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

May 27, 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-27 vol. A (PDF)

L078A - Wed 27 May 2026 / Mer 27 mai 2026

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 27 May 2026 Mercredi 27 mai 2026

Consideration of Bill 118

Orders of the Day

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

Members’ Statements

Soo Greyhounds hockey team

Worth Fighting For campaign

Barbecue event in Don Valley East / Youth council

Health care

Missing persons

Cambridge RedHawks hockey team

Land use planning

Government investments

Public safety

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Cost of living

Justice system

Curriculum

Special-needs students

Northern airports

School boards / Conseils scolaires

Primary care

Environmental protection

Education funding

Rural Ontario

Police oversight

Education funding

Women’s employment

Northern health services

House sittings

Correction of record

Deferred Votes

Fair Prices and Tax-Free Groceries Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 sur les prix équitables et les produits alimentaires non taxés

Introduction of Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy

Introduction of Bills

CIJ Consulting Inc. Act, 2026

Avant Assets Inc. Act, 2026

Protecting Homeowners from Title Fraud Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 sur la protection des propriétaires de logements contre la fraude sur le transfert des titres de propriété

Fair Start for Young Workers Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 visant à offrir un début de carrière équitable aux jeunes travailleurs

Hot Days, Cool Homes Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 pour des logements frais lors des jours de grande chaleur

Andre’s Law (Bill of Rights for Residents of Supported Group Living Residences), 2026 / Loi André de 2026 (déclaration des droits des résidents de résidences de groupe avec services de soutien)

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Affaires francophones

Petitions

Mental health services

Snowmobiling

Snowmobiling

Social assistance

Sexual violence and harassment

Highway 69

Student assistance

Snowmobiling

Sexual violence and harassment

Billy Bishop airport

Education funding

Student assistance

Private members’ public business

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): Good morning, everyone. Let’s pause for a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

Consideration of Bill 118

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Point of order? I recognize the member for Parkdale–High Park.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: I seek unanimous consent of the House that the member for Toronto Centre be added as a co-sponsor to Bill 118,

An Act to proclaim the month of May as Buddhist Heritage Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): MPP Gilmour is seeking unanimous consent of the House that the member for Toronto Centre be added as a co-sponsor to Bill 118,

An Act to proclaim the month of May as Buddhist Heritage Month. Agreed? Agreed.

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 26, 2026, on the motion for third 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?

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: It’s an honour to rise today on behalf of my residents in Don Valley West to debate Bill 110, the so-called Building Billy Bishop Airport Act.

My residents care about Toronto’s waterfront. They also care about this government’s undemocratic takeover of the city’s role in the tripartite agreement. And they care about the lands around the airport. That’s because they believe in municipal democracy and that cities and the residents should have a say in determining how their communities are shaped. I have had hundreds of emails about this topic, and people are not happy. They know this debate today is about another controversial move and this government’s overreach into the city of Toronto’s affairs.

It is about the Premier’s desire not just to be the Premier of Ontario, but the Premier of Toronto. It’s about the Premier not wanting to give the residents of Toronto a say in any expansion of the Billy Bishop airport. No one asked for this.

It’s not a coincidence that the Premier bought himself a luxury private jet with $28.9 million of taxpayer money—borrowed money, I might add because the government is in a deficit—and that he bought that jet at basically the same time he announced that he wanted to expand Billy Bishop airport, so a jet like his could land there.

This is not about making our city better or making our province better. It’s not about improving the lives of the people who live in Toronto or in the north or anywhere else in Ontario. There is no business case for this expansion, and there is no plan. It’s just another day in Ontario, under the misguided leadership of the self-serving Ford Conservative government.

Speaker, the Premier likes to say he runs the province like a business. What kind of business would you call it—I’m curious—when you don’t negotiate with your partners, but you strong-arm them? Parliamentary language won’t allow me to answer that question, but I think you know where I’m going.

I want to share an excerpt from a letter written by one of my constituents on behalf of the Federation of North Toronto Residents’ Associations, FONTRA. FONTRA “strongly opposes the expansion of Billy Bishop airport, and allowing the introduction of jets. We believe it will destroy the waterfront, a previous asset to the whole city, and removes anticipated housing opportunities to be produced through Waterfront Toronto multi-year planning.

“It overreaches on matters that should remain in the city’s control, and is totally undemocratic. The Ford government has shared little information or analysis on this proposal, which is currently being promoted by private interests. No information has been provided regarding the value to taxpayers resulting from this proposal.”

We heard from David Crombie, Toronto’s “tiny, perfect mayor,” when he spoke about this bill at the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy. He is actually one of the people we have to thank for Toronto’s waterfront. He had the vision many years ago of what Toronto’s waterfront could be, and he actually didn’t strong-arm anyone into it. He worked together with the city, with the province, with the federal government to transform Toronto’s waterfront into the beautiful space that it is today.

Here are a few facts that Mayor Crombie shared with the committee: The waterfront contributes $13 billion to the GDP. It attracts 18 million tourists every year. It leverages more than $10.5 billion in construction value, and generates more than $2.7 billion in taxes.

Speaker, at 90 years old, I’m sure Mr. Crombie would like to retire from public life, assured that the work that he and his colleagues did had set the right precedent for balancing the many uses of the waterfront. Instead, he came to Queen’s Park to say, “Bill 110, Mr. Chair, is a clear and present danger to all of the work that has been done by all of the people for so long. It is unconscionable to us who have been at it all this time that the province, with a wave of its hand, would unilaterally go about destroying it. I am asking you, to whatever strength you command: Please withdraw this bill. It’ll wreck the waterfront.”

But beyond the public’s concerns and the city’s concerns, when you look at this bill closely, four things become very clear: There’s no plan, no business case, no credible economic benefit, and, really, it’s just another example of this government’s overreach into municipal affairs. Let’s break that down.

This is clearly a half-baked idea. There is no plan.

Here’s what the province is doing: They’re expropriating lands from the city which would allow them to build a runway on the lake, to move forward without transparency or informing their partners, and to provide no insight for how the additional 10 million users will actually be able to function in this very small space, this very small airport.

We did hear from a representative from the Toronto Port Authority telling the standing committee that this project will cost between $4 billion and $5 billion—no number from the government. It’s kind of like the 413. They came up with this idea to build a highway, and they won’t tell us how much taxpayer money it’s going to cost to build it. This is the same thing—introduce a bill with a half-baked idea about expropriating land from one of your partners, the biggest city in the country; just come in and strong-arm them, and don’t even talk about what it’s going to cost to build this expanded airport.

Speaker, let’s talk about the connections to the city’s transit infrastructure. Where is the investment in subways or streetcars or regional rail that would be required to support this potential growth that the government is talking about? It’s a whole intricate web down there. You go down to Queen’s Quay and Bathurst, and it is highly congested. It’s an area that a lot of people want to avoid by car. That’s why we’ve got so many cyclists down there, and others using the waterfront—because it’s very congested.

This government has offered no ideas about how to fix what’s already a problem, and this will make it, according to their plans, five times worse. We’ll go from two million passengers a year to 10 million, with no plan for how to move those people around the very busy downtown core.

Maybe the Premier is going to, once again, pave paradise and put up a parking lot, kind of like what we have seen going on at Ontario Place. They’ve decimated it. Will he sacrifice public space, community access, environmental integrity? Well, of course he will, because we see him doing that all over, decimating our conservation authorities, paving over farmland—over 300 acres a day in this province being paved over. The project just doesn’t make sense.

I have asked this before but haven’t really gotten an answer, so I will mention it again here today. I am curious. Which came first, the jet or the airport? As I think about it, I’m thinking they came together. I think the Premier said, “I’m tired of not having my own jet. I want to fly around like my friend Galen, so I’m going to buy a private jet. But do you know what? I need an airport to land it at downtown. And then the OPP will put their sirens on, and we’ll zoom up to Queen’s Park. No problem.” That’s what I think the plan was. Never mind how much it’s going to cost taxpayers. It’s clearly not in the best interests of taxpayers.

This government has added $136 billion to the debt—this from a party that in 2018 campaigned on reducing the debt. They have made it worse. And building this expanded airport will make it even worse.

Let’s talk more about the lack of a business case.

The Ontario Liberal government built the Union Pearson Express, known as the UP, that connects downtown Toronto to an international airport, Pearson, one of the busiest in North America. It remains a piece of infrastructure that people rely on every single day. That $500-million investment now serves four million users a year, and that number continues to grow as more people choose using the UP as opposed to sitting in traffic. So that’s good. It’s good for the environment, it’s good for those commuters—gets them home to their families faster.

That’s more than the number of visitors Billy Bishop sees today annually, and it demonstrates what happens when you do invest with purpose and foresight. That project was not a legacy project. It wasn’t meant to get the Premier from one place in the city to another place faster. It was built with the best interests of Ontarians in mind.

That’s what this government should be doing. That’s what all governments should do. They should be thinking about the best interests of their province, the people who live in the province. And this bill just does not stand up to that smell test.

We see traffic congestion worsening across the GTA. Certainly, in the city of Toronto, they’re very worried about it.

I was at a residents’ association meeting last night. They’ve done a survey of one of the most desirable neighbourhoods in the city, Leaside, and residents there are very concerned about the traffic and the congestion. It took 15 years to get the Crosstown built. That’s finally open, and people are using it, and we hope that will help. But we know that there are a lot of problems. Our city councillor is working hard to do her part to alleviate that.

Let’s just say this were to come true. As I said, two million passengers today, and they say they’re going to multiply that, up to 10 million passengers annually—two million annually up to 10 million annually. That is a significant increase in passengers and people either trying to get in a taxi or an Uber to where they’re going, because there is not good transit at the waterfront. We know that. People are taking buses. People are cycling. It’s a very congested part of the city.

If the government had any ability to come up with a real plan, they would have said, “Hey, do you know what? Here’s what we want to do with the airport, and here’s the plan for the surrounding areas and how we’re going to make sure that the waterfront remains a beautiful place to enjoy, and that it doesn’t harm the economic benefit and the enjoyment of natural space that residents get. Here’s the plan for how we’re going to move all those passengers around.”

It reminds me—one of the reasons I ran was, this government cancelled a plan that the city of Toronto had spent years coming up with called Midtown in Focus. They knew the Crosstown was being built. They came up with a plan to increase density, to make sure that there were sufficient public spaces, sufficient doctors’ offices, all of those things—they had a whole plan that everyone bought in. And then what did this Premier do? He cancelled it.

Now we’ve got buildings going up in my riding—some of the new ones, of course, are paused—and there are big signs on the front of them that say, “If you live in this condo or buy a condo here, your children will not go to school here,” because the schools are full. There’s no plan to build more schools. The schools in that area are full. That’s not good for community building. It’s not good for the people of Toronto.

This is another example of that—no plan, just a hare-brained idea to allow the Premier to fly around like a billionaire. That’s the only thing I can conclude, because the numbers don’t make sense. I’ll get into that more in a minute.

Let’s talk about Pearson. Pearson is being invested in. It’s going to expand. It’s going to attract and serve more passengers. They came up with that plan with the right partners at the table. They didn’t strong-arm anybody, like this government is doing with Billy Bishop. By the early 2030s, Pearson is expected to grow in usage by nearly 20 million additional passengers, double the highest estimate that the government talks about for the expansion of Billy Bishop. That will create jobs, trade, tourism and long-term economic opportunity for the province.

Speaker, even Porter Airlines knows that with the UP Express, the better business case lies with Pearson. On March 17, the Toronto Star’s Matt Elliott wrote the following regarding the UP Express: “The new train was one of a few reasons cited by former Porter Airlines CEO Robert Deluce for reducing the company’s runway slots on the island. In a letter dated December 21, 2018 released as part of a prolonged court battle between Porter and Nieuport Aviation, the owner of the airport’s terminal building, Deluce said the train had ‘reduced the locational advantage that [the island airport] once had relative to Pearson.’”

Speaker, the UP Express gets you right to Union, right to where you need to be to get to the heart of the city. Billy Bishop is west of the downtown. You’ve got to find a way—again, find an Uber, find a taxi to get you there, and often it takes almost half your flying time. It can take half an hour just to get there. What’s the flight to Ottawa—an hour? And then it’s another half hour to get a couple of kilometres, from Billy Bishop to Union Station.

So I don’t understand why this government hasn’t bought in to the idea that Pearson is the true growth opportunity. Why target the Toronto Island and the airport there instead of investing in, thinking about Pearson? Why pursue a project that’s smaller in scale, more disruptive to the surrounding communities and far less impactful for the province as a whole? Again, we don’t really know. The government isn’t saying. But it’s not because it’s what’s best for the people of Ontario. We know this government is more focused on helping their friends than the people of Ontario.

Just look at the bill the Premier recently sent to taxpayers—likely over $100 million to write a cheque to his friend Carmine Nigro, to settle a lawsuit with Metrolinx. It’s simple: This government is not in it for the people of Ontario; they’re in it for themselves.

Speaker, I’ve talked about the debt, and let me just talk about what that looks like for families and households here in Ontario. Every household’s share of the total debt that this government has added—$136 billion—is about $85,000. Compare that with other provinces—highest in the country. In 2018, the PCs campaigned on reducing the debt; instead, they’ve increased it by almost 25% per household. Every dollar that goes to this Billy Bishop expansion is a dollar not going towards reducing the debt, or it could be used for other things, like fixing the $50-billion infrastructure repair backlog that would benefit people across the province, in every community.

We think about the economic benefit, and this is where the argument really falls apart. I’m really not sure they did any analysis at all.

The government says they’ll expand the airport from two million to 10 million and generate $8.5 billion for Ontario’s GDP, but when you compare that to real-world data, the numbers just don’t hold up.

Look at Pearson, one of the largest and busiest airports in North America: Last year, passenger volume—47 million people. Pearson added $19.6 billion—call it 50 million people; $20 million to Canadian GDP.

The government is asking us to believe that Billy Bishop, after the expansion, will generate almost half as much GDP as Pearson with only 20% of the passengers. The math doesn’t make sense.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: The math doesn’t math.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: The math is not math. It’s, I don’t know, Conservative government math.

Here are some real numbers. If the government actually wanted to look at some real numbers about what this project would do—let’s look at a 2015 study of 80 US cities. They suggest that a 10% increase in passenger volume generates a 3% increase in economic growth. Let’s just say that again: 80 US cities were studied—80; that’s a lot. The study concluded a 10% passenger volume increase, 3% increase in economic benefit.

Billy Bishop—we have a 6% passenger expansion annually, so that means about a 2% growth in GDP, only $3 billion annually, far from the $8.5 billion that this government is dreaming about.

They haven’t shown us the math because they can’t. They haven’t shown a plan because they don’t have one. And they’ve got no idea how they are going to move 23,000 people per day to the island airport.

Let’s talk about what the Toronto Waterfront BIA said: It contributes more than $13 billion to Ontario’s economy and attracts 18 million visitors per year.

On one side, you’ve got a government that says they’re making Ontario Place and the Therme spa with their friends from a foreign country, giving billions of taxpayer dollars to—so much for “Buy Ontario.” They’re saying it’s going to be this great destination. Well, just imagine, you’re sitting at this spa, you’ve spent a couple of hundred bucks to be there, and you’ve got jets flying over and over and over your head. I wouldn’t call that a very relaxing day at the spa. You go to a concert at their new—I don’t know what it’s being called; the new concert venue. You’re listening to your favourite band.

You spent a couple of hundred bucks, probably, to get tickets—maybe more, because this government cancelled the bill that would have protected ticket prices. Now they’re fumbling around trying to fix that again—fixing a mess of their own creation. So you spend a couple of hundred dollars, maybe $400, on a ticket to go hear your favourite band. What do you hear instead? Jets flying over your head.

It just doesn’t make sense. There’s no plan from this government. We can only conclude, in my opinion, that this is all about the jet; it’s all about the Premier wanting to land his private luxury jet—and if not that one, maybe the OPP jet there, because we know he flies around in that a lot too.

Again, the overreach is something that is really, really concerning to my residents in Don Valley West. They don’t like what this Premier is doing as it relates to interfering in the city of Toronto.

Whether it is speed cameras—even the police chiefs in Ontario begged this government, “Don’t remove the speed cameras. They save lives.” This government ignored that, on a whim of the Premier. We heard that the Premier’s daughter got a lot of speeding tickets from those cameras; maybe that’s why. So he did that on a whim.

Then he decided he likes flying private. He has been flying jets around for a while now. Last year, according to his own records released by the government, he chartered a jet to fly himself and a staffer, I guess—maybe there were a few others—to Calgary; $18,000. That’s a lot of money. It’s a lot more than economy or even a business class ticket. That’s the kind of thinking that this Premier is offering the people of Ontario.

So we know that when he talks about expanding Billy Bishop airport, it’s not about making life better here, it’s not about creating jobs; it’s about him landing his private jet. The overreach is astonishing, that he would go to the lengths he’s going to, strong-arming and, basically, coming in like—I can’t say it, but coming into the room and saying, “Sorry, everyone. I’m here now. We’re taking over. City of Toronto, you’re out.” That’s essentially what this bill amounts to.

So I can’t support this bill. My residents do not support this bill.

The government needs to be held to account on this decision because it is absolutely not in the best interests of the people of Toronto or Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member for Nepean.

MPP Tyler Watt: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s always lovely to see you in that chair.

We’re here chatting about Bill 110, Building Billy Bishop Airport Act. I want to start off by discussing what I’m hearing directly from folks in my riding of Nepean, and the biggest question is, why? Why is this government so focused on Toronto? As you heard yesterday in question period, my Ottawa colleagues and myself brought up many issues that are going on in Ottawa, from health care to transportation, lack of access to primary care. This government promised to upload the LRT in Ottawa, during the last election.

It has been a year and a half now, and we have heard nothing but a recommitment from this government—let alone the Barnsdale interchange that has been promised in my riding since 2019, among many other projects that we need to get done in Nepean, like expanding the Greenbank realignment project, expanding other roads and highways. So, again, when the residents of Nepean hear of yet another Toronto-centric bill that this government is spending the majority of their time on, it concerns them, and I’m sure it concerns people in other ridings, and especially people in rural and northern areas.

I do have to commend this government on the consistency with which they shut Ontarians out of decisions that affect their lives and then expand their own powers behind closed doors. It’s truly remarkable.

Let’s think back: This is the Premier who went on television and looked Ontarians in the eye and told them that he had heard them and that he would never touch the greenbelt. This was after he was caught on a secret camera in a room full of developers saying, “We’re going to open up the greenbelt.” Of course, there was a lot of backlash. He backed off in 2018 but then tried to get it done years later. And then, with no consultation, no public process, no input from communities affected, his government carved out 7,400 acres through backroom dealings and handed them to a small circle of well-connected developers for an $8.3-billion windfall.

This is the Premier who told Ontarians that every single dollar of the Skills Development Fund, a $2.5-billion fund, would be used to support the talent pipeline of this province. We’ve seen time and time again how that funding has been abused—the one that comes straight to my mind is the $10 million that went to a strip club owner. Instead of working with workers, employers and training institutions to direct that money where it was needed—the Auditor General found the process was not fair, not transparent and not accountable. His own labour minister is now under investigation by the Integrity Commissioner.

And now, with rents in the province increasing tenfold since 2018, with home prices in the millions, and grocery prices set to rise another 4% to 6% this year, did this Premier sit down and ask Ontarians what they needed? No. He spent nearly $29 million of public money on his new toy, a luxury private jet—a decision made without a single Ontarian being consulted, and I have a sneaking suspicion it would have been an overwhelming, unanimous “no” on that one. When Ontarians forced him to give it back, taxpayers were still left on the hook for nearly $200,000 in holding costs, legal fees and management services.

The Premier said, just a few days ago, “No one is more ticked off than me about this, about wasting taxpayer dollars.”

Well, this is your own fault, Premier. If you truly want to atone for this, give that money back yourself, if you truly want to respect taxpayer dollars, because this is absurd.

This Premier constantly tells Ontarians they are the priority and consistently makes the biggest decisions without ever asking them. This bill is yet another example—no meaningful consultation, no effort to work alongside Ontarians to come to a shared resolution; just another decision made for Ontarians instead of with them.

Now let’s look at what Bill 10 actually does.

However, in an attempt to improve Billy Bishop airport, this Premier decided to skip a few steps—tradition and behaviour that we constantly see with this Premier and government. In the formulation of this bill, neither stakeholders nor the three actors in the tripartite agreement were consulted in establishing best practices and ensuring that the most common-sense strategy is approached to this endeavour.

What Bill 110 does to that compromise:

Section 2 vests all city-owned lands at the airport, land, buildings, structures, fixtures, improvements in the crown by ministerial regulation.

Section 3 strips the city of Toronto of its power to encumber, sell or otherwise dispose of its own property. Any such transaction is deemed void retroactive to first reading.

Again, this government is obsessed with Toronto. I know the Premier might have his own personal vendetta against the city, but his focus and obsession on Toronto is just beyond evident. Instead of working in partnership with the city, he just decided, “Do you know what? We’re just going to do it ourselves. We’re going to take all the power to the province. Who cares? We don’t need to listen to that city—the biggest city in this country.”

Section 5 deems the city of Toronto to have assigned all of its rights and obligations under the tripartite agreement to the crown, erasing the city as a signatory entirely.

And

section 7—part of the bill that this minister and government have not been honest about to Ontarians.

The bill includes a

schedule 1 of property identification numbers that lets the minister, by regulation alone, expropriate land covering almost the entirety of the Toronto Islands, including Hanlan’s Point—I personally know a lot of people who will be quite upset with that one—the non-residential portions of Ward’s Island and one third of Little Norway Park on the mainland.

There has been no plan, no consultation, and certainly no honesty.

Again, I want to bring back the point I made earlier during this debate, and that is that this government has been consistently overachieving in winning the award of hiding the truth from Ontarians.

Upon making the announcement that this Premier will not have control of Billy Bishop airport, this minister could not answer the questions Ontarians have been asking: How much longer will the runway be? How much of the harbour will be filled? How much will this project cost? What is the timeline? Why does one third of Little Norway Park need to be seized? No master plan has been tabled. No environmental assessments have been completed. No proper public consultations have been done.

This government is now claiming that this move will have an $8.5-billion economic impact, yet no actual economic study has been completed.

Expanding Billy Bishop does not automatically definitively mean that we will see more travellers. You’re bringing in more competition to the market, meaning more options for travellers to choose between two products, shifting consumer demand from Pearson to Billy Bishop and vice versa. This means that the existing market of travellers will remain the same, and they can just land in either of two airports.

Unless this government is willing to produce a detailed economic impact assessment report and explain how a new $8.5 billion will be injected into the economy as a result of this government’s hostile expansion of Billy Bishop, these numbers are just a way to try to hide the fact that no public consultations were held.

This government seems more focused on press releases rather than conducting due diligence on these bills. Again, that’s another common theme that I see here. We get flashy titles for bills—Keeping Criminals Behind Bars Act—and then you actually look at the substance in the bill and it’s like, “Okay, actually, this doesn’t really achieve any of that.”

This one has a less flashy title, but, again, I’m more focused on what’s actually in the bill. We should have a proper debate on the purpose of this. And if we truly want to do this expansion, then it needs to get done right. It needs to be done right through proper consultations. It needs to be done right with proper studies and expert environmental assessments.

If that’s the goal of this government, then that is the proper way to do it; not bypassing every type of check and balance you possibly can just by writing a bill that gives you all powers and the prevention to be sued—I notice that that one is always slipped in bills lately. They need to work with other parties. They need to work with the public and experts on these things.

For instance, no consultation with the city has occurred. The mayor of Canada’s largest city, representing 3.2 million Ontarians, found out the same day the public did that the province is going to take control of city land.

And let us be clear about what “no plan” means in this bill.

Section 7 hands the minister broad regulation-making powers to require the city to take specific actions, to prescribe which lands are vested and when, to amend

schedule 1.

This is not a bill that lays out a plan. This is a bill that hands the minister a blank cheque to write the plan later, behind closed doors, by regulation.

The lack of transparency and accountability that this government has exhibited as of recent is very concerning. It’s as if you don’t think Ontarians deserve the right to know how the politicians they democratically elected are operating in their best interests.

Now let’s talk about who wins and who pays. The minister and the Premier continue to tell us that this bill is about the public interest. Let us examine who benefits and who actually pays—the 3.2 million residents of Toronto, whose elected council was overridden without a single consultation by this government; the residents of Bathurst Quay, Harbourfront and the Port Lands, whose neighbourhoods will absorb the noise, the emissions and the traffic.

Toronto’s housing pipeline: Lower jet flight paths means reduced building heights in the Port Lands, fewer homes built in a city that desperately needs them.

This government is already well behind their promised housing investment.

Are you sure you don’t want to reconsider this bill?

In their rather sad housing numbers, they are including long-term-care beds and student dorms as new homes in this target.

Now let’s look at the claims versus reality.

This government claims that this will reduce pressure on Pearson. The reality is, Pearson is already adding capacity. On May 11, 2026, the GTAA broke ground on the $3-billion Pearson LIFT program, a 10-year expansion that will add capacity for 20 million more passengers annually by the early 2030s. That is 10 times Billy Bishop’s entire current annual passenger count.

The claim that more competition will drive down airline ticket prices—Billy Bishop is currently dominated by one carrier, Porter, and would be dominated by the same handful of carriers after expansion. Adding jets does not add carriers. The Competition Bureau’s own data shows fare reductions come from new entrant airlines on new routes, not just from runway extensions.

The claim that Little Norway Park will remain a park—this is from the Premier’s office. Then why is this province seizing it? If it’s going to remain a park, just leave it alone. The Toronto Port Authority’s own stated rationale is to use the land to relieve airport pinch points and congestion. You don’t expropriate parkland to keep it as parkland.

The claim that this is about modernizing and the public interest—the bill’s

schedule 1 covers almost the entire Toronto Islands. The minister gets unilateral regulation-making authority. No master plan has been tabled. No environmental assessments have occurred. No consultations have happened. This is not modernization. This is a blank cheque drafted by and for private interests.

The claim that the federal government supports this, from the Premier—the federal government has done no such thing. The Prime Minister has called it an “interesting vision”—nothing more. Federal Transport Canada’s position is clear: Any change to the tripartite agreement requires consensus of all signatories and meaningful consultations with stakeholders and Indigenous peoples, and neither has happened.

Now let’s talk about the timeline. I want every member in this House to sit with the sequence of events, because it tells the story of this bill more clearly.

On January 19, 2026, the Premier’s office signed a letter of intent to purchase a $29-million Bombardier Challenger 650 private jet, the Premier’s new toy. A $500,000 USD deposit was placed—no public notice, no consultation with the Legislature, no conversations with the Ontarians whose money was being spent for the Premier’s new toy.

On March 23, 2026, Premier Ford announced at Billy Bishop airport his intention to designate it a special economic zone, a status that would suspend provincial and municipal laws to fast-track expansion—no prior engagement with the city of Toronto, no consultations with the residents of the waterfront, no input from the Ontarians whose laws were about to be suspended on their behalf.

On April 17, 2026, the jet purchase became public—not because the Premier told Ontarians, but because Ontarians found out, and the moment they did, they spoke out against it. The consultation this government refused to hold, Ontarians held themselves.

April 23, 2026, morning: Bill 110 was tabled in the House, drafted without consultation, introduced without warning. Afternoon: Toronto city council—the level of government closest to the people most affected—passed an emergency motion opposing the bill. They were not asked. They were not informed.

On April 27, 2026, the jet was sold back to Bombardier—not because the Premier reconsidered, but because Ontarians forced him to, and rightfully so. Ontarians are still on the hook for nearly $200,000 in non-recoverable costs: $140,000 in aircraft management services, $34,000 in outside legal counsel, and $18,000 in aviation acquisition support, for a decision they were never consulted on—quite the price to pay to allow the Premier to act selfishly just because he wanted to travel in luxury.

Now let’s look at the Davis standard. In 1971, Toronto faced another waterfront-altering mega-project: the Spadina Expressway. A Conservative Premier, William Davis, stood in this very chamber and stopped it. He listened to community members, he listened to the city of Toronto, and he said, in words that defined his premiership, that cities are for people, not cars. It has kind of completely flipped under this Premier.

I still remember that weird video of the Premier driving in Toronto, saying something about how this is the “war on the car,” and he couldn’t believe the traffic in Toronto. Well, it is horrible driving in Toronto. But it’s just interesting how priorities and values can change.

Premier Davis did not need a bill to seize the city’s land. He did not need a

schedule of property identifiers covering the Toronto Islands. He did not need to bypass the mayor of Toronto. He needed only the conviction that the people of Toronto deserved a say in the shape of their own waterfront.

This Premier could have followed the Davis precedent, to sit down with the city, to sit down with the federal government, to sit down with Indigenous groups, to sit down with Ontarians in general.

Show your plan. Make your case. Build consensus. That is what governing looks like.

Again, I want to bring it back to what I am hearing from my constituents in Nepean. Some aren’t even opposed to the idea of the expansion; they are opposed to the way that this is being conducted. They are opposed to the way that this government often conducts themselves in quite an anti-democratic way here. Bills rarely go to committee, and when they do, it’s a lovely treat for opposition members and for the public to at least seem like they’re able to give feedback, put forward amendments—all are always rejected by opposition members; sometimes the government will put in their own.

Then it comes back to the House, often time-allocated, meaning that the time for debate on the bill is lowered. That way, we can rush through and ram through this bill as fast as possible. The people in my riding are noticing this.

They’re also noticing the fact that Ottawa is being completely ignored. The Premier has made several trips up there recently for an announcement here and there. I’m surprised he found where Ottawa was. It’s always a nice treat to have the leader of the province show up to the capital of the province. But the Ottawa new deal is—there’s nothing happening from it. The Ottawa LRT has not been uploaded, as promised by this government in this last election.

It would save the city of Ottawa billions of dollars that they could put into investing in critical road infrastructure, critical housing infrastructure, health care, and things that we desperately need. OC Transpo is running a $7-billion deficit—I think that was the number that my colleague from Orléans mentioned yesterday. Something as little as uploading that—they’ve done a ton of this for the city of Toronto. But places like Ottawa, places like Guelph, places all around this province are constantly being ignored.

It will be interesting to see, when we all attend AMO this summer, what these different municipalities have to say about this session in particular, which has been extremely Toronto-focused. Just off the top of my head, we got the 401 fantasy tunnel; we got the Premier’s convention centre in the middle of Lake Ontario—taking over land by Billy Bishop. I’ve heard something about a Ferris wheel. Who knows what else is coming? Frankly, if the Premier is this passionate about the city, then he should run for mayor of Toronto again. Instead of being the Premier of Toronto, he needs to be the Premier of the province.

We have so many more pressing matters in this province.

The number one thing I hear at the door: cost of living. What is this government doing to address the cost of living? Whenever we ask this question, the answer I always hear is, “Well, we lowered the gas tax.” Okay, that saves a couple of cents for people who drive cars. But you promised to cut the tax for middle-income folks back in 2018, and you still haven’t done it. That is the simplest thing you could do to actually make a meaningful change and put money back in the pockets of people.

You could get rid of HST on home heating and hydro. The Ontario Liberals put that idea forward a year ago.

Sometimes you take our ideas a year later and put them in—such as the HST on housing, which I was disappointed to hear is a one-and-done deal. That’s nowhere near what we’re going to need to actually even begin to hit that 1.5 million housing target.

Ontarians want to know, why isn’t this government doing more for the cost-of-living crisis? Why aren’t they doing more about the housing crisis? Why aren’t they doing more about access to public health care? Why aren’t they doing more—or something entirely different, in fact—for our public education system? It has been completely thrown into chaos. I have custodians in my riding who are being fired and replaced by outside contractors now. I can’t imagine that those cost any less or will be efficient at all, compared to the custodians we already had there.

This government’s priorities are all over the place, and people in Nepean are noticing, people in Ottawa are deeply noticing, which is why we wanted to give the government a reality check yesterday on Ottawa. People around this province are noticing. My constituent email inbox is constantly flooded with passionate people sending their deep concerns about a lot of the legislation that is going on in this government.

When I go through this legislation—often, there’s good stuff in there, but there’s always that one poison pill. There’s always something in there that is so dangerous that it makes it impossible to actually vote for, which I think is actually a strategy from this government so they can just continue claiming that we vote against everything. Even in times when we vote with them, they still will say, “You voted against it.” At the end of the day, it doesn’t even matter.

My plea with this is, no matter what happens with this, please just do it right. Work with the tripartite, work with the city of Toronto, work with the key stakeholders, the residents and everyone who needs to be involved in getting this right. It’s going to happen. This government is going to pass this bill. So let’s make sure that we get it right. And please, please listen to opposition, please listen to people who are speaking out, please listen to experts who want to improve this bill, because that way, if we get it done right the first time, it doesn’t need to become a colossal mess and failure that we will be cleaning up for decades to come.

In closing, I want to talk about consistency. That is what this government has been good at—consistently telling Ontarians they’re the priority and consistently doing the exact opposite.

Bill 110 is the same pattern in a more brazen form. It takes municipal land. It overrides the elected council of Canada’s largest city. It hands the minister a blank cheque to expropriate at will.

Ontarians deserve to have a say in the laws that govern them, and know that even if they are laws they may not agree with, they still have the opportunity to voice their concerns and engage in the democratic process. This Premier stole that opportunity from Ontarians, and they deserve better.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Questions?

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I want to thank both members for their remarks.

I continue to struggle on this question about who’s governing the project, because my understanding, based on the legislation, is that this is solely about the land involved with the modernization proposal by PortsToronto, the Toronto Port Authority, which is federally governed. And seven of the nine appointees are from the federal government.

As I mentioned in second reading debate, just a few days before debate started, I was at an event with Senator Sandra Pupatello, the previous chair of the Toronto Port Authority, who was effusive in her praise for the province’s work on this.

Given that this is federally led, supported by the funds from air travellers, not from the province—the province is not managing this project—how is it that this is not a federal initiative?

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Thank you to the member from Windsor–Tecumseh for the question.

I have a great deal of respect for Sandra Pupatello. I didn’t hear the conversation. But let me just talk about the facts here.

This government tabled this bill; not the federal government. This government needs to own this. If the government of Ontario wants to do something with the airport, it should bring those suggestions to the tripartite group and talk about it.

Expropriating land like a bully—coming in and saying, “I want this toy, and I’m taking it from you”—is what this government is really, really good at. There is example after example—again, conservation authorities, regional leads not being elected.

This government wants the land, to do something for the Premier’s jet, and that’s all we know about it.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the member for Don Valley West.

In committee last week, we learned a few concerning things. We learned that the port authority and the federal government were meeting behind closed doors, in secret, without communicating with the city of Toronto about the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport.

My question to you is, do the Ontario Liberals oppose the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport?

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Thank you to the member from University–Rosedale for the question. I’m not sure if she was listening to my debate or not. I think I made it pretty clear. Having jets fly over downtown Toronto will affect the quality of life for residents in downtown Toronto. It will negate the relaxing spa experience that we all can apparently pay $200 or $400 for. And it will affect the environment. They’re going to pour dirt into the lake to expand an airport so the Premier can land his jets. So I certainly think I’ve been pretty clear about this. I am not in support.

If the mayor of Toronto could have done something differently, she could have done something in 2024 to—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Response?

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: —and that might have prevented this government from starting this bill in the first place.

But responsibility for this decision lies with this government.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

M me Lucille Collard: I listened very intently to all of the debate that has been happening in the chamber here, and all of my colleagues—I haven’t heard a single peep about anyone saying that they would support this project. So I don’t know where the NDP is coming from when they’re trying to pin on us some kind of support that is non-existent and certainly hasn’t been verbalized in any way. I just wanted to put that on the record because I’ve been hearing about it too many times, and it needs to be said.

I want to ask a question to my colleague the member from Nepean, because we travel together from Ottawa to the Billy Bishop airport very regularly. Just recently, on Sunday, we were both stuck at the airport. Because of the fog at Billy Bishop, our flights were being cancelled. So is it the belief, do you think, of the government, or anyone, that having jets will actually allow them to be more effective in trying to land when the airport is simply closed?

MPP Tyler Watt: Thank you to my wonderful colleague for bringing up that wonderful memory of us panicking on how we’re going to get here this week. But it is the reality. I was lucky enough to catch a later flight, to fly into Pearson—where they have the capability of actually doing that.

There are often issues with Billy Bishop because of weather conditions that can’t handle even the smaller jets that many politicians use to get here.

This is what I’m talking about. You’ve got to actually listen to the experts, listen to Ontarians and advocacy groups and people who actually know what this Billy Bishop airport is like, what it’s capable of and what it possibly can do.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Hon. Sam Oosterhoff: I appreciate the members opposite sharing their perspectives, although I don’t think we really agree.

I’m going to take things from a totally different angle, perhaps.

Obviously, Billy Bishop is named after Billy Bishop, the amazing ace defender of freedom—72 confirmed kills—an incredible Canadian and incredible human being. I’m wondering if we could spend a moment talking about his legacy. I don’t know if you have any thoughts on the actual Billy Bishop. We are spending all this time talking about the airport, which is named after the person. I realized we haven’t really talked much about the person. The purpose of naming the airport after him was to remember him.

I know I’m taking things from a different angle, but I’m wondering if you wanted to share any of your thoughts about Billy Bishop, the person, and his testament to freedom in the past and his defence of that freedom, but also a little bit of the legacy of why these airports are important to remember those who have gone and served.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Thank you to the associate minister for the question.

Billy Bishop is attributed with shooting down the Red Baron and helping to defend our freedom.

This bill has nothing about freedom. This bill is all about autocracy and dictatorship. This bill is about the Premier and this Conservative government tabling a bill, without talking to its partners—including the city of Toronto, apparently—to take over the role of the city of Toronto on Billy Bishop airport. Defending freedom is not something this government can talk about.

I will add that my grandfather, in World War II, was in the armed forces and he taught people how to fly the Gipsy Moth airplane and served with distinction. I’m very proud of that.

And of course, we are proud of Billy Bishop’s contributions.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

MPP Wayne Gates: I want to talk about how beautiful the waterfront is.

What are we doing? We have all kinds of tourists—I think it’s 20 million tourists who will come to Toronto—and what we’re doing is destroying the waterfront. That is what we should be talking about.

In Niagara Falls, they want to put a Ferris wheel in the park, right down by the Falls.

What are we doing to this province? If we say we want tourism to come to Canada, to come to Ontario, the last thing we should be doing is expanding Billy Bishop airport, to have jets fly over the waterfront every couple of minutes. It makes absolutely no sense.

My question is, does the member agree that airport expansion should start with consultation with the residents of Toronto or Niagara-on-the-Lake or wherever it’s going to be before the expansion take place?

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Thank you to the member from Niagara Falls for the question.

Yes, I absolutely agree. Again, I talked about it in my debate—how this being done without any consultation.

What’s going to happen to the housing that is going to be built on the waterfront? The government hasn’t talked about that.

The tourists that you talk about coming to enjoy the waterfront—are they going to still come when there are jets flying overhead?

Like I said, you pay $400 to go to a concert, and all you hear is jets flying overhead? It makes no sense.

We know that this will be done without an environmental assessment. That is exactly what this government wants to do—because they know if they were to assess the impacts, that they would be very damaging. It was supposed to be that you weren’t allowed to pour dirt into the lake to expand the airport—there is some needed for security reasons, but this will absolutely destroy the Toronto waterfront.

Absolutely, people should have a say.

And just to be clear, I am against jets flying over downtown Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Further debate?

MPP Bill Rosenberg: We all know Ontario’s economy is expanding, our population is rising, and the demands on our infrastructure are increasing every single year. This is not a temporary trend. This is not a short-term spike. It is a long-term structural shift in how this province is growing, how people are moving, and it requires a government that is prepared to act, not react, to the scale of change we are experiencing.

Our government is focused on ensuring this province has the capacity, the competitiveness and the connectivity to support long-term economic growth. That means building infrastructure that matches the size of our economy.

And that is why we are here today—because Billy Bishop airport is one of those systems. It is a critical asset for Toronto and Ontario, and it is not keeping pace with the scale of growth we are experiencing.

With the Building Billy Bishop Airport Act, our government is bolstering its commitment to building infrastructure that will make Toronto and Ontario stronger. It means making decisions that reflect the needs of a province that is growing faster than almost anywhere else in North America. That requires clear decisions and decisive action, especially when key infrastructure is not keeping pace with provincial needs. We cannot afford hesitation. We cannot afford to delay. And we cannot afford to let outdated processes hold back assets that are essential to Ontario’s long-term success.

Billy Bishop airport is one of those assets, and unlocking its full potential is essential for jobs, tourism, productivity and Ontario’s long-term economic strength. It is essential for the resilience of our transportation network. It’s essential for the future of a province that depends on efficient, reliable, modern infrastructure to support our growth.

People are choosing Ontario because of our economic strength, our quality of life, and the opportunities that this province offers. The growth is reshaping our cities, our regions and our infrastructure needs.

The greater Golden Horseshoe alone is projected to grow from roughly 11 million people in 2025 to nearly 14 million over the next 25 years. That means more people moving, commuting, working and relying on infrastructure that is already stretched to its limits. That growth does not happen in isolation. It affects housing, transit, highways, hospitals, schools and airports.

Province-wide, Ontario is expected to reach 20.5 million people by 2051. That is a level of growth that demands long-term planning, long-term investment and long-term vision.

Ontario needs infrastructure engineered for long-term growth, not short-term repairs that stretch the limits of what we already have. If we do not build, we fall behind. If we fall behind, we lose investments. If we lose investments, we lose jobs. And if we lose jobs, we lose the economic momentum that has made Ontario the engine of our country. If we fail to act, the cost of inaction will be paid in lost investment and lost jobs and in opportunities.

Ontario cannot afford to watch growth pass us by because our infrastructure wasn’t ready, our decisions weren’t timely, or our planning didn’t match the scale of our economy. We have seen this story before in jurisdictions that waited too long to modernize their infrastructure, and we are not going to let that happen here.

That is why our government has taken a province-wide approach to building the infrastructure Ontario needs—not project by project, but through a coordinated, strategic, Ontario-first plan.

We accelerated construction on the Gardiner Expressway by more than a year, on a corridor that carries 160,000 vehicles every single day, because commuters cannot wait, businesses cannot wait, and a growing province cannot wait.

We are delivering the largest transit expansion program in North America, with new subways, new LRT lines, and new connections across this province, because a world-class region needs a world-class transit system, and because transit is essential to our economic growth.

We are rebuilding Ontario Place, transforming the waterfront into a destination that reflects the scale, the ambition and the identity of this province.

We are purchasing new subways and streetcar fleets for the TTC, replacing aging vehicles with modern, reliable, efficient equipment that can keep up with our demand, because a growing city cannot run on yesterday’s transit system.

And through the historic new deal for Toronto, we have committed $9 billion to stabilize the city’s finances and support transit, housing and critical infrastructure, because Toronto’s stability is Ontario’s stability, and Ontario’s stability is Canada’s stability.

These are not isolated projects. They are part of a coordinated, province-wide strategy to strengthen Ontario’s economy, support one of the fastest-growing regions in North America and prepare for the future.

Madam Speaker, the modernization of Billy Bishop airport is a key part of that strategy, because a province of nearly 16 million people needs an aviation network that can meet the demands of our next generation. Billy Bishop airport is Ontario’s third-busiest airport. It serves roughly two million passengers a year. It supports business travel, regional connectivity, tourism, and essential medical transport. It is a gateway for entrepreneurs, investors and visitors. And it is a lifeline for patients who rely on rapid medical transport.

More than 4,000 air ambulances and medical flights are conducted from the airport annually by Ornge. Modernizing facilities will improve the reliability of medical transport operations. Billy Bishop’s downtown location allows Ornge to move patients quickly to the hospitals and the trauma centres providing life-saving services.

Modernizing this airport is not just about supporting travellers or strengthening the economy; it is about protecting a vital piece of Toronto’s emergency response system and also ensuring that the province can continue to deliver life-saving care when it is needed most.

But the airport is operating below its potential. Its facilities are aging. Its capacity is constrained. And its governance structure has not kept pace with the needs of a modern, growing province.

Under the Toronto Port Authority’s modernization plan, passenger volumes could rise to as many as 10 million people annually. That is a fivefold increase, and the existing infrastructure simply cannot support it. Without modernization, Ontario will face capacity constraints that limit economic growth and reduce system-wide resilience. We will see more congestion at Pearson. We will see fewer options for travellers. We will see lost opportunities for tourism and business. And we will see a transportation system that is less flexible, less resilient and less competitive.

And let’s be clear: When Ontario’s infrastructure falls behind, the entire country feels it. Our province is the economic engine of Canada. We generate more than 40% of our national GDP. We lead the country in population growth, job creation and private sector investment. We cannot simply allow outdated infrastructure to hold back a province of this scale and this importance. A province that powers nearly half of Canada’s economy cannot be constrained by systems built for a different era. We need infrastructure that keeps up with our growth and supports our communities.

That is why our government introduced the Building Billy Bishop Airport Act, 2026. This legislation allows the province to take ownership of the city of Toronto lands required for the modernization, as a necessary step to move this project from concept to construction. By assuming responsibility for the lands that underpin the airport, the province can work directly with the Toronto Port Authority and the federal government to streamline planning, accelerate approvals, and eliminate jurisdictional gridlock that has stalled progress for years.

It ensures that the decisions shaping Billy Bishop’s future are made by the level of government best positioned to deliver results, backed by a clear mandate, a coordinated strategy, and the ability to act with the urgency our growing province demands. It also allows the province to assume the city’s role in the tripartite agreement that governs the airport—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): We will now be moving on to members’ statements.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Soo Greyhounds hockey team

MPP Bill Rosenberg: The Soo U15 Greyhounds, who finished first in the Northern Ontario Junior Hockey League, travelled to Thunder Bay to compete against the top teams from across Ontario. They came within one goal of completing an incredible comeback, ultimately falling 3-2 to the Vaughan Kings in the gold medal game at the All-Ontario U15AAA Championships.

Despite the results, these young Greyhound players showed remarkable growth, determination and resilience throughout this tournament and pushed one of the province’s top teams to the limit in a thrilling final. This achievement is a source of great pride and inspiration for our northern Ontario boys, highlighting the strength, talent and potential of our local athletes.

Adding to the pride of the north are four young players from down the line—from the pond in Wharncliffe, Jeremy and Jasper Jarratt; Greg Beckerson of Echo Bay; and Ben Campbell from St. Joe Island, all part of this team’s great success.

Congratulations to all the players and coaches for their outstanding dedication and achievements.

And not to be forgotten are the parents, who put an incredible amount of time into these young players’ dreams.

As you look forward to the 2026-27 season, I hope you all keep your heads up, sticks on the ice, and fill the back of the net.

And go, Habs, go tonight!

Worth Fighting For campaign

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I rise today in solidarity with developmental services workers in London, including members of OPSEU Local 166 and nearly 600 Community Living London workers on the picket lines, along with approximately 4,500 front-line social service workers across Ontario, as part of OPSEU-SEFPO’s Worth Fighting For campaign. These workers are the backbone of our social safety net. They include developmental services workers, social workers, child therapists, addiction counsellors, shelter staff, and legal aid workers who provide essential care to some of the most vulnerable in our province.

Over 78% of these workers are women. Many are paid less than a living wage. Too many are working multiple jobs just to get by, and some are relying on food banks to make ends meet, all while continuing to support children, adults and families in crisis. These workers wake up every day to help people who are struggling, while far too often they are struggling themselves.

These workers are not only standing up for themselves, but for the future of public services Ontarians rely on every day, including in London. They are raising concerns about chronic underfunding, unsafe staffing levels, and growing wait-lists.

Since 2018, per person funding for social services in Ontario has declined by over 16%, contributing to service gaps, long wait-lists, and instability across the sector.

They are calling for the 6.5% retroactive increase that other public sector workers received after Bill 124 was struck down.

Our caucus, leader Marit Stiles, and New Democrats across Ontario stand with them in this fight, because these workers are worth fighting for.

Barbecue event in Don Valley East / Youth council

Mr. Adil Shamji: It’s almost that time of year again: Sham Jam 2026 is right around the corner, and Don Valley East, you’re invited. Join us for a delicious barbecue on Saturday, July 4 at Broadlands Park. I’ll be there, bringing my appetite and exchanging this suit for shorts. We’ll have food, fun, activities and community booths to shine a spotlight on all of the amazing work happening right here in Don Valley East. Every one of our barbecues has been better than the last one, and this one will be no different. Come on out. Let’s kick off our summer the right way. Sham Jam, sha-bam!

There are many things happening in Don Valley East, and I want to shine a spotlight on our youth council; more specifically, on the brilliant young people who are on it.

Our youth are our future. The work we do in this chamber may be for society today, but it will be inherited by our youth tomorrow, and that’s why it’s so important to make sure their voice is reflected in our voice.

My youth council has been clear: They’re worried about education and changes to OSAP. They need to see movement on the massive youth unemployment they face across the province. And they need to see better public transit delivered reliably and on time. And, while they’re not getting it yet, I’m ready to fight to deliver the better, brighter, healthier future that they deserve.

If you’re a young person in Don Valley East and want to join that fight, join our youth council.

Health care

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I’m taking the opportunity today to wish Muslim communities of Erin Mills, Mississauga, Canada and all over the world Eid Mubarak.

I rise today to recognize the important contributions physician assistants are making to health care systems across Ontario. Physician assistants are health care professionals who work with physicians and interdisciplinary care teams to help improve access to timely, high-quality care for patients.

Across Ontario’s health care system, workforce demand continues to grow. Ontario has made important progress in supporting the growth of health care capacity by training new physicians, physician assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, and other health care professionals.

Physician assistant education programs at McMaster University and University of Toronto continue to train the next generation of providers, with additional programs currently in development.

Our government is continuing to build on that progress. Earlier this year, we announced a $16-million investment to add 150 new physician assistant education seats beginning in 2027. This will help strengthen Ontario’s health care workforce for the future. This investment complements our government’s $3.4-billion investment to connect every person in Ontario to primary care by 2029.

Missing persons

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: This past month, three people from Kiiwetinoong have gone missing in Thunder Bay. After searching efforts, they have all been found. The families and the communities are now grieving.

The search also led to the finding of remains of a man who had been missing in Thunder Bay for almost two years.

I want to say meegwetch to everyone who came out to help with the searches.

The problem of missing people in Thunder Bay is not new, but it feels like we are at the tipping point.

I want to offer my condolences to the families mourning the losses of Ashlynn Bottle and Nodin Skunk of Mishkeegogamang Ojibway Nation, Kelsey Anderson from Webequie and Kasabonika Lake First Nations, and Richard Graham from Thunder Bay.

I also want to acknowledge that there are many more who continue to grieve lost loved ones who went missing in Thunder Bay.

On behalf of Kiiwetinoong, our thoughts and prayers are with all of you.

It is time to come together to end this crisis, because no more families should go through this. Meegwetch.

Cambridge RedHawks hockey team

Mr. Brian Riddell: Everybody knows how big of a sports town Cambridge is, and it has been an unforgettable hockey season for the Cambridge RedHawks, capped off by winning both the Sutherland Cup and the Commissioner’s Cup. Not only did they dominate the regular season in the playoffs, but they did it in style and secured their place in the GOHL history books. This marks the first championship in their franchise history, built on an extraordinary season that saw the RedHawks post an incredible 61-6 record, including a remarkable 23-game winning streak—remarkable—just two wins shy of the league record.

Several players delivered outstanding performances throughout the season, especially forward Reid Gammage and goaltender Aidan Hill. Early in the season, Hill broke the franchise record for rookie goalie wins after recording 16 victories. Meanwhile, Gammage etched his name into the record books by becoming the franchise’s all-time points leader, reaching 142 points—amazing—in just 123 games with the RedHawks.

From start to finish, this season belonged to Cambridge—I’m just amazed, to be honest—and it all came to a dramatic conclusion with a 4-3 overtime win over St. Marys.

I have to apologize to Matt Rae, who has St. Marys in his area—but too bad.

Land use planning

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Last night, 120 people came to the Argonaut Rowing Club from all over my riding. They were deeply distressed by the Billy Bishop airport expansion, and we looked over the water, and we spoke about jets coming in every two and a half minutes. My people were angry, and they were motivated.

They were particularly disturbed by this government’s ongoing pattern—just like the greenbelt scandal—of taking over land in secret, backroom deals and then giving it to rich developer friends, or in this case, an American-controlled company.

My constituents and residents are in love with the beauty of our Sunnyside beaches, of High Park, of the ways in which we can paddle and boat. We cannot stand for jet blasts that knock over our children learning to sail, pollute the lungs of our grandmothers, and ensure that our waterfront—a gem in this world, a place where 28 million tourists come every year—is going to be defaced and destroyed by a government that cares more about profit for one company than people.

Government investments

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: As we approach the end of the spring session, I rise to highlight the work our government has advanced, particularly in my riding of Markham–Thornhill.

For years, our government has been focused on strengthening local economic growth and creating real opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Last week, we were proud to welcome the hard-working Associate Minister of Small Business to Markham to announce a $5-million investment that will help nearly 450 Ontario small businesses go digital, modernize and grow.

I want to thank Scott Harnett of Sable Metal Fabrication for empowering our economy and communities.

Speaker, through our Racialized and Indigenous Supports for Entrepreneurs Grant Program—RAISE—we support small businesses such as Daniel Yao CPA Professional Corp.; Demo Design and Renovation; Foresway Group Inc.; GoQuality group; Goldenlink Academy; Hot-Star Large Fried Chicken; R3 Home Staging; Sunshine Art and Craft; and Warden Optometry, a Markham neuro vision and ortho-k clinic.

Thank you to the amazing small businesses for their commitment to strengthening their local economy.

Under Premier Ford’s leadership, we will continue supporting entrepreneurs and building—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member for Burlington.

Public safety

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Last week, in my riding of Burlington, I attended the Roseland community safety meeting alongside the Associate Solicitor General for Auto Theft and Bail Reform, local city councillors, members of Halton regional police and Crime Stoppers, and residents from across the Burlington community. This meeting brought together neighbours, law enforcement and elected officials for an important conversation about crime prevention, automobile theft, bail reform and community safety. One message was clear: People want to feel safe in their neighbourhoods.

That’s why our government continues to make community safety a priority through investments in law enforcement that give police services the tools and resources they need to help keep our community safe.

Speaker, Ontario has invested more than $110 million to strengthen enforcement and stop repeat violent offenders, including funding for dedicated bail compliance and warrant apprehension teams. We’re also supporting initiatives that combat organized crime and auto theft, while improving coordination between police services across the province of Ontario.

Public safety depends on strong partnerships and open dialogue.

I want to thank everyone from the community who attended the meeting and shared their concerns and ideas.

Our government will continue working every day to protect Ontario families and keep our communities safe.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Billy Pang: I would like to welcome the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario to Queen’s Park today. Traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture play an important role in Ontario’s diverse and evolving health care landscape. It is a pleasure to have you here this morning.

I’d also like to welcome representatives from Lupus Ontario. As May is Lupus Awareness Month, we are pleased to have families, friends and advocates from the community with us today.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Adil Shamji: This morning, I would like to welcome the Canadian Association of Physician Assistants to the Legislature, including Patrick Nelson, executive director; Kristy Corrente, director of advocacy and communications; and Kevin Kitzul, Ontario director. Welcome to the chamber.

Hon. David Piccini: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today three young students I have the privilege of working with in my constituency office this summer: Victoria, Daphne, and Juliane, who are sitting here. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I’m looking forward to having you here with us today.

I’d also like to welcome the team from COCA, the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, who are here today: Ted Dreyer, Graeme Aitken, Dave Stubbs, Romeo Milano and Ian Cunningham, whom I just the privilege of meeting with. I hope everyone gets an opportunity to meet with COCA today. Thank you for your advocacy and the work you do every day.

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: I want to welcome Charlie Batori here. She’s an intern in my constituency office. I believe it’s her first time at Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Charlie.

MPP Jamie West: I want to welcome one of Ontario’s youngest new citizens. Baby Jasper was born in Sudbury. His big brother Boken is helping to take care of him. And his mom, Lili, and his dad, Adams, are absolutely over the moon.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: It’s not every day that I have people from Kiiwetinoong come visit, but today, my brother Jonathon Mamakwa is in the House.

Welcome to the House.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: I’m so honoured to introduce nine fabulous guests from my riding of Scarborough North and six guests from the University of Toronto to our House today.

Tina Zhang and her friends Sylvia Park, Sena Park, Herace Paek, Hye Jeong Gong, Se Hoon Park, and Ga Yeong Son, thank you for coming, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Aris Babikian: I would like to wish a happy birthday to our colleague the member from Brampton North.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I would like to welcome members of the Coalition for a Better St. Catharines group today. Welcome to the House this morning, Ed Smith, Michael and Jackie Scott, Mark and Gwen Kennedy, and John Pula.

I also want to welcome my constituency assistants Taylor and Penny and my executive assistant today here to Queen’s Park. Thanks for all you do in keeping us strong in St. Catharines.

Hon. Trevor Jones: I’d like to welcome the Beef Farmers of Ontario to Queen’s Park today. Please join us on the south lawn—the front lawn—for fresh air, sunshine, and good Ontario beef.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’d like to welcome to the House Ayo Owodunni, our ward 5 councillor from Kitchener, and Julius Ilori, a representative from the state ministry of youth and social development for the government of Nigeria.

And I want to wish all our Muslim colleagues, friends and neighbours an Eid Mubarak. Happy Eid.

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: I’m happy to welcome Councillors Liebig, Bouwmeester and Woods, as well as Councillor Liebig’s daughter Clara to Queen’s Park, from Guelph/Eramosa township. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted Hsu: I also want to welcome the Beef Farmers of Ontario, whom I just met in my office a few moments ago.

I also got to meet Wren Ley, who is the grandchild of a constituent of mine and who is serving as a page this week.

MPP Mohamed Firin: I’d like to welcome Dianne Riccio and Robert Riccio from my riding of York South–Weston.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Today, I would like to welcome Tania Da Fonseca and David Lachapelle of Trican Masonry Contractors in Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you to the Canadian Association of Physician Assistants for joining us today. Welcome, Patrick Nelson, Kristy Corrente and Kevin Kitzul, to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Holland: Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like take this opportunity to wish my beautiful wife a happy retirement.

Lori, I’m so incredibly proud of you and everything you have accomplished in your career. I am so happy for you. Congratulations.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize that we have a lot of guests here today. Unfortunately, we are out of time for introduction of visitors. I apologize on behalf of the members.

But members, of course, you may come back at 1 o’clock to introduce your guests.

Question Period

Cost of living

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Speaker, grocery prices are out of control. Ask the working mom I met in Scarborough last week, who just wants to buy a hot meal for her children after a long shift.

Instead of making the cost of food cheaper, this government took money out of people’s pockets to buy the Premier a private luxury jet. Yesterday, we tabled a bill to scrap the tax on all groceries and bring more competition to the billionaire grocery monopoly. Embarrassingly, they voted no. After their restless night’s sleep, we’re giving them a second chance to do the right thing today.

Will they side with us to bring down the price of groceries, or will they side with the billionaires yet again?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Madam Speaker, through you to the member opposite: “Will you side with us?” Let’s think about that for a second.

When we cut the gas tax, which is saving people 10 cents a litre at a time when the price of gas is going up, did they side with us?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: The member opposite, did you hear that answer?

When we cut the small business tax by over 30%, helping 375,000 businesses right across Ontario, did you side with us?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I heard a no.

When we put One Fare in place, saving commuters $1,600 a year, did they side with us?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: When we tabled $12 billion of savings into the pockets of individuals and families in this province, did they side with us?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Madam Speaker, this is the party of yes. They are the party of no.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Humber River–Black Creek.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Playtime is over, Minister.

He’s so out of touch. After listening to that, I suggest he put down the champagne and step out of the limousine.

Let me get this straight: This government spent $30 million for a private luxury jet with a custom gourmet kitchen, but they won’t take the tax off of rotisserie chicken at a grocery store. Why?

Mr. Stephen Blais: Tax the chicken. Tax the chicken.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: “Tax the chicken”—yes, I heard that. “Tax the chicken,” they’re calling.

Madam Speaker, when we got into power—and I’m from Durham and Pickering, and the member from Whitby is here, and the member from Durham, who is hard at work at his table there—we campaigned on taking the tolls off the 412 and 418, thanks to the leadership of the member from Whitby, and taking the tolls off the 407 east. This is saving the daily commuters $7,200. Did they side with us?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: No.

At every opportunity this member and that party and that party have had to put more money back in the pockets of hard-working families, hard-working individuals, hard-working people who run businesses right across Ontario, did they side with the people of Ontario?

Interjections: No.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: And did we support the people of Ontario?

Interjections: Yes.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I rest my—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Humber River–Black Creek.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Boy, did the minister sail by that question. It makes you wonder if their next big toy purchase will be a luxury government yacht.

Speaker, this government voted against making food cheaper. They voted to allow predatory surveillance pricing. The Premier even said, “God bless the billionaire grocers.”

Our bill will mean cheaper food and more competition.

So, last chance: Will the Premier side with us and make groceries more affordable for families, or will he side with the billionaire grocery monopoly?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I wish that when we launched the $30 billion of tariff relief to support individuals, families and businesses, given the threat on tariffs from our neighbour to the south—did they support the $30 billion? Absolutely not.

Madam Speaker, let’s go to another place: the most vulnerable in Ontario. When no government in history in Ontario indexed ODSP payments to inflation, no government in history indexed ODSP payments to the lowest-income seniors, the most vulnerable in Ontario, but they had the opportunity to help the most vulnerable—did they support us? They did not.

This is what leadership is about. This is what building an economy for all is about. We’re taking care of everyone—the most vulnerable, the patients, the students in Ontario. We’re building Ontario with record infrastructure. It’s about time they recognized that and supported that.

Justice system

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is for the Premier.

In 2019, the Auditor General made several recommendations to ensure timely justice for survivors of sexual assault. She recommended that the Attorney General prepare a progress report on intimate partner violence and sexual assault cases annually, and review the victim response program and the independent legal advice program—and for good reason. Seven years later, these have not been actioned.

Why does the Attorney General refuse to fix Ontario’s broken justice system?

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

MPP Monica Ciriello: I thank the member opposite for the question, as it gives us an opportunity to be extremely clear: The people of Ontario and this government have no tolerance for sexual assault. Anyone who commits these horrific crimes will, and must, be held accountable.

Victims of sexual assault deserve justice in a justice system that has the capacity to make sure that the cases are heard in a timely manner. This means us, our government, investing half a billion dollars in 2027, in 2028 to help the courts address backlogs and manage a growing number of complex cases they continue to hear. This means appointing 52 new judges to the Ontario Court of Justice and hiring nearly 700 additional prosecutors, victim support and court staff to ensure victims get the justice that they deserve.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Since I tabled Lydia’s Law, so many survivors of sexual assault have come forward because they, too, were denied justice in Ontario.

A survivor from a 2020 case against Toronto-based neurologist Allan Gordon was delayed and then dismissed due to court delays. She told me, “I was being gutted, retraumatized, degraded and called a liar.

“My abuser was not found guilty but I was sentenced to life.

“We did our job by coming forward. Now we’re asking” the Attorney General to do his.

Speaker, the Attorney General has the chance today to support our private member’s bill, Lydia’s Law. Will he do so?

MPP Monica Ciriello: Our government is taking action to put victims first and hold offenders accountable for sexual assault and gender-based violence. Across government, this is underscored by our ongoing commitment to investments.

This includes—and this is only a fraction of what our government has done to date—$2.3 million to expand the independent legal advice program, $5.6 million for the Child Victim/Witness Program, $10.6 million to the Partner Assault Response Program, $1.4 billion to address and prevent gender-based violence, $13.5 million to support women and children.

I find it rich, but not surprising, that this question is coming from the member opposite, who has voted against each and every one of these investments we have put forward to support victims across this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Member for Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: This government seems very committed to the ongoing court backlogs which are denying survivors justice in Ontario.

These are the numbers: 1,639 sexual assault cases were withdrawn or stayed before trial in 2025.

When I raised concerns about the Sloka case, where 48 women were deemed “unreliable,” the Attorney General described my actions as victim-trolling.

Let me be clear: When survivors come to us and they ask for our help, our job is to bring those concerns here to Queen’s Park. That is not trolling. That is the work that we do.

If Lydia’s Law passes today, the Attorney General for the province of Ontario will actually have to do his job. I would accept his apology for the victim-trolling—and I would work with him to strengthen the justice system in Ontario.

To the Attorney General: Will you support Lydia’s Law today, apologize for those comments, and bring hope to sexual assault survivors—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Member for Hamilton Mountain.

MPP Monica Ciriello: Again, I thank the member opposite for the question, as it gives us an opportunity to be extremely clear. Our government has continued to support victims every step of the way.

Our government is ensuring we and survivors of crime have access to resources and tools to ensure that they are getting through the justice system smoothly and quickly. Again, this includes 52 new judges to address a backlog, 700 additional crown prosecutors, victim support and court staff.

Madam Speaker, it is important that we continue working across government to find more and better ways to support victims of crime, their families and community.

Curriculum

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: We recently learned that 70% of high school students are now opting out of mandatory online learning. The data has shown that students and parents don’t want it. Our educators know that it isn’t the best for learning.

It’s clear that this government is trying to save money on the backs of future generations by pushing digital materials in all forms. Meanwhile, they’re shortchanging our economy instead of preparing students for the future.

Speaker, does the Premier think he knows better than students and families?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: What the member failed to also mention is that close to 50,000 students have continued to take online courses because it provides them a valuable opportunity to take courses, in many instances, that they would not have otherwise had the opportunity to take. We’re hearing from students in all parts of the province, and particularly some of our northern communities, who have said that online courses have given them the opportunity to take a course that they would have never otherwise been able to take.

The whole point of it is—and he mentions it in his question—some students have decided to opt out. Do you know why they have decided to opt out, Madam Speaker? Because you are allowed to opt out. That’s the whole point. Some students are in; some students are out. It’s about optionality for the students so that they can decide what is best for them.

I’m very, very pleased that so many have taken up the opportunity to take online courses, because it is part of building a system that puts our students first, by listening to students, parents and teachers, and giving our kids the best opportunity to succeed.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Ajax.

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: The minister might talk about options, but at Hamilton Catholic, the mandatory grade 10 civics and careers course is only delivered online. That’s the only option for students.

With this government, kids are being pushed to learn remotely, workers need to be in person, and the Premier gets to work from his cottage this summer. Maybe that’s why he wanted to buy his own private jet.

Here’s the reality on the ground: Online e-learning courses mean online exams where AI can be used, instead of students showing their work. There is no software provided by the ministry for secure exams and no requirement for in-person exams with pen and paper. It means that a student needs to log in just once a week for attendance purposes, while some are walking around the hallways and hanging out in the washrooms. So much for this government getting tough on attendance.

Speaker, how can our young people learn about career pathways, financial literacy and participating in our democracy only online?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I know that this member worked for the Durham District School Board, so I guess if the experience at the board that he was working for is that kids were wandering the hallways and not doing work, it speaks more to his experience at a board that he was working for than it does in the rest of the province.

This is coming from the Liberal Party, that said that kids didn’t have to do exams anymore. And now he’s worried about kids doing exams. This comes from a Liberal Party that said kids didn’t even have to go to school anymore; that they could mail it in and still get 100% on their courses.

He voted against a bill that we put forward that said kids had to do mandatory exams, that kids had to show up to school, that kids had to participate. He voted against that and then has the nerve to get up and ask a question about kids participating in school.

So I would say this to the member opposite: I appreciate that the board that you were a high-level member of was a disaster. That’s why we are fixing school boards across the province. It’s too bad that you didn’t support any of that.

But I’ll tell you what I have faith in: I have faith in the students. I have faith in the teachers. And we are going to give them the tools that they need to give our kids the best opportunity to succeed.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Member for Ajax.

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: The minister wants to talk about attendance and exams, but it’s the approach of his own government that is actually putting that entirely to the side.

You can’t build a strong economy without a strong education system, without investing into our kids and the future.

This government is cutting OSAP. It’s bringing down the quality of our education system. And it’s making it harder for young people to get ahead. It’s failing young people on all fronts.

What we’re seeing at Hamilton Catholic and other boards—the push to move civics and careers entirely online, Minister—is going to make it even more difficult for young people. How does that prepare kids for the workforce or career pathways, or understanding our democracy? How does that ensure students can learn the financial literacy component that’s in the curriculum?

Speaker, is the Premier trying to dumb things down and avoid teaching our kids the fundamentals?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Dumb things down? And this is coming from a member—there was no financial literacy when the Liberals were in charge of the education system.

The civics course has been modernized to ensure that our kids have every opportunity to understand parliamentary democracy and what makes it the best way of giving government to the people of this—frankly, parliamentary democracy, we should all be proud of.

Under Progressive Conservatives, we have the highest graduation rates. We have increasing standards in literacy. We are seeing our students succeed in a way that they have never done before. How are we doing that, colleagues? By looking at everything the Liberals did, throwing it out and starting over. And what does that mean? Investing in our schools—a record level of investment in building new, modern schools. They closed 600; we’re building hundreds of schools—179 projects, with over 200 currently in the pipeline.

We’re updating the curriculum. And do you know what we are doing? We’re listening to teachers, we’re listening to students, and we’re listening to parents, because they’re what matters in the education system, not Liberal ideology.

Special-needs students

Ms. Lee Fairclough: My question is for the Premier.

I believe in an Ontario that works for everyone and where our schools will work for our students, our parents and our educators. But today, too many students are being left behind.

The independent Ontario Auditor General recently reviewed special education services in our schools, and the findings were shocking. To quote from the report: “The ministry did not provide clear guidance on the circumstances under which schools could refuse a student’s entry.... This resulted in students with special education needs being sent home when schools could not meet their needs.”

Speaker, does the Premier believe it’s acceptable in Ontario for students with special education needs to be sent home from school instead of being taught in class?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I guess it’s Liberal leadership day today, colleagues. I guess that’s what we’re going to see.

Do you know what, Madam Speaker? Here’s the difference between Conservatives and Liberals: We see a problem, and we’re fixing that problem.

As I’ve said in the House a number of times, I don’t think parents care that the Minister of Education gets up and talks about the record levels of investment in special education, the record levels of investment in education. Do you know what they care about? I think what they care about are the results and the things that we have put in place. Whether it’s special education, whether it’s the courses, are they giving our students the best opportunity to succeed?

Yes, special education is working better in some boards than other boards. Well, what is it that is making some boards more successful than other boards? That’s what we want to know. If it means more money, that’s okay, but if it means that we have to change the system so that all students have the opportunity to succeed better, we’re actually going to do that as well.

I know the Liberals and the NDP—the only solution that they ever have is to put more money in the system regardless of the outcomes.

For Progressive Conservatives, it’s about outcomes and how you can make sure that people succeed.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I checked the Hansard, and the last time the Premier said “special education” in this House was in March 2020, six long years ago. Back then, he said Ontario was turning the corner in education, and he trumpeted billions being invested in special education. That was six years ago.

Today, students with special education needs are being sent home from school instead of being taught in class. It’s wrong, and it’s embarrassing. Imagine the heartbreak of a parent hearing time and again that their school can’t teach their child.

Speaker, what is the Premier going to do to stop the shameful practice in Ontario of students with special education needs being sent home instead of being taught?

Hon. Paul Calandra: To the member opposite: It will take a little bit more than that to be successful in your leadership.

This is a member who has not talked about special education the entire time—colleagues, this is literally only the third time I have got up to answer a question on education.

Now, all of a sudden, the Liberals care about education? Nobody believes that for a second—not for a second—because when we came to office in 2018, the Ministers of Education who preceded me had to increase funding to special education by over 36%. Do you know why? Because the previous Liberal government starved special education. Do you know what else they did? They closed schools. We had to invest record levels to build new schools across the province of Ontario.

So while they were closing schools, firing teachers, starving the system, we are reinvesting. And do you know why we’re doing that? Because we understand that what matters in the education system is outcomes, and the only way you can have positive outcomes is by ensuring that students have the resources, that teachers have the resources, and that it’s a system built on listening to parents, students—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Ms. Lee Fairclough: The Auditor General found that in 2023-24, 46 school boards collectively spent $398 million more than they were funded for by the province to support special education needs in the classroom. She cited that the need for special education support for kids had grown faster than what was funded.

The Minister of Education just blamed school boards and trustees.

Speaker, this is not a governance issue. This is a funding issue. And it will only get worse.

Yesterday, we learned that the TDSB will see another $6.4-million drop in special education funding next year. Yet, of course, when the Premier needed a private jet, $29 million was easily available. It’s about priorities.

Will the Premier do the right thing by parents and children and fund special education in Ontario’s classrooms?

Hon. Paul Calandra: We’ve done just that—an over $3.85-billion increase to special education since we got here.

But this comes from a Liberal Party that spent a billion dollars to try to save two seats, right? That’s this Liberal Party.

I don’t blame school trustees and school boards for what is happening in special education and what’s happening in the education system. I actually blame the previous Liberal government that, for 15 years, ignored education entirely. Do you know what they did? They put a little extra money here; they put a little pet project here. They didn’t care about student outcomes. While math scores were plummeting, the Liberals said, “It’s okay. Let’s keep going.”

What we’re doing is saying this: Let’s bring a more consistent level of education across the province. The Ministry of Education has to step up and support that consistent level of education. We want our students to succeed. We want the curriculum to match the jobs of tomorrow. And the investments that we are making have to show results, because that’s what parents care about, that’s what our teachers care about and, ultimately, that’s what students need—a system that supports—

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

Northern airports

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch. I learned a few weeks ago that the Ministry of Transportation remote airports office in Thunder Bay walked away from the Northern Ontario Aviation Committee.

At the same time, this government is forcing an expansion to Billy Bishop airport that nobody asked for.

Why is this government walking away from their responsibility to improve air transportation in northern Ontario?

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: To the member opposite’s question, Speaker: Billy Bishop airport is going to help expand and modernize air transportation throughout this province, not just for international transportation, but for those members who are in the north.

Last week, I had the opportunity to talk to many people from the north during committee hearings, and the conversations that we were having were all about how this is going to expand air transportation, not only for those individuals who are travelling down from the north to Toronto to have medical appointments, visit their friends and family, go to sporting events and games, but it’s also going to help hospitals send more doctors up into the north, and bring more patients and doctors down, back into the airport, and utilizing that between Toronto—in downtown Toronto’s core.

For those patients who now have to travel to Pearson and go to the hospitals here in downtown Toronto—they’re adding another 40 to 50 minutes to their commute. This is going to get them to the care they need faster.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Kiiwetinoong.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: For the Minister of Transportation to use northern health care as an excuse to expand Billy Bishop airport—it’s just outrageous. It does not make sense.

We have 27 gravel airstrips in the north that need to be modernized—27.

Through the Speaker: When will this government properly fund the safety and the infrastructure of these airstrips?

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Again to the member: We’re working hard to make sure northerners have the opportunity to connect with Toronto. The work that we’ve been doing is not only on air transportation, but the Northlander as well. The members opposite voted against the Northlander, and we’re bringing it back. We’re making sure that we’re connecting northern communities to Toronto.

When we’re talking about airport modernization and expanding—that’s $140 billion to Ontario’s GDP. Northern hospitals and northern communities support that investment. It gets patients down into the city faster and more reliably. And when we take a look at the investments this is going to make—it’s about 20,000 jobs that that’s going to add to the core. It’s going to let people travel more conveniently and faster. And I’m sure that a lot of members here will be taking those flights back and forth, because it will be more convenient for their communities.

School boards / Conseils scolaires

M me Lucille Collard: Speaker, the supervisor appointed by the government to the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board is forcing the board to cut 83 teaching positions and two principal and vice-principal positions for the next school year. Those are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; those are adults who could help reduce class sizes, support students who are struggling and make schools safer.

Parents, educators and students have been clear: Our schools need more adults, not less. Yet, after years of underfunding, this government continues to shift the blame instead of taking responsibility for the growing pressures facing our education system.

So my question to the Minister of Education: Now that Bill 101 gives the government even greater control over all school boards, can parents expect more cuts to classrooms and fewer supports for their children?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Actually, the member will know that the problem in the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board was the fact that trustees were so dysfunctional, that many of the parents in that board decided to send their kids to different school boards.

We saw a significant increase in the Ottawa Catholic system while the Ottawa-Carleton system decreased. So some of the challenges that the member opposite mentions is that there are just fewer students who will be in the schools, so that means that there will be reduction in some of the staffing for sure. Having said that, most of the reductions in staff, as the member will know, happens through attrition. So there will be nobody, ultimately, in the final analysis, who will lose their job.

Now, what the supervisor did do was cut executive positions at the Ottawa board itself in the administration offices. That’s over a million dollars’ worth of savings that are at the administration office that will be put right back into the classroom, coming in September.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Member for Ottawa–Vanier.

M me Lucille Collard: Madame la Présidente, le ministre a promis que les conseils scolaires francophones seraient épargnés par sa réforme afin de protéger les droits des conseils francophones à se gouverner—une gouvernance par et pour les francophones.

Or, la directive qu’il vient d’envoyer aux conseils scolaires empêche maintenant tous les conseillers scolaires de participer à des événements, à des formations et à des conférences pourtant essentielles à leur rôle. C’est assez ironique venant d’un ministre qui, lui, voyage à l’international pour assister à des conférences sur l’éducation.

Le ministre argumente que les conseils scolaires dépensent de façon exagérée. Pourtant, je le mets au défi de démontrer de tels abus au sein de nos conseils scolaires francophones.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, I think that question itself speaks to the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. What the member is asking me to do is restore funding to trustees so that they can go to conferences and they can go to other events. The answer to that is absolutely not; I’m not going to do that. The boards themselves and the professionals who work in the boards themselves can continue to do that because that’s an important part of the work that they will do to help build their system. They’re going to continue to do that.

But a direct answer to the member: No, I will not allow a trustee to expense conferences and association memberships.

The job of the trustee is to represent parents—to represent and ensure that the funding that is being sent to them is being used in an appropriate fashion. That is what a trustee does.

To compare the work of a trustee to a minister of the crown or to an MPP shows a complete lack of understanding of the role of a trustee.

Primary care

Hon. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Minister of Health.

Our government is working hard to ensure every person in Ontario can connect to high-quality primary care, no matter where they live.

Last month, I had the pleasure of visiting the Kawartha Lakes family health team, where I announced that our government is investing over $1.8 million to connect more than 5,000 people in my community to a primary care provider. This funding will be used to hire additional health professionals, thereby improving access to comprehensive, team-based care. This builds on the success of last year’s expansion, which has already seen over 2,000 people in my riding attached to the high-quality primary care that they need and deserve.

Speaker, can the minister highlight how our government is meeting its goal of attaching every Ontarian to a primary care provider by 2029?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: To the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, a staunch advocate and a registered nurse: Thank you for your advocacy.

Through our $3.4-billion primary care action plan, our government is in fact on track to attach every single person in the province to a primary care provider by 2029. In fact, we have exceeded our 2025-26 target by 10%, attaching over 330 people to ongoing care this past year alone.

Today, I am pleased to announce that our government is investing over $3.5 million to connect nearly 7,500 people in Etobicoke–Lakeshore to primary care.

We are investing $235 million to connect 500,000 people to primary care across Ontario.

It is unfortunate that the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore chose not to invest and vote in that investment.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Hon. Laurie Scott: Thank you to the Minister of Health for all her hard work and sharing these important investments.

I must say, however, that it is truly unfortunate to see the member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore refuse to stand in support of this important investment that is being made in her community.

Residents in northern Ontario are connecting to primary care at historic rates.

In the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North’s community, the Port Arthur Health Centre family health team has exceeded their patient attachment target by over 180%, connecting more than 7,000 residents to team-based primary care.

Speaker, can the minister outline what else residents of northern Ontario can expect from our government’s primary care action plan?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock really raises an important issue of how we are, across Ontario, doing this expansion, and of course, the success of the Port Arthur family health team.

I’m delighted to announce that two primary care teams in Thunder Bay–Superior North will be directly benefiting from the 2026-27 expansion of our primary care action plan. The Nipigon District Family Health Team is receiving nearly $1 million, and the Marathon Family Health Team is receiving nearly $600,000 to collectively connect approximately 3,000 more people to ongoing primary care.

Unlike the NDP and the Liberals, we will continue to invest, and we will continue to ensure that across Ontario we have these investments impacting our local communities.

Environmental protection

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: This morning, I tabled a motion calling on this government to use the existing powers under the Environmental Protection Act to protect residents living near the former GM site in St. Catharines. Last week, the city issued multiple infractions over the dangerous conditions of the property, where residents have long raised concerns about asbestos, PCBs and contamination.

Will you, Minister, use the province’s existing tools to ensure this site is cleaned up and made safe for the community and existing neighbourhoods around?

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: I thank the member for St. Catharines for the question.

We, as the government of Ontario, are committed to the protection of human health and our shared environment in every way. That is the primary mandate of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

We began to monitor this situation in 2023. We received dust complaints originally during the construction of the stormwater management system, and at that time, we required the property owner to implement dust mitigation measures.

During our most recent site visit, on April 22, 2026, no off-site impacts were observed, and drone observations confirmed there were no on-site activities that could generate dust.

We are aware of the concern about PCBs. That issue has been resolved. The work has been completed that we directed to be done. Follow-up monitoring has confirmed that PCBs are no longer an issue in the stormwater.

We’re aware of the municipality’s directive and order, and we support that, and we’ll continue to monitor that situation with our ministry officials.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for St. Catharines.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Thank you for the answer, Minister. However, I would have loved to have been able to relay that a couple of weeks ago to my residents. We have not heard from you in my office.

Speaker, local residents are tired of finger-pointing and delays while this contaminated site continues to sit in the middle of a community and a neighbourhood. The city has now taken action within its authority, but municipalities cannot shoulder the financial burden of remediation alone.

The province already has enforcement tools to hold polluters accountable. Will the minister commit today, during this question period, to use those powers and ensure the former GM site in St. Catharines is cleared of cancer-causing chemicals in the ground?

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: Again, I appreciate the member’s concerns. The issue of the protection of our shared environment is not a partisan issue. We stand with you in our desire to assist in the situation.

I can tell you that we are well aware that untreated stormwater was being collected and stored on-site at one time. This matter was referred to our Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks enforcement and investigation branch for potential investigation. As this matter may be subject to investigation, it would be inappropriate to speculate further. But our government expects that all regulated parties can and will follow Ontario’s strict environmental laws, and we will take appropriate action if we see non-compliance that is identified.

Education funding

Speaker, through you to the education minister: What about these cuts is good for our kids?

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member mentions ESL cuts. The member will know, of course, that ESL funding was cut by the federal government, not by the provincial government.

The member mentioned the outdoor education centres. The member will also know that outdoor education still exists in the city of Toronto. What we have done is moved away from facilities that were owned by the city of Toronto that required millions upon millions of dollars worth of upgrades and renovations to make them safe for the kids to attend. That’s not something that I think the Toronto board of education should pay for. That’s why we’re ensuring that other opportunities for outdoor education still exist.

The member mentioned there may be some fewer teachers in the system. That’s as a result of 5,000 fewer students going to the Toronto District School Board. None of those reductions will mean teachers losing their jobs. As a matter of fact, there are far more retirements coming in the TDSB than there are surplus notices.

In the supplementary, if she would like to talk a little bit more about some of the additional investments that we are making in the TDSB to put money back in the classroom, I’d be delighted to do that.

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

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: The minister’s ideological talk about consistency is harming our kids. Robots are consistent; kids’ learning needs are not.

Through you, Speaker, to the education minister: Will you reverse your harmful cuts so you don’t harm these kids?

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member mentions the model schools. Of course, the challenge we’re having and the TDSB was having with some of the model schools was that enrolment was absolutely cratering in these model schools—there were simply not enough people to go.

What we know from education professionals is that when there are not enough students in a school, the educational experience and opportunities for those students greatly diminish.

What we’re doing is ensuring that all students have the opportunity to succeed in the school that is closest to their home, and that they have the resources they need.

The best way to help a child to succeed is by delivering for them the tools and resources that educators need so that they can succeed, giving the parents an understanding of what it is that they can expect for their kids.

What we want is for all kids to succeed—not specific targeting of specific communities just for specific electoral purposes.

I want all kids to have the understanding that Ontario is behind them and that we will give them the best opportunity for the best future possible.

Rural Ontario

MPP Bill Rosenberg: My question is for the Minister of Rural Affairs.

Rural Ontario is the backbone of our province, from family farms and small-town main streets to the forestry, mining and agricultural sectors that power our economy and define our way of life. It’s home to hard-working families, small businesses and entrepreneurs who keep our province moving.

But rural communities face real pressures, from rising costs and global economic uncertainty to US tariffs on local employers and jobs. Supporting them is not the work of one ministry alone. It takes a whole-of-government approach, with partners right across the government delivering for rural Ontario.

Speaker, can the minister please share with the House how our government, working together across ministries, is supporting rural communities and ensuring that they have the tools they need to grow and thrive?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: I appreciate the question very much from the member from Algoma–Manitoulin because it allows me the opportunity to stand in front of the House today, as Minister of Rural Affairs, to say how incredibly proud I am of the support from Premier Ford to enable a whole-of-government approach in support of our small, rural and northern communities.

For instance, I announced, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, that we increased by $100 million the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund that sees support to our communities that will enable them to address local priorities and critical services across Ontario.

Another ministry that we’ve worked with is the Ministry of Infrastructure. We’re seeing $400 million invested through the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t touch on the Ministry of Transportation support that we’re seeing, through $30 million invested through the Ontario Transit Investment Fund, as well as the $13 million for winter road maintenance.

There is so much more to talk about. I look forward to the supplemental.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

MPP Bill Rosenberg: Thank you to the minister for that incredible update.

It’s great to see our government on the ground, listening to communities that for too long were taken for granted under the previous Liberal government.

Speaker, last week the minister travelled to Timmins to host a rural summit on the heels of the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities conference. This event brought together municipal leaders, business owners, not-for-profits, and rural champions from across northern Ontario.

Can the minister please share with the House what came out of the recent rural summit in Timmins, and how our government is helping plan for the future of our rural communities in the north and beyond?

Hon. Lisa M. Thompson: First things first, Speaker: I want to share with the member from Algoma–Manitoulin that a very prevalent message I received while we were at FONOM is the incredible