall because we didn’t know the full details, but it did come up shortly after the bill was introduced because when we saw the bill, we realized that the Ontario government wants to take over Toronto Island as well.

And, my gosh, my hope is that you leave Toronto Island exactly as it is. The reason why is because it is a very, very precious place. Over one million people visit Toronto Island every year. It is this sanctuary from living in your apartment, living downtown. You want to get away and have a day-long vacation—Toronto Island is the place to go. You get on the ferry, you bring your lunch, you bring your dinner, you take your kids, you take the ferry across, and you have a lovely day.

That’s what I do every year. I take my kids to Toronto Island. My kids come home exhausted. Everyone is happy. They feel like they’ve had an adventure. Sometimes we go to Centreville. Sometimes we go to the beach. Sometimes we just bike around. When I go there, I see thousands and thousands of parents doing exactly the same thing. It is a very precious place, and it needs to be kept.

The reason why I think it needs to be kept is because a lot of people, in Toronto in particular, do not have backyards. They live in apartments. That means your park is your backyard. The Toronto Island is your vacation area. It improves peoples’ quality of life. Not everyone in Toronto has a cottage in Muskoka that they can fly to on their personal jet or maybe their OPP jet. Not everyone has that opportunity. The Toronto Island is the place they go to to enjoy themselves. I urge the Ontario government to keep Toronto Island as it is. I really do.

When I went to the town hall, I kept coming up with this question again and again and again. The question that came up for me was, who exactly is the waterfront for?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: The Premier.

Ms. Jessica Bell: I hope not, because over the last 20 years, the city, the province and the federal government have made a very clear choice that they want the waterfront to be for people. They made a very clear choice. They have invested billions of dollars into improving the waterfront: into moving out industry; into building more homes, building condos; making the waterfront desirable; making it a place where people can go to the Budweiser stadium, enjoy a concert; making it so that people can go for bike rides and hikes and just to enjoy the waterfront, just to enjoy the lake. It’s that kind of place.

It’s nice; I like it. I know sometimes maybe you go. It’s a nice place, but it can’t be everything for everyone. It just can’t.

What also concerns me is that there are a whole lot of plans to build a whole lot more housing in that area. When I say this, I think about the development around the Don River. It’s a massive investment—800 hectares. What we’re seeing is plans to build up to 150,000 new homes in that area. The waterfront is already one of the densest residential neighbourhoods in North America, and we’re looking at expanding it. Why would we have and encourage all these people to move down to the waterfront and then turn around and say, “Actually, we’re going put a massive industrial airport right next to where you’re all living.”

It doesn’t make sense. In fact, it feels like a betrayal. Encouraging people to part with their life savings and buy homes on the waterfront and then to strip that away feels like a profound betrayal. Encouraging people to move downtown to a very dense area and then taking away the amenities that make that area attractive—like green space, like Toronto Island and access to the water—feels like a betrayal. It really does.

Great cities are only great—and Toronto is a great city; it has a lot of improvement, but Toronto is a great city. Great cities are only great if they are good for people so that they can live there and also so that they can work, play and enjoy themselves there at the same time. It’s very important, and I feel that some of this, especially when we’re talking about the waterfront, is under threat.

I want to talk a little bit about why the government might be choosing to move forward with this plan. Now, I hear musings about, “Well, there’s a need.” The evidence shows that there is not a need to expand Billy Bishop airport to meet the demands for increased airport traffic. And the reason why I say that is because Pearson airport—we already have a massive airport in the GTA—is undergoing a very large expansion to deal with the proposed increase in air traffic.

Pearson airport has a plan to grow to 65 million annual passengers a year, which is more than enough to meet the capacity for the GTHA—more than enough. Then, on top of that, we now have the Union Pearson Express, which means it’s much easier to get to Pearson airport, even from downtown.

So what is the reason, what is the logic behind expanding Billy Bishop airport? Two things come to mind: Number one, the Premier is obsessed with downtown Toronto. Maybe it is because he wanted to have his private jet available for him to take it from Billy Bishop airport to Muskoka, where his cottage is. Maybe he wanted it for that. Or maybe he wanted it because individuals who are connected to Nieuport and JPMorganChase—the owners of Billy Bishop airport—said, “Look; we need to make some more money.

Can you help us do that?” Because they are logically the only two reasons that I can think of that the government would move forward with this very harebrained, incredibly stupid idea, and both of them don’t make sense. They really don’t.

I want to talk about what we can do to push back against this terrible idea. I’m going to make a bet. I’m going to make a bet that I think that Billy Bishop airport will not be expanded. I had that feeling when the Ontario government made the announcement that they were going to expand the greenbelt, and my instinct told me, “Nah, they’re not going to do that.” It turned out, you didn’t. And my guess is that the Billy Bishop airport is not going to be expanded either, and the reason why is because not only is it a terrible idea, but there are a lot of people who don’t like it.

I also think that there are many opportunities to push for change and to get the Ontario government to back down and not move forward with this idea, and I would like to move to ending my remarks by talking about them. First off, there is the upcoming Scarborough Southwest by-election, which must be held before September, and this provides a very clear opportunity to send a message to the Premier that expanding Billy Bishop airport is an incredibly dumb idea. In fact, I was recently in Scarborough Southwest, knocking on doors.

We were talking to people one-on-one, talking about the Scarborough by-election, and the message that I found worked extremely well—we were actually right along the waterfront—is we said, “Do you know that the Premier has a plan to dramatically expand Billy Bishop airport?” And they would say, “We know.” The residents would say, “Yes, we absolutely know.” And I would say, “Why we’re concerned about it is that they’re looking at sending jets right near here. If you look up, they’re going to be sending them right near here. This is the flight path.” And the residents, by and large, said, “Yes, we know.

We’re really pissed off about it, and we’re not going to be voting for that person.” So Scarborough Southwest is going to be an opportunity to send a really clear message that expanding Billy Bishop airport is not a good idea.

The second opportunity for change is to focus on our Prime Minister, Mark Carney, and the downtown Toronto Liberal MPs. And the reason why it is important to focus on these people—give them an email, call them, try to arrange a meeting—is because this project can only go ahead with federal government approval. I find that the Prime Minister has taken the progressive vote for granted. They have taken the progressive vote for granted, and it is now the time to approach the Prime Minister and the Toronto Liberal MPs and say, “Now is the time for you to stand up for Toronto and oppose and say no and quash the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport. Now is the time.” I think that’s very important.

I also think—I wonder this; I muse this. I’m not entirely sure, but I wonder about this. I think about all the developers that are looking at building very large condos along the waterfront or who are looking at selling off property that they’re having difficulty in selling off because the condo market has changed.

I think those individuals really should be placing a call to the Premier right now and saying, “Hey, I don’t think this airport is a very good idea, because if you’re going to build this airport, it means it’s going to be even tougher for me to sell these condos, because not many people want to spend a lot of money buying a condo right next to a major industrial airport.” I hope some of your donors are contacting you and asking questions. I hope some of these developers are contacting you and asking questions, saying, “This is not a good idea. Economically, this is this is not a good idea.”

The final reason why I think that we have a chance of winning this thing is because the Premier is tanking in the polls. You’ve still got a way to go, but you’re tanking in the polls. I have used the word “Teflon” to describe the Premier before. He’s remarkably good at getting away with a whole lot of stuff. But this whole jet thing really didn’t work well for you. Buying a private jet, secretly, in the middle of an affordability crisis was a very bad move because it undercut this myth that Doug Ford, the Premier, is a common man and he’s for the people.

Because everyday people do not think to themselves, “I really want a $28.9-million jet so I can fly from Billy Bishop airport to my cottage in Muskoka.” They just don’t. So it revealed the man behind the curtain.

It surprises me, given all the scandal with the jets and the polling showing that this is really not a good look for the Premier, it really, really surprises me that you would use this opportunity to introduce a bill to keep jets in the news even longer. It doesn’t even make sense. Why would you do that? Why wouldn’t you just wait? I don’t even understand it. It doesn’t make sense. Because now the Billy Bishop airport and this fight is forever twinned with the Premier and his obsession with his private luxury jet, and that’s not a good look.

I’m going to be concluding my remarks now. I want to thank once again all the citizens who are here today. It’s not easy to take time out of your day to be here, to listen, to get through security, to fight, but I feel a lot of hope that we are going to win this one, I really do. I think we’re going to win this one.

I want to conclude with a quote from Jane Jacobs, who has been in this fight before. Toronto urbanist Jane Jacobs said that you must win a fight three times. The NoJetsTO campaign has already beaten back attempts to expand the airport in 2003 and 2015. Let me tell you: Now it is time to win again.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Questions?

Mr. Will Bouma: To all the people that are visiting today, thank you very much for joining us. I appreciate you making your voices heard.

To the members opposite, it seems that just a few years ago—very, very short, although it’s been a while now—we were talking about the Ontario Line that the Premier was envisioning. I remember that the opposition in those days was saying the exact same things that they are today: “It can never happen. It will never happen. It’s impossible.” Today, Speaker, the Ontario Line is being built.

I think that’s one of the reasons why I so enjoy being a part of a government that has a Premier who’s a visionary, who dreams. He doesn’t see what the world looks like today, but can dream about what the world could look like.

To me, coming from my riding, I understand the fear that the constituents can experience about the unknown, about what it could look like. Change is the one constant in life.

I guess my question to the opposition members is: Will you be voting for this bill or against this bill, for the future of Ontario or against the future of—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the member from Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: Boy, if you’re asking that question, you didn’t listen to our speeches.

First of all, you’re rewriting history here. The Ontario Line—

Interjections.

Mr. Chris Glover: The member is rewriting history here. The NDP was in favour of the Ontario Line. We need more transit in the city. What we were opposed to is a P3, because this is a private-public partnership. That’s exactly what happened with the Eglinton Crosstown, why it became a big boondoggle with the LRT in Ottawa, the LRT in Hamilton. They were all P3 projects, so private control and ownership, but public money. Instead of the government just hiring a contractor to build a hospital or build a transit system, they keep it off the government’s books so it doesn’t show up on their deficit.

The Ontario Line, we’re in favour of it. But the Auditor General says P3 projects—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further questions?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Before I ask my question, I too want to welcome and thank everyone who has come down today to hear the debate. It’s a fairly critical one for the future of this city.

My question to the member from Spadina–Fort York: You’ve spoken previously about the economic value of the Toronto waterfront as a tourist attraction and compared it to another world-class premier attraction, Niagara Falls. Could you tell us the value of the waterfront as a tourist attraction and your concerns about this project as it would affect that economic engine?

Mr. Chris Glover: Thank you for that question. If you go down to the waterfront on any day of the year, particularly a warm day in the summer, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people going down. They’re catching a ferry or a water taxi over to the islands. There are people from the Harbourfront Centre getting in canoes and kayaks and kayaking over to the islands. There are people listening to concerts at the Harbourfront Centre, or at the music garden, or at the Budweiser Stage. There are people biking, walking, jogging along the Martin Goodman Trail. It is Canada’s premier, number one tourist destination.

If the Premier has his way and they’re landing jets, flying jets by every two to three minutes, you will not be able to hear anybody there and you will be in a constant cloud of jet fumes. It would destroy Canada’s number one tourist destination. That’s why we’re opposing this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further questions?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Welcome to the beautiful Pink Palace to all the islanders and waterfront residents. I represent beautiful Beaches–East York, also on the waterfront. But I do recognize that Toronto Island is a gem, an absolute gem, and we need to keep it that way.

I love listening to my colleague from Spadina–Fort York speak. I think his nickname is “the professor.” You learn something new every time, and I like the way you laid out your speech.

I would add that, in addition to speaking to the federal government and the MPs, also speak to the mayor of Toronto. It takes a village.

So what do you think actually is the obsession of this Premier with the Toronto waterfront? There’s the Ferris wheel. There’s the rumoured casino, Ontario Place and now the island. What is the obsession—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I recognize the member for Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: I think the Premier’s obsession with the Toronto waterfront is it’s just a piece of real estate to him. When he became the Premier, he thought that all of Ontario’s property that belongs to the people of Ontario through the government was his personal property to do whatever he wants with. And that’s what he did: He sold off the Hearn gas plant to his friend Cortellucci for $16 million, for 16 acres of downtown property. He was going to give the foundry away in a backroom deal to the De Gasperis family—all of his donors. And then the Ontario Place scandal—everything he looks at is just a real estate scandal.

It’s not just those ones. All of the property along the 413 and the Bradford Bypass had been bought up—just before he announced those highways—by friends and donors of the Conservative government. So I think he sees the waterfront as just a real estate opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further questions?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I was listening to the member from University–Rosedale speaking about the Pearson airport construction that’s going on. She was speaking about Ontario Place, what’s going on there, and the island as well.

Now, why would all this be going on in Ontario? That means more people are coming to Ontario, so we need to move these people much quicker. Why are you against all these well-paying construction jobs, unionized jobs, in the province of Ontario? Are you anti-union workers?

Ms. Jessica Bell: That’s a silly question. The NDP was founded by workers. We were founded by workers. We stand for an increase in the minimum wage. We stand for making it easier to join a union. Unions were integral to creating a middle class in Ontario, and I’m very concerned about what this government is doing with economic inequality right now.

Pearson airport has plans to increase its capacity so it can manage 65 million annual passengers a year. That is more than enough to meet the growing demand for air travel for the GTHA and beyond.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further questions? I recognize the member from Niagara West.

MPP Wayne Gates: I want to say that I’m from Niagara Falls.

I was actually surprised when I heard this morning that 24 million visitors go to the island. That’s eight million more than Niagara Falls, and we want to destroy it by putting jets in it. It makes no sense.

To the member over there, thanking the people for being here as you cut their hearts out on what they’ve loved for all these years, making sure the environment is good: What did you guys do? No consultation—none. No plan. No future here. You should be caring about these residents, taxpayers. It’s public land. It’s public land. We don’t need more jets. Ask Spirit Airlines how they’re doing today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I’ll go to the member from Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: I appreciate the comments/question from the member from Niagara Falls. But you know what? He’s right: Niagara Falls is Canada’s best-known tourist destination by far, and it’s a wonderful tourist destination. Every time I go there, I’m actually struck in awe by just how enormous that is, how big the volume of water is and how much fun you can have while you’re walking around.

But the waterfront is Canada’s number one tourist destination. That has been built up through billions of taxpayer dollars. That has made it a great place to live and is making it a better place to live every year as they expand and build new parks and new waterfront attractions, new festivals down there. So let’s save the Toronto waterfront. That’s what we’re fighting for on this side of the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further questions?

MPP Bill Rosenberg: Speaker, we know our strong economy supports our health care and education systems. The Leader of the Opposition has called this legislation reckless, yet this project would support approximately 23,000 construction jobs, generate up to $140 billion in economic output over 25 years, increase competition, and give travellers more choice and more affordable options.

Speaker, through you, I ask the member opposite: Do you believe creating thousands of good-paying jobs and strengthening Ontario’s economy is reckless, or are they simply opposed to building the infrastructure our growing province needs?

Mr. Chris Glover: So first of all, the numbers that the member is giving are wrong, because the Billy Bishop airport is just going to be competing with Pearson. We’re already investing billions of dollars to expand Pearson airport without destroying the waterfront. So let’s invest in the jobs. Let’s create the jobs there. Let’s invest the money there, rather than destroying the downtown Toronto waterfront.

And when a government member says that they’re going to generate a strong economy to invest in housing and health care, they are not. They’re bankrupting all our schools and colleges and universities.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): We’ll move to members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Project Give Back

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: I rise today to recognize an organization that is truly shaping the next generation of compassionate leaders: Project Give Back, founded in 2007 by educator Ellen Schwartz, who co-founded Jacob’s Ladder, honouring her son Jacob and raising millions of dollars towards neurodegenerative illness. Ellen is a remarkable woman who has also written two best-selling books.

Project Give Back began in a single classroom and has grown into a deeply impactful initiative in schools across our communities. I am especially pleased to share that Ellen and members of her team are here with us in the gallery today, and we’re so glad to have you here.

Project Give Back runs during the school year, offering engaging lessons for elementary students. Through discussion, presentations and critical thinking, students build confidence, empathy and a strong sense of community.

What makes this program so special is that students focus on the charitable causes that matter to them, creating a shared experience where everyone learns and grows together, and they also give back to their communities. Along the way, meaningful connections are formed, and students are motivated, challenged and inspired through their own personal journey.

I’m also looking forward to attending their appreciation event next week. Project Give Back reminds us that leadership and community begins with kindness and action.

Sexual violence and harassment

MPP Lisa Gretzky: Today is Red Dress Day for murdered and missing Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month, a time to recognize the profound impact of sexual violence and recommit to prevention, support and justice. While still under-reported, data shows a rise in sexual assaults, underscoring that this crisis is widespread. Behind every statistic is a person whose safety, dignity and trust have been violated.

This government must respond with more than platitudes. That means strengthening survivor-centred supports, improving access to trauma-informed care and ensuring our legal system delivers justice and accountability.

Lydia’s Law, introduced by my colleague from Waterloo, reflects an important step in enhancing protections, closing gaps and better supporting those navigating the aftermath of assault. We brought forward the Intimate Partner Violence Epidemic Act, which acknowledges IPV is an epidemic, requiring coordinated and sustained action across sectors.

Yesterday, my colleague from Waterloo questioned the Attorney General about the Sloka verdict. The judge acquitted Dr. Sloka of 48 counts of sexual assault, saying each patient was “unreliable” and “deliberately dishonest.”

The Attorney General’s response mirrored the ingrained, systemic barriers survivors face. He diminished and discredited the seriousness of the question and shifted blame to my colleague and survivors for the government’s failure to act.

Last year, this Conservative government shut down debate on Lydia’s Law. Survivors robbed of justice were also robbed of their voice in this Legislature. Ending sexual violence is not the responsibility of survivors; it is a collective responsibility that we take seriously.

Special Olympics Canada Summer Games

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: I rise today to recognize the incredible athletes of Team Ontario as they prepare to compete at the Special Olympics Canada Summer Games in Medicine Hat this August. The Special Olympics provides individuals with disabilities an important opportunity to highlight their talents, show that they can contribute meaningfully and play such an important and crucial role in all of our communities. These athletes embody the very best of Ontario. Their dedication, discipline and perseverance are truly inspiring.

I recently had the privilege of meeting some of these outstanding individuals in Ajax who will be competing as part of the rhythmic gymnastics team. I can say with confidence that they are ready to represent Ontario with pride.

I’d also like to thank Donna Edwards for her tireless role in Durham region supporting Special Olympics, for making these opportunities possible. These athletes’ commitment to excellence is something we can all admire.

The Special Olympics reminds us that sport is not just about competition. It’s about showing up for one another, breaking down barriers and celebrating achievement. To Team Ontario, know that your province is behind you every step of the way. We’re cheering you on and wish you the very best of luck. Thank you to all the athletes, coaches, parents and organizers. Good luck.

Community Care Durham

Mr. Lorne Coe: Organizations like Community Care Durham play a vital role in supporting seniors and other residents across the region. That’s why I was pleased to recently announce, in Whitby, an investment of $361,000 from the Ministry of Health for Community Care Durham. Through structured programs, meaningful activities and social connections, Community Care Durham helps reduce isolation, supports independence and promotes overall health and well-being, while also providing much-needed respite and support for families, volunteers and caregivers.

Speaker, by strengthening these programs, our government, under the leadership of Premier Ford and health minister Sylvia Jones, allows more local seniors and their loved ones to connect for the compassionate services and supports they need in Whitby and other parts of the region of Durham.

I’m pleased to share this information with the other members of the chamber today.

519Pursuit

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I rise today to speak about an incredible local organization in London, the 519Pursuit. What began with a simple but powerful act of kindness—a Crock-Pot of soup shared with people experiencing homelessness—has since grown into a vital non-profit organization that provides support, care and friendship to the most marginalized members of our community.

The 519Pursuit’s mission is clear: to offer a friendship-based approach to individuals facing housing insecurity, financial hardship and social isolation. They provide daily meals, clothing, care packages and much more. They deliver over 1,000 meals each week and have collected hundreds of thousands of socks for those in need.

Recently, I had the honour of attending Together at the Table, the 519Pursuit’s inaugural charity dinner. It was an inspiring event where community members came together not just to share a meal, but to share stories, experiences and a profound sense of belonging. It reminded me of the strength of community and how vital it is to create spaces where everyone feels seen, heard and valued.

What started as a small act of kindness has now become a place of hope and empowerment. The 519Pursuit isn’t just providing services; they’re offering a future, helping people transform their lives, building relationships and creating a community where everyone can thrive.

I’m proud to support the 519Pursuit for the extraordinary work they do in our community by providing dignity, opportunity and hope to those who need it most.

Rotary Club of Cambridge (Preston-Hespeler)

Ms. Jess Dixon: I rise today to congratulate the Rotary Club of Cambridge, Preston-Hespeler branch, on its 100th anniversary. I attended the celebration this past weekend.

The club was chartered back in 1926 and has since spent a century living its motto of “service above self” in our community in Cambridge. Generations of Rotarians have built and maintained the Whitney Boardwalk in Riverside Park. They’ve partnered with Cambridge Memorial Hospital and KidsAbility. They’ve funded bursaries for students and for Cambridge students with physical disabilities, and have stepped in directly to help local families with things like accessible vehicles. Their work also reaches well beyond our national borders, with them supporting health care and education in Tanzania, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic.

As they enter their second century, the club has taken on one of the urgent issues currently facing our region: human trafficking. Through their End Human Trafficking Committee and many community partners, they’re working to support survivors and raise awareness in Waterloo region.

I want to highlight, in particular, their human trafficking awareness event on June 17 at Tapestry Hall, which I will be speaking at as well. I encourage members and the broader community to attend.

To President Keith Peers and all of the members, thank you. Cambridge is stronger, kinder and more accessible because of 100 years of your work. Here’s to the next century.

Toronto waterfront

Mr. Chris Glover: We’re debating about the future of the waterfront here, and the weather is getting warmer. I just want to reach out to people from across this province to come down this summer and visit Canada’s number one tourist destination. It’s the waterfront in downtown Toronto.

You can visit one of five new parks: Sugar Beach, Toronto Music Garden, Love Park, HTO Park, and Biidaasige Park, which is the most recently opened park. It is honestly the most fun park I’ve ever taken a child to. You don’t just play in the sand there; they actually have running water, and the kids can play in the mud. There are also ziplines. You can zipline, and it’s safe; they’re fairly low ziplines. But kids as young as five and six can zipline like 50, 60 metres. It’s an incredible place.

But also, come to the Toronto Islands, to the Centreville theme park, to Hanlan’s Point, to Tommy Thompson Park, to any of the beaches—Ward’s Island beach, Hanlan’s beach.

Come and visit. And what are you going to do when you come to the Toronto Waterfront? Well, come for, of course, the CNE, the Caribbean Carnival, the Toronto International Dragon Boat Festival. But also come for the Toronto Waterfront Festival, for the Luminato Festival. Come and take a boat tour or rent a kayak or a canoe at the Harbourfront Canoe and Kayak Centre, and paddle over to the islands.

There is so much to do in Canada’s number one tourist destination, the waterfront in downtown Toronto. I invite people from across the province to come down this summer.

Police services

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: This week, we are proud to host a policing recruitment symposium in Markham, in partnership with the York Regional Police. This symposium is about creating meaningful pathways for youth and community members to explore careers in policing.

This is an opportunity to connect directly with the YRP, to learn about the profession and understand the meaning of policing today beyond the uniform.

We are especially focused on encouraging young people from under-represented communities to see policing as a respectful skill- and community-driven profession. For many families, policing may not have been seen as an immediate career choice. They may not have encouraged it, but that has changed.

Speaker, I am pleased to welcome Superintendent Chirag Bhatt from district 5, along with the YRP team, Staff Sergeant Andy Gill and communicator Aakarsha Datta for their commitment to community engagement, clearly represented in their presence today.

Policing today depends on compassion, communication, cultural understanding and commitment to community safety. That’s why our government, under Premier Doug Ford’s leadership, is fully covering tuition for basic constable training at the Ontario Police College. This is how we build the community to focus on policing in Ontario.

Sexual violence and harassment

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: Last week, I visited the Sexual Assault Support Centre of Waterloo Region, where survivors met for support regarding the sexual assault trial of Jeffrey Sloka. Between 2010 and 2017, women went to see Sloka at a neurology clinic at Grand River Hospital to address migraines, seizures and brain injuries. Instead, they faced violations and abuse of power.

On April 24, Sloka was acquitted of all 48 charges of sexual assault. Survivors are left shaken, shocked and retraumatized by the verdict. They shared that court delays held their lives hostage; that, on the stand, they were belittled and badgered; and that the whole process negatively affected their mental health. Judge Perry’s verdict said that the testimony of every single one of the 48 women was unreliable. This verdict comes nine years after complaints were made to the CPSO, seven years after charges were laid, five years after the court trial began and 15 years after some of the women first experienced harm.

Mr. Sloka’s medical licence has been revoked, which prevents further harm, but we can do better than that. We know that only 6% of survivors report the abuse they have experienced, and of that 6%, only 10% of charges laid end in a guilty verdict.

I say to the survivors today, you are worthy and your voice matters. And I say to the Attorney General, please make the systemic changes like those recommended in the Renfrew county inquest so that when survivors share their story—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Members’ statements?

Thornhill Community Health Centre

Ms. Laura Smith: I rise today to highlight an exciting new partnership in my riding of Thornhill. It’s a collaboration that reflects the best of our community now taking shape at the Thornhill Community Health Centre, where Reena and Concord Family Health are coming together to deliver compassionate, inclusive and community-driven care.

Reena, under the leadership of Bryan Keshen, has long been a pillar of support for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and under the leadership of Dr. Surkont, Concord Family Health brings that same commitment, ensuring individuals and families can access the primary care they need.

This new community health project is part of our government’s primary care action plan where we are investing, just in Thornhill, $1.9 million this year to connect over 4,400 people to primary care in Thornhill, and this is all happening locally at the Promenade mall. It’s very exciting.

I want to recognize the incredibly generous donors for this project, including Harry Lebovic, who showed up for our announcement last week. Together, they are creating something truly meaningful: a health care hub that ensures our most vulnerable, including seniors and individuals who are neurodiverse, are supported, understood and cared for. Speaker, this new hub represents the very best of Thornhill: compassion, collaboration and commitment to lifting each other up.

I want to thank our Premier and the Minister of Health for their leadership in this incredible new primary care health hub.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It gives me great pleasure to welcome individuals from CNIB, including Suzanne Decary-van den Broek, senior VP of programs; Keya Osborne, the director of disability justice; and the Honourable Dr. Asha Seth. I’m very much looking forward to our meeting today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lee Fairclough: In recognition of May as Vision Health Month, I would also like to welcome representatives from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind: Diane Bergeron and Gabriella Rabaa, also the Honourable Dr. Asha Seth, Larissa Proctor, Alice Clark, and guide dogs Tulip and Carla. Welcome to your House.

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: I want to welcome Project Give Back to Queen’s Park: Ellen and Jeff Schwartz are here, Jody Kimelman, Andrea Hecht, Melanie Levcovich. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I’m pleased to welcome folks from CNIB: Dr. Asha Seth, Suzanne Decary-van den Broek, Keya Osborne, Rhonda Underhill-Gray and Raidah Saraf.

Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to also say hello to my grand-nugget. Today is her sixth birthday. I’m really looking forward to getting home to celebrate.

Applause.

Mr. Lorne Coe: I’d like to welcome two guests from Northern College: Kraymr Grenke, who is the chair of the board of directors at the college, and president Mitch Dumas. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to welcome to the House, from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Melanie Burgess, Larissa Proctor, Alice Clark, and the Honourable Dr. Asha Seth.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I’d like to welcome, visiting from Unifor, Melissa Wood, Gwen Campbell, Nicole Cayer and Ramon Souto and Chanza Falconer. Welcome. I look forward to meeting with you.

I also would like to welcome, from the CNIB, Dr. Asha Seth, Patrick Milne, Raidah Saraf and Rhonda Underhill-Gray, who I want to also thank for introducing me to Braille Lego. Thank you very much and welcome.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’d like to say hello to Hitarth Chauhan, a page from Kitchener Centre, and his mom, Hilor Patahk. And I want to say congrats to Minister Flack on becoming a grandpa.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Members, not only is he a grandfather, but he’s a grandfather of two beautiful twin girls.

Applause.

MPP Bill Rosenberg: I’d like to introduce long-time friend Joanne Marck from Algoma, and my better half, Jeannine.

Applause.

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: I’m happy to welcome the mayor, members of council and senior staff from the town of Erin to Queen’s Park today. Welcome.

L’hon. Caroline Mulroney: C’est un grand plaisir d’accueillir à Queen’s Park, pour la première fois, Éric Duhaime, le chef du Parti conservateur du Québec, et Cédric Lapointe. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I will be adding 30 seconds to the clock, just so you know, because we had a few clapping.

I acknowledge the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I’d like to welcome delegates from the Ontario Motor Coach Association who are visiting Queen’s Park, specifically Ray, Nick and Sash. Thank you, and welcome.

Mr. Adil Shamji: This morning, I wish to welcome the CNIB to our house, notably, the honourable Dr. Asha Seth, Suzanne Decary-van den Broek and Keya Osborne. Welcome.

Hon. Neil Lumsden: I’d like to welcome visitors joining us today from the Bruce Trail Conservancy, an organization dedicated to protecting Ontario’s most treasured natural assets, and especially CEO Michael McDonald and his team—a huge team, I understand—today for all the work that you do and continue to do. They are inviting everyone at 5 o’clock to join them at the reception, and there will also be a picture on the staircase after question period.

Mr. Will Bouma: I would like to welcome my great friend Delia Reiche to the House today. Thank you for the meeting this morning with your economic development colleagues.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I’m so honoured to introduce seven fabulous guests here at Queen’s Park today: Melanie Burgess, Larissa Proctor, Alice Clark, Christall Beaudry and Paul Hamilton from CNIB; and former Senator Honourable Dr. Asha Seth and her husband, Arun Seth. Thank you for your service to our people, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Unfortunately, we are out of time for introduction to visitors. A reminder: You can also—and to our guests who are here—come back at 1 o’clock for introduction of visitors.

Before we move on to another introduction, I just wanted to bring to the attention of the House that there is a new display on the first floor, just outside my office, on the east side. I want to shout out to the team at public relations and protocol for putting this together.

MPP athletes

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): We have, sitting in this chamber today, four MPPs who have had a remarkable career in sport: The member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore played on the Canadian women’s rugby team; the member for Simcoe–Grey is a two-time Olympic athlete who competed in rowing; the member for Haldimand–Norfolk is an accomplished kickboxer who holds a black belt in martial arts; and the member for Hamilton East–Stony Creek played for the Edmonton Eskimos in an incredible, successful career in the CFL.

I’m so proud of all of you.

Remarkable Women at Queen’s Park

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Colleagues, I want to mention that in 2025, you will remember that I launched the Remarkable Women in the Workplace initiative, a monthly recognition program celebrating the outstanding women who work for the Office of the Assembly. These individuals exemplify dedication, professionalism and leadership in their roles, and this initiative is a small but meaningful way to honour their contributions to the Legislature.

Today, I am pleased to draw your attention to the Speaker’s gallery and introduce our newest honouree. Roberta Mabee is an editor from Hansard Publications and Language Services. Roberta’s dedication, leadership and commitment to fostering a supportive workplace make her highly deserving of this recognition.

She actively builds connections across branches by organizing knowledge-sharing sessions, supports colleagues by training new staff and creates opportunities for team engagement and learning. Her contributions to staff initiatives and branch-wide activities reflect her commitment to service, inclusion and organizational excellence.

Joining Roberta in the Speaker’s gallery is her mother, Gina Tucci.

On behalf of all members and staff, I extend our heartfelt congratulations and gratitude to Roberta. Thank you for your remarkable service.

Applause.

Visitor

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Also in the Speaker’s gallery is our new chaplain, Cindy Manohararaj. Thank you also for joining us today.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): If I can ask our pages to assemble by the Clerks’ desk. Thank you very much.

Members, our new group of pages includes, from Northumberland–Peterborough South, Ashmitha Ajenthuran; from Toronto–St.

Paul’s, Michaela Beer; from Parkdale–High Park, Kieran Campbell; from Brampton Centre, Aneet Kaur Chahal; from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, Maidah Chaudhary; from Kitchener Centre, Hitarth Chauhan; from Scarborough North, Yunxi “Juliana” Chen; from London North Centre, Sienna Chung; from Thornhill, Alyson Guan; from Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill, Evalyn Ho; from Durham, Kaleigh Ireland; from Barrie–Innisfil, Daniel Kotchetkov; from Don Valley North, Tej Maini; from Don Valley East, Owen Morton; from Pickering–Uxbridge, Devin Rajkumar; from Sudbury, Onyioza Salawu; from Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Azaad Sekhon; from Scarborough–Rouge Park, Aarav Sujeevan; from Mississauga–Malton, Johanan Wong; and from Markham–Unionville, Jason Wu.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Applause.

Opposition day motion

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Members, on May 4, 2026, the member for Sudbury raised a point of order relating to the “same question rule” described in standing order 55. The member sought clarification as to whether Bill 104,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2023 with respect to personalized algorithmic pricing is out of order given the defeat of opposition day motion number 3, moved by the leader of the official opposition on April 20, 2026. The third party House leader spoke to the point of order, as did the leader of the third party, who is sponsor of Bill 104.

Standing order 55 states, “No motion or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can be again proposed during the same session.” As I explained in a ruling I gave on December 11 last year on the application of the same question rule to two bills containing identical provisions, this rule exists to protect the time of the House and to avoid putting the House at risk of making contradictory decisions in the same session.

In considering this point of order, I reviewed our precedents and consulted the relevant parliamentary authorities, and found that the threshold for similarity is quite high. In a ruling on December 8, 1997, which can be found on page 860 of the journals, the Deputy Speaker explained that “if a matter before the House is not substantially the same, or identical, to one already decided upon, it is not prohibited from being considered.” That same ruling also states that “there are many examples of debates on variations of the same or similar subject matters being debated more than once in a session.”

Furthermore, in explaining the same question rule, the fourth edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice notes on page 496 that “a motion on a topic similar to the topic of another motion already negatived or adopted is admissible, provided it is different enough to constitute a new question.”

The question before us, then, is whether opposition day motion number 3 and Bill 104 are similar enough to be considered substantially the same.

Opposition day number 3 called upon the government “to ban surveillance pricing practices that misuse personal data to unfairly inflate prices and ensure a fair and affordable price for groceries and other goods and services.” It also offered six separate statements in justification for this call on the government, referring to corporations and other governments by name in making a case for the motion’s request.

Bill 104, in contrast, seeks to amend the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and Consumer Protection Act, 2023, in order to add “personalized algorithmic pricing” to both acts as a prohibited unfair practice.

Where opposition day number 3 called on the government to act in face of a number of conditions, Bill 104 offers a specific legislative proposal to achieve a policy change. Although they relate to the same subject matter, I am not convinced that they have proposed the same question to the House for its consideration and decision.

For these reasons, I do not find that Bill 104 is out of order.

Thank you for your attention.

I call upon the member of the third party on a point of order.

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you very much for your ruling. I appreciate it greatly. I am disappointed, though, that the Leader of the Opposition would use procedure to try to eliminate a bill that she agreed with.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): That is not a point of order. I’m disappointed that it was raised as a point of order.

Red Dress Day

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Kiiwetinoong on a point of order.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House for a moment of silence to honour all missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people on this national day of awareness and remembrance, also known as Red Dress Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member from Kiiwetinoong is seeking unanimous consent of the House for a moment of silence to honour all missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people on this national day of awareness and remembrance known as Red Dress Day. Agreed? Agreed.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): You may take your seats.

Question Period

Student assistance

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Last week, the Premier took some time to fly a private plane down to Michigan, collect a free degree and address a group of American students.

But there’s a group of students that this Premier won’t face, a group of students that this Dr. Premier has turned his back on. They are the students here in the province of Ontario, the same students whose future he is destroying with his cuts to OSAP.

What’s up, Doc? Why is this Premier giving speeches to American students in Michigan, but refusing to speak to students here at home?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question, and I know that the parliamentary assistant will be pleased to take the supplementary.

Yesterday, we saw the Leader of the Opposition invoke dangerous American-style Trumpian rhetoric that, quite frankly, has no place in this Legislature—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the government House leader.

I’m warning members now. The behaviour will be respectful in the chamber, or members will be warned and asked to leave.

You may continue.

Hon. Steve Clark: Thanks, Speaker. Again, through you, that type of rhetoric lowers the tone in this House. It has no place in this Legislature, our province or our country.

I want to make it very clear what the Premier is focused on. He’s focused on this generational threat that we have with the Americans on the tariffs. We will continue to focus on the economy and on jobs. That’s the Premier’s mandate. That’s our government’s mandate.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, Speaker, pretty rich coming from a government that is under RCMP criminal investigation.

I’ll go back to the Premier on this. On this side of the House, when there were thousands of students assembled on the front lawns just outside, we went out and we met with them. We spoke to them. We listened to them.

But the Premier, he hid. He refused to show his face in person. Instead, he went to the media. He insulted students. He told them what classes they should and shouldn’t take, as if he had aced a single college class.

Can the Premier tell us, during his speech to the American students in Michigan, did he insult those American students in the same way that he insulted the students here at home?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Whitby.

Mr. Lorne Coe: Our new grant-to-loan ratio is right in line with other provinces. OSAP loans are not like standard bank loans. These loans do not accrue interest while the student is in school. There is a six-month grace period on repayment after graduation, and the interest that does accrue is extremely low, at prime plus 1%.

On top of that, Speaker, our government offers numerous programs that financially support students, like the Ontario Learn and Stay Grant, which, since its introduction, has provided over $173 million to cover the tuition—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Spadina–Fort York has been warned.

Continue.

Mr. Lorne Coe: —books and other educational costs of more than 12,800 nursing, medical lab and paramedic students across Ontario.

Speaker, higher education is an investment students make in themselves and their future. Our government will—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Ms. Marit Stiles: That response just shows you again that this government is not listening to students or families. If the Premier had listened to students in Ontario, he would have heard from the thousands who are dropping out of school because of his OSAP cuts: regular working people whose plans are shot, whose choices are either drop out now or take on decades of debt.

While he’s jetting off to the US to get a free degree—which is, by the way, nice for him, but not so nice for the people of Ontario who are footing the bill for that—here’s the kicker: We have record unemployment for youth in the province of Ontario. Some 700,000 Ontarians are unemployed right now, and it is one in five young people.

So tell us, Premier: When are you going to stand up for students here at home and reverse your OSAP cuts?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Speaker, when we took office, Ontario had the highest tuition in Canada, a direct result of the previous Liberal government hiking tuition by 48%. Now, our government cut tuition by 10%, and we froze it, making post-secondary education more affordable for students and hard-working families across the province.

Now the landscape has changed, largely because of destabilizing federal policy decisions that have shaken the post-secondary systems across Canada. That’s why we’re allowing institutions to increase tuition by up to 2%, keeping Ontario among the lowest tuition growth rates in the country.

And let me be clear, absolutely clear: Low-income students will see this increase fully covered through our enhanced student access guarantee, ensuring—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the Leader of the Opposition.

Hospital funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, Speaker, I tell you, the people of Ontario are not buying that.

I want to go back to the Premier again, because this Premier ran on a promise to end Liberal-era hallway health care. They were calling it, at the time, an epidemic, and we knew at the time, of course: staff stretched too thin, patients receiving care in hallways.

Eight years later, it is so much worse. Patients are not only being treated in hallways, but now they are being treated in broom closets. There are twice as many people being treated in hallways than there were when this government, when this Premier, took office. So why has the Premier let hallway health care become twice as bad under his watch?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I’m happy to speak about the investments we’ve been able to make across our health care system, whether it is a $3.4-billion enhancement to primary care—

Interjections.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: In the last year alone, we have seen 330,000 people who didn’t have a primary care provider, who now have that primary care provider.

Even as Ontario’s population increases, we have seen investments in our hospital systems where, currently, we have already added 3,500 new hospital beds to our hospital system, but we are on track to actually add an additional 3,000 hospital beds to our hospital system.

Those changes make a difference to the people of Ontario, and we’re going to continue to do that work.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, I’ve got to say, tell that to the people of Clinton. The hospital in Clinton was closed again last weekend. They had the worst record of closures in the province last year, and the people there—let’s be very clear: the health care workers on the front line are doing their very best to make it work, but the government has done nothing to help them.

People are sitting in emergency rooms right now for 10 hours, 12 hours, 18 hours, only to look up and see some ad on the TV gaslighting them, telling them how this government is fixing the problem. He can’t convince them, this Premier, with ads when they are experiencing these delays themselves.

So will the government stop gaslighting Ontarians and actually fix the—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Will the member withdraw? I’ll ask the member to withdraw.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Health.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I’m sure eventually they’ll figure out which side of the issue they want to be on.

Listen, we have done scope of practice expansions where now we have seen 2.4 million people access primary care options outside of a hospital system. Why does that matter to hospitals? Because it means that those less acute patients have options. They don’t always have to go to an emergency department. They can go to other primary care providers. They can go to their local pharmacy. And since we’ve put that policy in effect, we’ve seen 2.4 million people accessing those scope of practice changes.

Those are the innovations that we’re doing. We’re working directly with clinicians to make sure that people have opportunities outside of their local hospitals, which will continue to provide world-class care. But they have to provide and be available to provide acute care.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Back to the Premier: The people have figured you out. While people are waiting in crowded emergency rooms, this Premier is fixated with buying himself a private luxury jet. While people are waiting days, weeks, months for surgeries, the Premier is focused on hiding his phone records.

How has this Premier and this government become so out of touch with the experience of Ontarians?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: How do the NDP members look at themselves and say, “We are going to privately advocate for community paramedicine, for ensuring that there are options for cataract surgery outside of hospitals,” but then, when they come in here and actually vote for those initiatives, they vote against them?

Speaker, on a weekly basis, I am getting lobbied by NDP members asking for enhancements and expansions in their communities, whether it’s youth wellness hubs, whether it’s a HART hub, whether it is individual items that they actually vote against when they come forward for debate and discussion. But then they come and lobby me for them. Which is it? Do you want the enhancements in your community, or do you want to keep sticking with the status quo? I know where our government is going.

Government jet

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Here is what we know about the Premier’s purchase of a $29-million luxury jet: The Premier bought a jet, and then he told us he sold it—no details, no receipts. That’s it—nothing, only the Premier saying, “Trust me.” That’s not good enough. It’s been two weeks—two weeks, no details.

So my question is simple, to the President of the Treasury Board: Can you produce some receipts, and if not, what are you hiding?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you for that applause from the other side.

Madam Speaker, I think the Premier was clear on this. I’ve been clear. The House leader has been clear.

A bit of a shout-out to our House leader, the great MPP for Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes: I was in his community not that long ago, and he took me to Alan Browns. And Alan Browns, on the corner—beautiful. If you’ve ever been to Brockville—a small business in Brockville. I got this tie. I just happen to be wearing this tie today from Alan Browns in Brockville. And do you know what he’s benefiting from? A small business tax cut of 30%. That’s what the people of Ontario care about. That’s what they’re focused on. Some 375,000 jobs will benefit from that tax cut. It would have been good if the member opposite had supported that tax cut.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The leader of the third party.

Mr. John Fraser: Back to the President of the Treasury Board—but I have to say, I know the government House leader was so happy that he didn’t have to join the conga line that the cabinet was in approving this luxury private jet.

Judging by the minister’s response, we all know how this went down at the Treasury Board, right? The silence speaks all.

Two weeks ago, we learned that the Premier bought himself a luxury private jet. Now, that would have had to go to Treasury Board. It’s a big-ticket item. He can’t expense it, so it had to come to Treasury Board.

So a simple question to the President of the Treasury Board: When did the luxury private jet purchase first come to Treasury Board?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Same answer, Madam Speaker—same answer. The Premier was clear: He listened to the people, and we’ve moved forward.

You know what we are doing for the people of Ontario? We are building Ontario. The infrastructure plan: $236 billion of infrastructure money. You know what that does, Madam Speaker? It would be good for the member opposite to listen. You know what that money does? That puts hundreds of thousands of people to work in this great province, building schools, building hospitals, building highways, building transit, building long-term-care facilities. Madam Speaker, is that not what the people of Ontario want from their government? Put them to work, build Ontario and support this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Leader of the third party.

Mr. John Fraser: Everybody on this front bench, except for the government House leader, said, “Yes, Premier. You deserve a luxury private jet.” And right now, Ontarians—well, they’re just struggling to pay the bills, buy groceries, gas, pay the rent, kids’ clothes. They need to know the details of this extravagant purchase of a luxury private jet—$29 million. They need the receipts. I think that’s fair.

Maybe the President of the Treasury Board can answer this question: Does she agree with the Premier while he’s still saying that buying the luxury private jet was the right thing to do?

Interjection.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you, Minister, first off, for that round of applause.

Madam Speaker, I work day-in, day-out with the President of the Treasury Board. I used to be the President of the Treasury Board. This is the best President of the Treasury Board this government has had, right? Right, okay. We have got a consensus here. She works tirelessly day-in, day-out, protecting taxpayers’ money.

That is why we were able to publish a deficit—one of the lowest deficits in the land; and if you look across the globe, one of the lowest deficits relative to GDP in the developed world. It’s not “either/or,” it’s “and.” You’re able to be fiscally responsible while investing in the infrastructure spend in this province, while building hospitals and schools, while investing in tax cuts for the hard-working people, the hard-working businesses of this province.

Madam Speaker, we’re moving Ontario forward. It’s time for them over there to join us moving Ontario forward.

Government jet

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, back to the President of the Treasury Board—but the finance minister is not asking us to move ahead; they are asking everybody to move on from the luxury private jet, the purchase. They’re saying, “Just move on. Nothing to see here.” There is lots to see here.

To the President of the Treasury Board: You don’t get to spend $29 million of taxpayers’ money in an affordability crisis—or at any time—without any receipts, without any documents, without anybody answering one single question about this.

So simple question, President of the Treasury Board or anybody else who can answer: Will you table the documents related to the purchase of the luxury private jet today?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Madam Speaker, what we are tabling is a plan for Ontario, which includes an HST cut of 13% to get more houses built in Ontario.

You had the opportunity to support that tax cut—and they did not support that tax cut. You know what that is doing? That is making housing more affordable. It’s putting 21,000 construction workers to work on those new house builds. Almost $3 billion additional GDP to the province of Ontario and they said no—can you imagine? They said no to that.

I have got the great Minister of Housing right behind me, and he’s telling me that housing starts and housing activity are booming right now in this province because of our actions.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Leader of the third party.

Mr. John Fraser: We know nothing about this. Who did we buy it from? Who are we actually selling it back to? How much does it cost to operate? Did we hire some pilots? What was the business plan? How was it procured? Whose idea was it? Well, we know it was the Premier’s idea. Every time I mentioned the luxury private jet, I see a bunch of eyes go dead over there, so I’m not sure that everybody over there thinks it was a good idea. I’d just like somebody over there to stand up and say, “You know what? It wasn’t a good idea, but we did it anyway because the boss asked for it.”

Once again, back to the President of the Treasury Board: Will you provide the receipts? Will you table the details around the purchase of the luxury private jet today?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you again to the member opposite for that question. We’re very clear: What are the people of Ontario asking us in our ridings? They want good jobs. They want us to move the economy forward. That’s why we have a plan. Let’s start with the Minister of Energy and Mines: a plan to build energy right across the province; building an energy superpower; $800 billion in extra GDP; 150,000 new construction jobs, including in my riding of Pickering. Thank you to the Minister of Energy for that vision.

While we’re at it, why don’t we talk about critical minerals as well? That same minister is getting permits for shovels in the ground right across the province because we have what the world needs right here in Ontario. And while we’re at it, why don’t we talk about all of the infrastructure, the $236 billion of infrastructure?

Why don’t you stand up and support Ontarians in the construction industry, in housing and beyond?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Leader of the third party.

Mr. John Fraser: If you’re out of work in Windsor, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Amherstburg or Kingston—I could go on and on—you’re saying to yourself, “I don’t know what I’m going to do next.” Then you see the Premier buying a luxury private jet, right? What do you think? They’re not worried about moving forward; they’re wondering what’s in the Premier’s head—what’s in all of your heads—since apparently you all thought it was a great idea. That’s what they want to know. Just provide the receipts. If it was such a good idea, why can’t you be transparent about it?

Speaker, my question, through you, is, if the President of the Treasury Board can’t provide the receipts, can she tell us what we’re all supposed to do?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: The member opposite and all those in the opposition had the opportunity to vote for Bill 97, which was our plan to build Ontario, our budget, and they voted against it.

Let me tell you what they voted against. They voted against tax cuts—tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for HST for building houses, tax cuts for corporations to hire more people. They voted against $236 billion of infrastructure spending. They voted against hiring and supporting labour, retraining and reskilling. They voted against supporting colleges and universities—$6.4 billion. They just voted against all of it.

Madam Speaker, we had 15 years when nothing got built. They taxed everything and built nothing. This government is cutting taxes and building everything.

Land use planning

Mr. Chris Glover: My question is to the Premier. On March 12, the Premier said “the federal government is on board” when he announced he wanted to seize Billy Bishop airport. When did the Premier and Prime Minister Carney begin negotiations to plan the seizure of the Billy Bishop airport, the Toronto Islands and Toronto parks?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: As I said yesterday, when you look across this country, leaders across the country and the province are looking to build legacy infrastructure. When you look at Billy Bishop airport, you have a group of individuals like the NDP that want to shut it down. They want to shut two million passengers out of air travel and access. They want to shut down access to northern Ontario airports.

This is a generational project. When we look across the world, leading jurisdictions, whether that’s New York, Chicago, London, have multiple airports. It makes them more competitive. This project will bring thousands of jobs online for future generations of this province. Today, 4,900 people rely on Billy Bishop for a job. We’re going to continue to ensure its longevity in Toronto and its importance as an asset not only to this province and city but also this country.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Member for Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: This Premier’s legacy is a private jet. This Premier’s legacy is a $2.2-billion Ontario Place scandal, the closure of the science centre and all of the real estate scandals, along the 413 and the Bradford Bypass. That’s this Premier’s legacy, and it looks like the seizure of Billy Bishop airport is yet another billion-dollar boondoggle on the waterfront.

So while the Premier is obsessing over airports and his private luxury jet, residents in places in Toronto—in places like Scarborough—have less transit since the closure of Line 3 three years ago. They face unaffordable rents and long wait times in hospitals. So why are there tax dollars for yet another real estate scandal along the waterfront but not for housing, health care and education?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: We were elected because the status quo was not acceptable. This Premier, our government, were elected on a mandate to build. Every single time, whether it be Billy Bishop, a generational investment; whether it be the Ontario Line, the largest public infrastructure investment in this country’s history, the NDP and the opposition have stood in the way of that progress. Whether it’s the 413 or the Bradford Bypass—projects that will create thousands of jobs for people across this province—the NDP and Liberals have found every excuse to try to stall it, whether it’s through legislation that has been brought forward in this House.

Madam Speaker, we were elected on a mandate to build, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. Whether it’s Billy Bishop, whether it’s the Ontario Line, the Scarborough line, the Yonge North subway extension, whether it’s the 413 or Bradford Bypass, we’re getting shovels in the ground and we’re building for the future.

Public safety

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: My question is to the Solicitor General. Conservatives love to talk tough on crime, but, as we all know, talk is cheap. The reality is, this government has lost control and criminals are running free. Over 150 prisoners have gone missing under their watch, and five—five—are still at large on our streets right now. And what has this government done? Absolutely nothing. Deny, deflect, distract: That’s all this government knows how to do.

So my question to the minister: Why is this government hiding who these escaped criminals are and what crimes they committed?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: Quite the contrary, we’ve done a lot. We inherited a problem, but we didn’t accept it, so we’re fixing it. And I’ll tell the member opposite everything we’ve done: hired over 3,300 new correctional officers, brought thousands of new spaces online, and, unlike the prior government, we actually tell people where and when these spaces will open.

But wait, there’s more. We did something else, Madam Speaker. We put a rigorous program of oversight in place, where the courts speak to the correctional institutions every single day in real time to minimize any improper release. And if there is an improper release—and we’re going to bring that number to zero—the police will issue a public safety announcement. Do you know why they do it? Not to panic our public, but to keep them safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Don Valley North.

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: This answer speaks for itself. The minister can’t even tell us if more have gone missing. Are there more prisoners on the street right now? He can’t even tell us—or he won’t even tell us.

Speaker, these are criminals. Criminals belong behind bars, not on our streets. This is about public safety. This is about the safety of our kids, our parents and our grandchildren, the people we love, the people you promised to protect. After eight long years, this tired, out-of-touch Conservative government is clearly more interested in buying themselves private luxury jets and living the high life while our families live in fear.

So I’ll ask the minister again: Will he commit—yes or no—to releasing full details about the missing prisoners so Ontarians can protect themselves? Because clearly he’s not interested in doing that.

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: Notwithstanding the fact that under the Liberal watch, over 2,000 beds were taken offline in their reign of closing seven jails that they don’t talk about, we decided that, in order to protect Ontario, we will add more spaces and hire thousands of new correctional officers.

But we’ll do something else: We’ll be a tough, law-and-order government, unlike the Liberals that pandered to the criminals—they pandered to them. They had a revolving door. They never once advocated for bail reform, even when they had the chance, and do you know why? Because they believe that it’s better to be soft on crime. That’s how you keep people safe.

We don’t agree with it. We will be tough on crime. Our actions will speak loud, and our words will be great.

Red tape reduction

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Red Tape Reduction. Protecting Ontario means ensuring our economy is strong, competitive and resilient, especially in these economic times. Under the previous Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, red tape piled up, permits stalled and investment ground to a halt. They had years to fix it, and they failed. That is why our government is taking a hard look at how long permits take and where outdated processes are delaying projects and costing jobs.

Speaker, can the minister explain how the Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act, if passed, will deliver targeted red tape reduction while at the same time supporting workers and keeping Ontario’s economy strong, competitive and resilient?

Hon. Andrea Khanjin: Thank you to the great member from Oakville North–Burlington for the hard work she not only does in her riding but the great work she did in trade law, which positions her very well when it comes to reducing interprovincial trade barriers that add red tape.

Speaker, it’s this government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, that’s bringing forth a common-sense approach when it comes to red tape reduction so we can get projects off the ground faster, so we can get people employed faster. We can go from an economy that the Liberals left us of reliance to an economy of resilience, especially in unprecedented times.

It’s through our Team Ontario approach, through the work we’ve done with our ministry of forests, which is bringing the forestry sector and reducing red tape when it comes to innovation and technology. Whether it’s the work our minister of mines is doing to unleash our full economic potential of critical minerals, or our Minister of Health, who’s making sure we put patients above paperwork, Speaker, we will not stop reducing red tape, making sure we have a competitive economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Oakville North–Burlington.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Thank you to the minister for that great answer. The opposition often dismisses the importance of red tape reduction, even though small businesses and workers see the difference on the ground. Under the previous Liberal government, propped up by the NDP, businesses fled Ontario, jobs vanished and paperwork exploded. Ontario became a cautionary tale, and families and workers paid the price.

Under Premier Ford’s leadership, we are cutting bureaucracy, restoring confidence and getting shovels in the ground. Speaker, can the minister outline the real results of our red tape reduction efforts and explain how Ontario’s business community is responding?

Hon. Andrea Khanjin: It was under the Liberal government that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business gave them a C-, the lowest grade when it comes to red tape reduction. Under leadership of this Premier and this government, that grade is now an A.

Speaker, under the Liberals, Ontario was the regulatory capital of Canada. Under Premier Ford, Ontario is now the lowest place in regulatory burden in order to do business. Under the Liberals, they cost individual businesses $33,000 a year. That was $4,000 more annually than any other province in red tape burden. But under this government, under this Premier, we’re saving people and businesses $1.3 billion annually and saving them 1.8 million working hours.

Speaker, what does that mean? It means more time and money for folks to put into their communities, into their businesses and growing our economy so we can be the most competitive in the G7.

Indigenous community safety

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Speaker, red dresses are hanging from trees, windowsills and lapels today. Each represents an Indigenous woman, girl or two-spirited person who should be with us. There are over 4,000 missing or murdered since 1954—mothers, aunties, sisters, daughters, children whose lives were lost to violence and the legacy of colonialism.

Indigenous leaders are calling on us for a red dress alert system. They are asking the government to save lives and bring home the missing. Manitoba has already. When will the Premier implement the red dress alert in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Minister of Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: I appreciate the honourable member’s question. This government, since March 2024, in light of various reports, has taken bold action to protect missing and murdered Indigenous women’s legacy moving forward. It has included $13.5 million over three years to enhance support for women, children, youth, Indigenous and racialized communities who are particularly at risk of violence and exploitation.

It builds on a previous investment of $1.4 billion that includes care units across this province, including one in K