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

April 13, 2026

44th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2026-Apr-13 (PDF)

L060 - Mon 13 Apr 2026 / Lun 13 avr 2026

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 13 April 2026 Lundi 13 avril 2026

Orders of the Day

Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 pour la construction de logements et l’amélioration de l’infrastructure de transport

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Members’ Statements

John Henry

Municipal planning

Firefighters

Land use planning

Heart and Stroke Foundation

Government accountability

Hospital funding

Ronald McDonald House

Volunteers

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Shooting at Lambton College

Question Period

Education funding

Highway safety

Education funding

Education funding

Education funding

School boards

Indigenous economic development

Health care funding

Technology in schools

Long-term care

Highway safety

Education funding

Small business

Education funding

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Restraining orders

Notice of dissatisfaction

Introduction of Government Bills

Putting Student Achievement First Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 donnant la priorité à la réussite des élèves

Petitions

Education funding

Student assistance

Ontario economy

Education funding

Health care

Tenant protection

Student assistance

Ontario economy

Education funding

Ontario economy

Ontario economy

Tenant protection

Social assistance

Affordable housing

Orders of the Day

Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 pour la construction de logements et l’amélioration de l’infrastructure de transport

2026 Ontario budget

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Good morning, everyone. Let us pray.

Prayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): And now a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Orders of the Day

Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 pour la construction de logements et l’amélioration de l’infrastructure de transport

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 1, 2026, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 98,

An Act to enact the Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 98, Loi édictant la Loi de 2026 sur l’harmonisation des tarifs et l’intégration des transports en commun et modifiant diverses lois.

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

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s always an honour to get up and rise in this House, especially when we have the opportunity to debate the housing crisis, which is the number one crisis facing families in this province and driving the affordability crisis that so many people are facing as they have this impossible choice of paying the rent, paying the mortgage, and putting food on the table.

Bill 98 is a bill that makes some important changes around the edges that in some respects can be positive, and I’m going to talk about that, but it also makes some changes that are going to set us back and make life less affordable for people, and that in some respects just don’t quite meet the moment—the bold moment that we need to address this housing crisis. To put this in context: Right now, housing starts in Ontario are at historic lows. Housing prices are at historic highs. There is no city in Ontario where a full-time minimum wage worker can afford average monthly rent.

And, tragically, over 85,000 people in this province do not have a place to sleep tonight and are experiencing homelessness. So we need bold, ambitious, pragmatic actions to solve this crisis.

There are some things in this bill that will move us forward. The changes to lot sizes and making them smaller is a good thing, something we’ve been advocating for. It makes a lot of sense. We utilize land more efficiently, which makes homes more affordable and makes opportunities for municipalities to service housing more affordable. We know how expensive low-density sprawl is.

If you look at most of the housing record of this particular government over the last eight years, it has been about, “How do we incentivize low-density sprawl to benefit a handful of wealthy, well-connected land speculators to cash in billions and billions of dollars at the expense of homes that everyday people can afford?” So moving forward on changes to lot sizes is a good thing.

Clarifying the rules around site planning is a good thing. I can’t tell you how many builders talk to me about the fact that one of the things that’s slowing down quickly increasing the supply of new housing is challenges around site planning. I want to say, if we can fix that, if we can make it more efficient and speed it up, I’m all for it. It’s going to help builders move faster, quicker, which is going to help them save money.

The changes to development charges, something the Ontario Greens have been pushing for over and over again: It’s finally great to see the federal and provincial governments working together to do this in a way that makes municipalities whole. We can’t transfer the cost of new home building off of new home owners and put it on the backs of existing property tax payers who are struggling right now with these Ford-government-inspired property tax increases you’re seeing in municipalities across the province. They simply can’t afford to do more.

But I will say the government’s rules around development charges should be done in a way that doesn’t incentivize low-density sprawl development, which is actually going to put more costs on the back of municipalities. It costs 2.5 times more to service low-density sprawl than to service homes built within existing urban boundaries, where—many planners have shown quite clearly, we already have enough land within existing urban boundaries to build over two million homes in Ontario. This government is not even going to get close to their goal of 1.5 million, but we have enough land already approved.

We should restrict the development charge changes to homes built within existing urban boundaries. That way, we don’t incur additional costs on municipalities for additional infrastructure because the infrastructure is already in place within most existing urban boundaries. It will save taxpayers tremendous amounts of money, it will lower the cost of new home construction, and it will help us speed up construction. So let’s do development charge changes. Let’s do it in the right way to save people and municipalities money.

Let’s get into some difficult changes in this bill. Removing the requirement for green development standards: Taking that away from municipalities and making it a volunteer instead of a mandatory standard is going to set Ontario back. It means we’re going to build less energy-efficient homes, which are cheaper to operate. So at a time when we’re seeing gas prices go through the roof, at a time when so many families are struggling to figure out how to buy groceries, heat and cool their homes, pay the rent, pay the mortgage, this government is going to make policies that will help lower operating costs, help people save money by saving energy—they’re going to get rid of.

The other thing that’s going to happen is, there are going to be other unintended consequences. FLAP Canada did a fantastic event on the weekend that I attended, that shows how many birds die by hitting building windows. Green building standards in Toronto prevent that from happening by having mandatory bird-friendly glass in those windows. Those are standards that are being internationally recognized.

There was a company there—bird friendlier—who talked about how they are getting work all across the world, creating good jobs right here in Ontario, based on the standards that exist around bird-friendly windows, and now Ontario is going to get rid of those. The rest of the world is saying, “You guys are doing great things in Ontario. We’re going to do this.” And this government wants to get rid of it, and it’s going to increase the number of birds we lose. I think that’s wrong.

It’s wrong for nature, and it’s wrong for our quality of life, especially when simple, low-cost solutions exist that actually—Ontario companies are innovating and moving forward, benefiting our economy at the same time.

The second thing is, the provisions around removing EV charger mandates for parking lots and new home construction is also going to set back affordability for people. There was a recent study done—and it particularly pertains to me because I drive a Chevy Equinox EV. If you look at the cost of a gas-powered Chevy Equinox versus an electric vehicle Chevy Equinox, the electric vehicle will save the average owner over $22,000 during the course of the lifetime of that vehicle. But the challenge increasingly is, where do you charge those vehicles?

The number of EVs on the road are exceeding the charging capacity of this province. We’ve had a government—and I complimented the government for this—spending billions and billions of dollars to incentivize electric vehicle manufacturing in the province of Ontario. That is critically important to the future of our economy. It’s critically important to creating jobs. But who is going to buy those vehicles? They’ve taken the rebates away. Now they’re taking the charging mandates away.

I can tell you, I’ve been driving all electric for almost eight years now. I used to easily get access to chargers wherever I went.

Interjection.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Thank you for that.

I’m saving lots of money. I’m just telling you guys, you fiscal conservatives over there, you should be driving EVs to save money. It’s good for the environment too, by the way. But it’s increasingly becoming difficult to access a charger. I can’t tell you how many times I go to charge my electric vehicle and all the chargers are full because so many people like me want to take advantage of the lower cost of operating an electric vehicle, and they know it’s going to make our climate better. If we don’t have chargers for them, then it’s going to create a disincentive for people taking advantage of that.

Yet this government is removing the mandates around having chargers in place. That not only hurts electric vehicle drivers and the environment and everything else, but it actually hurts the investment this government has made in building an EV manufacturing sector.

So you only have half a strategy. If we’re going to truly take advantage of the generational jobs in electric vehicle manufacturing, we need to ensure that people have a place to charge and they can afford those electric vehicles.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Questions?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Thank you to the to the member for Guelph.

I just want to bring your attention to Metrolinx. This government has given Metrolinx more unchecked power, and they’ve exempted them from having to apply for building permits. We know that Metrolinx is awash in VPs—they have 124 VPs, one VP for every MPP in the province—and they have now a really disturbing pattern of safety problems. Our leader, Marit Stiles, has asked the Auditor General to investigate. There is a report that was revealed by the Toronto Star that there was a near derailment, a near miss in Metrolinx, and it was only revealed by investigation. This is an organization that’s awash in VPs.

They are not transparent. They don’t bring anything on budget, on time. Now they have safety concerns.

Why in heaven’s name would this government give this organization more unfettered power when we need someone to be on top of this organization that costs us so much in terms of taxpayers and puts people’s lives at risk?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question.

Yes, Metrolinx needs a complete overhaul. It is so top-heavy. So much money is being wasted on all these vice-president positions, and yet transit is not being delivered on budget and is not being delivered on time.

As a matter of fact, we’ve been waiting for all-day, two-way GO on the Guelph-Kitchener line, it feels like forever now. I was told back in 2014 it was going to happen within a few years. It’s now 2026, and Metrolinx just announced another delay in it happening.

So I think this whole organization needs a complete overhaul. To give it more power, especially unaccountable power, and especially when the government is taking away freedom-of-information request opportunities—I am deeply concerned about what’s going to happen here, and I share the member’s concerns with the question.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Question?

M me Lucille Collard: Thank you to the member for Guelph. I love to talk about EVs. I also drive an EV. I know you know we’ve had those discussions before, for years now.

When this government took power eight years ago, one of the first things that they did was cancel all green projects and rip out EV charger stations. Because of that, we have a challenge today in finding those chargers when we travel.

Now that the government has seen a financial benefit to encouraging EVs because of the battery business, they’re encouraging people to drive EVs, without providing more charging stations.

I’ve been to Guelph, actually, in the last few months, a number of times, and there was no way I could charge my car in Guelph. So you’ve got to do something about this, Mike.

What would you recommend the government do to be consistent with its encouragement to produce more EVs—to make it accessible to everyone in Ontario?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question.

I’ve got to say, as the MPP for Guelph, we do have to do better on high-speed chargers. We have the automotive dealership in Canada that has the largest per capita sales of electric vehicles—it’s where I bought my electric vehicle—and yet we only have three high-speed chargers in the entire city of 150,000 people. It’s a big issue, 100%.

Do you know what? Here’s what people tell me all the time: We need to have mandates in place—that when new homes are being built, especially in multi-residential buildings, they at the very least need to rough in charging infrastructure, because it will be way cheaper than to put those chargers in later, when there is more demand for chargers. But as the member just noted, there is already sufficient demand. We do not have enough chargers in Ontario now. Five years ago, we had enough; today, we don’t. The government removing these mandates is only going to make it worse.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): A very quick question and response.

Hon. Graham McGregor: Thank you to my colleagues from the Green Party and the Liberals. I note that they both drive electric vehicles—my colleague from Guelph, for the last eight years.

I drive a 2010 Honda Accord. It’s a great car, a V6 engine—sorry to my colleague across—270 horsepower. It’s a great vehicle.

I’m just wondering—because the member from the Liberals talked about more chargers being available under the previous government than today—can my colleague across confirm, are there more chargers under the PC government of today or the Liberal government of yesteryear?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the question. And by the way, congratulations. I know you had a personal milestone last week, and I think we all want to congratulate you.

Interjections.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I will just say that there are not enough EV chargers given the number of EVs on the road. If we’re going to incentivize EV manufacturing, we have to have enough chargers.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Further debate?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: I am so happy to stand today and talk about the future of Ontario and to talk, specifically, about Bill 98, Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act.

I want to speak for a minute and set the stage as to why I really want to congratulate the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the associate minister—the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka—and everyone in our caucus who believes that now is the time to be bold and visionary. Now is the time when we’re staring down the barrel of a gun—it’s not only the threat of US tariffs and what they’re doing to our economy; it’s seeing them actually here and knowing that in Ontario and in Canada we have used this time judiciously to reinvent ourselves and to understand that in our province there’s nothing we can’t do, there’s nothing we can’t achieve.

As I’ve said before, I am proud that in this province of Ontario, we all have an equal place to belong, to contribute and to succeed. I’m really proud of that.

I can’t help but say, when I’ve had the privilege for almost four years of serving as the Solicitor General, the minister responsible for public safety in our province, and seeing our first responders first-hand in their place of work, at graduations, in our correctional facilities, in our police stations, in our fire halls—I’ve seen the animal welfare inspectors in action. I’ve gone to the coroner’s office. I’ve been to the Centre of Forensic Sciences. At each opportunity, I realized these are people who wanted to come forward to make a difference to our public safety. But these are real people too, who want to have the ability of home ownership, just like we all want.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has said many times that one of the problems facing us is that it takes too long and it costs too much. If we remember that line that he has made many times—“It takes too long, and it costs too much.” It’s because, left unchecked, the way that things have progressed for decades—the bureaucracy to get a building permit, the wanting of a person to build a home or a series of homes, an understanding that they don’t have the municipal services to do it.

And what we want to do, including in Bill 98, that I think is a great component, is bring in this communal water concept—also allowing that the service corporations will have a role to play, because we have to continue to expand the services to bring more houses online.

Bill 98 showcases the importance of our homes and the role that a home plays in a person’s life.

I was lucky, although the economics looked different in the 1990s, just before I got married—and many members of this Legislature will tell the story of when they finally, in their day, had enough courage to move out of their parents’ home. This was a big step—moving out of your parents’ home and understanding what would be the first place that you would occupy. Some would rent an apartment. Some would put a down payment on a condo. Some would even go further and put a down payment on a house. When you go back to the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s—and for people in this Legislature, that’s our generation. We knew what it was like to take that first step.

I want to go back even further, to the time when my grandparents had an opportunity to not only build but buy their first home. That is something that we have to go back to the 1930s and 1940s for. The 1930s were the Depression era. People didn’t have a dollar. What people would do is work two or three jobs—maybe similar, actually, to today—and they would find a way of finding a few dollars and making a deposit.

My dad, Max, who will be 95 in a few months, reminded me that when he was a baby, born in Toronto in 1931, his family moved five or six times—interestingly, all around the corner to where we are, to Huron Street, to D’Arcy Street, to Wells Street and other streets. Along the way, what he told me about my grandparents the late Sam and Sarah Kerzner was that they would rent out rooms in their home so that the family would be able to fulfill a dream of owning a home. Gradually, as they worked even harder, they were able to occupy a home—a single home. People know that in the area around where we are, the homes are small. They had seven kids, but they made it work.

Along the way, in the 1940s and 1950s—and in the 1960s, when my parents, Max and Dolly Kerzner, got married, they aspired, after getting married, to own a home. They went up to Bayview and York Mills, which was probably—and people might remember that period of the Windfields Farm. This was E.P. Taylor’s area that he was developing. He was selling homes—again, by relative standards; they were relative to the days. Whether you could buy a home for $20,000 or $30,000 and get a mortgage for 4% or 5% in the early 1960s, people made it work. They worked hard, and they paid off the mortgage monthly.

They tried to raise a family and to be part of a community, growing Toronto in the 1960s, of which I was a part. I was lucky to grow up in the area of Bayview and York Mills, which was a new subdivision at that time. I really benefited from the parks and the schools that were being built and the infrastructure that the government, led by Premier William Davis—wow, if there was one person other than our Premier, the Honourable Doug Ford, who I most aspire to be like, it would be Premier Davis, followed by Premier Mike Harris, because they believed in our province.

Parce que nous croyons en notre province et en notre avenir, et ensemble, nous bâtissons l’Ontario. We say it because we have to believe in our province. And we know when we build our province together, we’ll leave something for the next generation.

Bill 98 is important because we acknowledge a number of things—that things have changed from the 1930s, 1940s and the 1960s.

The 1930s and 1940s—when my grandparents placed their first deposit. And on my mom’s side of the family—and I’ve spoken about my late grandfather Murray Penwick, who bought a home, firstly, on Cherrywood Avenue in the Vaughan-St. Clair area. He, as a pharmacist, put a deposit down on a little store at the end of the street and had his first pharmacy. Those were different times.

What we have learned now, in 2026—and I’ll repeat it again: It takes too long and it costs too much to build a home in Ontario. The problem is completely undeniable.

I’ve had a chance to speak to people who are building homes—and firstly, I want to acknowledge the great work that our incredible Minister of Finance has done by removing the HST on new homes. If you read the Globe and Mail just today, it was quite interesting but not surprising that since the government of Ontario, led by Premier Ford, made this incredible announcement, the phones are ringing again. People are calling developers and they’re coming forward and saying, “This is our chance to get into the home ownership opportunity.”

In 1996, when my wife and I were getting married and we put a deposit on a home in Bathurst Manor, in the riding of York Centre that I live in today—we never moved out. I’m so proud that my wife and I were able to not only say at the ballot box twice, “We live in the riding,” but—we’re so proud of it. When we had an opportunity to make a deposit on a home, we were scared. We didn’t know how the future would fare. We didn’t know what the value of a home would be. We were fortunate a few years later, after we had three kids, we realized—like many families, you outgrow a home.

You want to make sure that the priority is always for our children—that they should be close to a school, if possible; that they should be close to a park.

I remember my father—when it came time to buy our first home, he said, “These are things that are important. You have to have a backyard for the kids to play. You have to live on a side of a street that allows kids to play when they get older—road hockey, kick the soccer ball around where it’s safe.”

Home ownership was important then, and it’s very important today. And one of the reasons why I think we have turned the corner in terms of encouraging people to take that first step is because we laid the foundation to make sure that protecting Ontario means protecting us.

As I’ve said before—public safety perspective, yes. As Solicitor General, I’m very passionate about it.

From a health care perspective, I was at our incredible Humber River Hospital, where we welcomed, last Friday—the Minister of Health and the Premier and my colleague from Humber River–Black Creek across the aisle—a visionary donation of $50 million from Jay and Barbara Hennick and their family, who believe in our visionary approach to our province.

When we look at housing, one of the things that we want to do is standardize, as an example, and simplify the official plan. We want to standardize it across the province so people know what they’re getting. We want to standardize the fact that, as we know—and I was in that business for a long time with my father and my uncle. We were small builders, and we took after my late grandfather, who may have claimed the fame that he built the first angular carport in the 1950s.

If somebody lives in a home from 1950 and you see the angular carport—the reason I used to say, “Why didn’t you build a garage?” They said, “It was too expensive. We wanted to pass the savings on to a person in the Victoria Park and Sheppard area”—the area we call today Wishing Well. In that area, my grandfather built a few homes. What we want to do is make it simple where it became cumbersome.

The conversation of standardizing the process of one obtaining a building permit in a period of time that allows somebody to get the job done—“It costs too much, and it takes too long.” We have to remember those words from the Minister of Housing and the associate minister, my friend from Parry Sound–Muskoka.

We want to move forward, and we want to be bolder. We want to move forward with our plan for the municipal service corporations to help municipalities finance critical infrastructure, getting key waste water facilities in place. It’s a model that has to evolve.

This whole concept, by the way, of municipal service corporations is to work with pension funds and other funds that taxpayers are part of, because these funds should help build Ontario.

When we read the statements of pension funds across Canada—I remind them all the time that Ontario is a great place to invest, because when you invest, you’re helping your members every single day. And this is something I’m very, very proud of.

We want to make sure that we don’t leave anybody behind.

We want to make sure that we’re there for our seniors. That’s why, when we look at the record of building long-term-care homes, our government has already—through Bill 17, the building faster and smarter act—exempted long-term-care homes from development charges. When I came to this place almost four years ago in the class of 2022, I was amazed by the opportunity that we had in front of us. Whether it be things that I learned along the way, both as the MPP from York Centre but also as Solicitor General—I understood that we had limitless potential. We had nothing but opportunity to be bold.

Yes, we knew we were not going to get the problem solved on day one. But all of us will tell a story of our seniors, some being our own parents—or my friend from Niagara West, perhaps his grandparents, or others who have grandparents alive. We want to make sure that we don’t forget our seniors. That’s why exempting the long-term-care homes from development charges will make a difference.

We want to bring the cost of housing down in Ontario. One of the ways we do it, as the Premier has said, is to lay the groundwork, lay the foundation for people to invest.

There is no doubt that the times we find ourselves in are scary for everyone in Canada. Now is the time to unite. Now is the time for governments of different levels, federal and municipal, to work together. And I’m very proud that our government, led by Premier Ford, is continuing to work day and night with the municipal governments of Ontario and our federal government. Nobody has an exclusive for patriotism and loving our country more than one to another.

Go back to the anthem. I’ve said it in this chamber before—what does it mean, in the second stanza: “True patriot love in all of us command”? Again, what are we commanded to do? We’re commanded to love our province, to take care of everyone who lives here, to be responsible to the taxpayers who are allowing governments to exist, to understand that the role of the government is to make sure that we lay the seeds for people to invest.

We know, as the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade has shown us, there’s a multiplier effect by every investment, whether you’re in the southern part of Ontario or—today, I spoke to friends in Kapuskasing. And I want to thank the people, especially up north.

Madam Speaker, it’s easy to say that you represent an urban riding in Toronto—and it’s true, it’s easy to say it, simply because the size of our ridings relative to rural ridings is much smaller.

Yes, I’m fortunate—on a nice summer’s day, as I do in the summer, I walk weekly the four corners of our riding. I can see people gardening. I can see people in their backyard. I can see families whose kids are growing up right in front of me. I can see people who want to have a dream fulfilled.

In my own family, where I’m blessed to have three children, Seth, Aaron and Shaina, I want one day for them to have everything that my father and mother were able to give to me and my brothers.

This concept of home ownership shouldn’t just be a dream that skips a generation. No. That will never be acceptable for our government, led by the Premier. We’re not going to let that happen.

We’re going to continue to evolve. We’re going to continue to make sure that this concept of being visionaries, of imagining things that we could solve, imagining ways of getting things done quicker and making sure that this moniker, which we must one day—and we say it’s undeniable; we can’t let that define us. It costs too much, and it takes too long—I’m saying it differently.

This bill that we’ve had the privilege of speaking to today is another example of a government that is not afraid to be bold. Bill 98 helps move the needle.

I’ll go back to where I started. I’ve had the honour of a lifetime to meet thousands of our people who proudly wear uniforms and keep us safe. They raise their families. Their kids play in the park. Their spouses go to work. At the end of the day, they shop. At the end of the day, they want to have a place to worship. It all revolves around the concept of home ownership.

Our government’s responsibility is to be bold when others tell us to be quiet. We will stand up. We will never stop in believing in our province and in our future, parce que nous croyons en notre province et notre avenir. Et madame la Présidente, ensemble, nous bâtissons l’Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Questions?

Ms. Jessica Bell: My question is to the member opposite.

I would like your opinion on

schedule 4.

Schedule 4, the Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act, allows the minister to set the TTC, Toronto’s, fare structure. It also allows the government to take money from the TTC and give it to other transit agencies, which could mean that Toronto will be subsidizing York’s and Peel’s transit agencies instead of keeping that money within Toronto.

My question to the minister is, is this government looking at increasing fares on the TTC?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: I want to say proudly that the Amalgamated Transit Union is located in York Centre. I have a great relationship—and I want to shout out to Marvin Alfred, who is its president. I speak to President Marvin Alfred on a regular basis. We spoke about this, actually—what the member just referred to—and I said to Marvin Alfred, as part of his leadership at the ATU, that we’re going to speak to stakeholders. The Minister of Transportation said that. And we’re going to make sure that we will always stand with everyone, not only to keep us safe, but to provide the motion for us to go to work every day on our transit.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Question?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the Solicitor General’s remarks.

Also, you talked about your support for first responders. I want to thank you for the many visits you make to my riding to support both police and fire services in Guelph.

The member talked about the need to standardize things across the province with a building code review. The housing affordability task force, which I admit issued its report prior to the member’s election in 2022, said two of the most important standardized changes that could be made to incentivize building more homes that people can afford is to legalize fourplexes and mid-rises as-of-right across the province of Ontario. Would the member agree with the government’s own housing task force that that would be a bold step forward in building homes people can afford in communities they know and love?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: I want to say to the member from Guelph how much I appreciate his support of his local fire service and his police service. I really appreciate it very much.

At the end of the day, it goes back to what the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has said: If we have to address something that’s undeniable, that it costs too much and it takes too long, we have to be bold. I hope to say that we have to continue to evolve.

Bill 98 before us today takes that first step. The member from Guelph has said in this House many times suggestions that we debate, and this is something that—we’re not going to leave any stone unturned. We’re going to continue to be bold, and we’re going to continue to be visionary.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Questions?

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: Speaker, my honourable colleague across mentioned a number of communities that have been built up over the years, that actually surround my own riding.

As a younger person today, in my own riding, where I have been born and raised, the dream of home ownership unfortunately has become just that—a dream—for many people.

When you speak to housing experts, the experts will tell you that in order to get people to that dream of home ownership, not only do we need a government that is making the rules easier; we also need to support the entire housing spectrum, because it’s a continuum. There’s not just one point that we need to focus on.

The government itself committed to 1.5 million homes about eight years ago—a number that this government now refuses to even speak about, and for understandable reasons.

What do you plan to do to support the entire spectrum of housing to make sure that this dream of home ownership is able to be alive still today?

L’hon. Michael S. Kerzner: Je voudrais remercier mon collègue pour cette question pertinente.

At the end of the day, we have to make sure that if we set a goal to build a large number of homes, we get that thing done. But we had a few things that happened in the way—we had a pandemic; now we have the undeniable threats of tariffs.

We have to make sure, as an example, that by removing the HST, that we did as part of the Minister of Finance’s budget, on new homes—that has encouraged people. I’d ask my friend opposite—check with your builders there to see whether their phones are now ringing.

But this undeniable burdensome permitting that takes forever, the development charges in Toronto that are ridiculous, and the fact that to get any permit issued in the city of Toronto you’ll wait till you become a grandfather—we have to move past that.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Questions?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Thank you to the Solicitor General for his great remarks. He actually touched on the subject I was going to ask about this morning; it was around development charges.

I know in Bill 60 and Bill 17—earlier in this Parliament, last fall, we’ve tabled and this assembly has passed those bills. The work around development charges, making sure people understand what is included in those development charges, working with our municipal partners to get a greater understanding of that—it should go to infrastructure. It should go to pipes in the ground. Unfortunately, in some municipalities, that doesn’t go to those infrastructure investments, and it goes to general reserves and sits there.

I was wondering if the Solicitor General can talk about how this bill before this place further builds on that important work on improving transparency around development charges and what’s included in those, so we can continue to cut taxes on homes and get more homes built.

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: I want to thank my great friend from Perth–Wellington. I know, as a new father, he’s waiting, one day, to figure out a plan—that his newborn baby will move out of his home—with his wife, Meghan, but not today.

The reality is, it’s so obvious: What this bill tells us is, whether we’re looking to cut red tape—and we have a great Minister of Red Tape Reduction, our member from Barrie–Innisfil. If we’re looking at ways of making it clearer and more transparent to a developer, knowing that there will be certainty to get a permit, understanding where the development charges are going—but at the end of the day, most people don’t understand.

And the member is 100% right; the development charges have sat in a private bank account—that didn’t go to what they should have gone to, to build the infrastructure. That’s why we’re changing that.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Questions?

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank the member for his comments.

This government has the worst housing record of any province in the country. So I’ve got a suggestion for you.

The Ontario Line runs through my riding. There are a number of stations. The government owns the property over the stations. They’re going to be building housing there. Why aren’t you going to mandate that 30% of that housing be affordable housing? In the city of Toronto, Mayor Olivia Chow is doing that. She’s converting parking lots—she’s giving parking lots to developers in exchange for 30% of the units that are built to be affordable housing. Why don’t you do that with the Ontario Line stations?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: I want to thank my colleague opposite.

At the end of the day, homes need to be affordable. What’s driving the inflationary cost of homes? It’s the development charges. It’s the fact that, especially in the last few years, people have been demotivated to want to build anything. As the Minister of Housing said—and we talked about it—it costs too much, and it takes too long.

This bill goes forward—but specifically, what the member says is that we need to have more affordable rental housing units.

We know—and the minister has said this—that the interesting thing that we’ve seen in recent days, in recent months, is that developers now will build rental housing. It’s the marketplace that’s driving the cost down, which is important.

Rental home prices need to reflect the better economics—of making sure that they are affordable. One way we do that is, get rid of some of the onerous development charges that are preventing people from owning a home.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Quick question and response.

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: I just want to follow up with the minister, as he asked me if my phone is ringing off the hook from developers. No, it’s ringing off the hook from my constituents who can’t afford a home, because that’s who I speak to every day.

I’m concerned about hearing from the minister the constant repetition of how this supports developers.

If he wants to help get houses built in my riding, will he commit to build the Sheppard extension?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: The member opposite knows I’m 100% in favour of seeing the Sheppard extension join from where my riding is to his riding. So 100%, yes; I want to see that get done.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Happy Monday morning.

There are a number of things to talk about in this bill, and I know my colleagues have addressed them earlier. There are some real causes for concern around the attacks on green development standards. And there is a very strange exemption for Metrolinx from provisions of the building code. Given the difficulties we’ve had with Metrolinx in my riding, the idea that they’re no longer going to be covered by the building code is a pretty odd thought. I will be curious to hear how the government justifies that.

There are a number of concerns here around housing affordability.

This bill does not legalize missing-middle housing options—as-of-right—in all neighbourhoods. If you’re concerned about making low-cost housing available quickly across Ontario, this would help tremendously. I’ll note, recently, I believe it was the mayor of Markham who used his strong-mayor powers to block this kind of housing—so no thanks to the government in making it more difficult for people to find a place to live.

The government, in this bill, continues to rely solely on the for-profit, private market for delivery of all new housing, as if the collapse in developing housing in Ontario can be fixed with a tweak here and a tweak here, and a change to development charges. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to reduce the cost of building new housing. In fact, I think it’s a really good idea to reduce the cost of building new housing—going back to my earlier comments about missing middle and making it possible to build fourplexes all over the place.

But the reality is that people who earn minimum wage are not going to be buying $1-million, $1.2-million homes. It’s not going to happen. The government needs to actually step in and have a housing agency, as we have had historically, to build housing for those parts of the population—and they are large—who do not actually have the purchasing power to participate in the market. That’s something that this government needs to address, and it’s not addressed in this bill.

Frankly, one other huge affordability issue that needs to be addressed is real rent control, so that people who are living in rental housing in my riding, and many others, who are facing continuous increases in their rents, to the extent that people have said to me—and I had an 80-year-old come up to me at a meeting in an apartment lobby late last year, who said, “One more rent increase and I’m out. I can’t afford to buy groceries and pay rent,” in this fairly modest rental building in my riding. She said, “So do you have government housing options for me?” I had to say to her that it’s a 10-to-15-year waiting list. And her response was very simple: “I’ll be dead.”

This government is not addressing the needs of a big chunk of the population who aren’t going to be buying new houses, and it isn’t addressing the needs of those who want to and may well be able to buy a new house, by actually taking the steps necessary to change regulations in this province.

A few other comments: Seamless transit is a good idea. I take transit a lot. I’ve used the GO train to get out to Oshawa. I’ve used it to get out to Ajax. I’ve used it to get out to Mississauga, to Hamilton. I think that investing in more transit makes a lot of sense. But I don’t think that a minister-controlled fare hike with no accountability is a good idea. How is the minister actually going to determine what is a fare hike? Will the minister actually look at things in terms of affordability?

Will the minister actually look at things in terms of the sustainability of the transit entity that he’s dealing with or she’s dealing with? That giving of power without accountability is not a reasonable or thoughtful approach to the problem that we’re facing. Putting money into transit? Absolutely.

When Mike Harris cut funding for transit back in the 1990s, it had an immediate and obvious impact on the TTC—I can’t speak to other transit systems, because I don’t travel in transit in Hamilton and Ottawa. But I did see it in Toronto, and my suspicion is that transit systems all over were hurt badly by that withdrawal of funding—not being restored, not being addressed in this bill.

The environmental standards for new housing and the attack on the efforts of local governments to actually do something about affordability, about the cost of operating those homes by reducing their energy needs, and the efforts of local governments to reduce emissions so that we deal with climate change are being undermined by this bill. And I find it weird, but this government effectively has abandoned action on climate change. As you’re well aware, it has abandoned its targets on greenhouse gas reductions. Am I totally surprised? I’m not, because I knew they weren’t going to make their targets, notwithstanding the statements of the Minister of the Environment in this House.

The reality is that the climate crisis is there and things are deepening. For those who care about bottom lines rather than the impact on people: It is having a huge impact on insurance across North America. Insurers are withdrawing from jurisdictions where the impact of climate is making homes effectively uninsurable. So California, Louisiana, Florida are jurisdictions where there are areas that cannot get insurance. In those states, state governments have set up insurance companies that, I have to say, are deeply underfunded.

We are facing a northern Ontario problem with people getting insurance, because of the increase in flooding that is, again, happening because of climate change. So we are seeing increased costs. This is a real phenomenon. This is a government that has responsibility for looking after the people of Ontario and is not paying attention to a fundamental issue that will determine the kind of future that we have.

And going from water, I’m going to go to fire. The reality is that as the world gets hotter and as the interior of continents gets drier, we will see more fires in cities. You saw the fire in Los Angeles well over a year ago. That was a wake-up call to everyone. We’ve seen the fires in Fort McMurray, in Jasper—Lytton, British Columbia burned to the ground. But we hadn’t seen it in big cities.

You should all be well aware that the wildfires that we’ve seen in places like Australia a number of years ago—wildfires that produced enough smoke that in Sydney, the smoke detectors in the interior of office buildings started going off because of the concentration of smoke from the outside coming into those buildings. That is substantial.

The World Bank runs a website on risk, and on that site they look at fire risk in cities around the world. Toronto is listed as a high-risk city for urban fire. That is something people need to consider. It wouldn’t have been a high-risk city 30 years ago or 50 years ago, but the world is hotter; it is drier. And thus, the potential is there for a fire breaking out in a wooded area going into an urban area. Halifax, in 2023, had that problem—165 houses lost. I talked to one of the firefighters who was on the scene. They drove their truck into the area. The glass on the fire truck shattered from the heat.

That week, a number of firefighters, after the fire was out, retired—“We didn’t sign up for this.”

So we have a substantial problem that is in motion right now and is deepening. And yet, this government is going after every measure it can that actually will try to address the problem.

Governments tried before to get rid of the green building standards—and it’s sort of like whack-a-mole: They hit it; it didn’t really work. They hit it again; it didn’t work. Maybe they’ll be successful this time and knock it out. That is a real disservice to the people of this province. It raises some very substantial questions. What has this provincial government got against local governments trying to make housing more efficient so people have lower energy bills?

The reality is, if you have a higher standard of insulation, if you seal a house properly, you will need less fuel, less energy to heat it and to cool it. So why don’t we, in fact, require that standard so that in the long run people’s costs are lower? It’s much cheaper to make a house efficient when you’re building it the first time than to go back and try to retrofit it later. A number of you are well aware of that.

You also are well aware, I’m sure, that 70% of our natural gas comes from the United States. So the more gas we burn, the more we are subsidizing a government, a country, that is actually trying to undermine our economy. When we hire Canadian workers to insulate our homes, upgrade the windows at time of construction, make buildings more weather-tight, we are putting Canadian workers to work and reducing the amount of money we send to the United States. Why is the government against that?

They could make the argument that we’ll get rid of these city standards and we’ll have an Ontario Building Code that brings about the same result. That would give you a uniform standard. But that is not what is proposed before us.

And then I have to ask: Who is asking for this? Who is saying, “Get rid of these green building standards. We want to pay more for heating and cooling”? Who, in the end, is asking for that? It does not help the vast majority of Ontarians who will rent or own a home that could be efficient, weatherproof, and hopefully far less expensive to operate.

If you look around, you’ll find that the green building standards in Toronto have not slowed down development. Toronto has seen increasing or consistent housing starts since its green development standards were introduced 16 years ago—16 years ago, and you’re trying to roll it back now. Seriously? We do have a decline in housing construction. It’s not because of a 16-year-old standard for energy efficiency and weatherproofing in a house.

So if the province wants to step up and set a standard that will protect people from climate change, it will protect people’s pocketbooks from higher energy bills—bring on those regulations. But that’s not what is happening here. What we’re seeing is a rollback to increase the heating of the world, increase the risk, increase the cost of insurance, make home ownership more expensive and home renting more expensive.

If the government is not that concerned about the homes and their standards, then I want to go on to this whole question of safe drinking water and water corporations. I found it interesting that this initiative was coming forward, and I found it useful that there was enough political pressure that the government said, “No, these will be publicly owned water corporations.” It sort of reinforced that language.

I was here when Kathleen Wynne took it upon herself to privatize Hydro One, and you could just see the steps of setting up a corporate structure with shares that can be sold, that allowed one to move step by step to eventually taking it out of public hands. And that is my worry about what we see with this bill.

I appreciate the fact that, again, political pressure has made the government make a variety of statements about how, in fact, these private water and waste water corporations won’t be privately owned. But you have to ask, why on earth are you doing it in the first place? And when you have in the text of the bill that the ownership of shares can only be with a level of government or an agent of that government, you have to ask, how is an “agent” defined?

If you appoint an agent—let’s say Imperial Oil—to run your water, and they decide to run it on a basis that is contrary to your interests, are you going to overrule them? Are you going to actually have a de facto operation that delivers the same results as a private corporation with a window dressing of public ownership? I have real questions about the government’s intentions here and what exactly is driving them.

I’m also concerned about the communal water systems. I can see some utility—particularly in small, rural, northern communities—where a communal water system could be useful. But I have to say, you have to be very careful here, because you have to wonder whether or not those water systems will actually be subject to the protections of

section 19 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which was recommended by Justice O’Connor. The proliferation of those communal water systems necessitates the updating of many source protection plans under the Clean Water Act, and I don’t see any provision in the bill to do that. I don’t see an apprehension that, in fact, we might put ourselves in another Walkerton situation. That is a substantial concern. You also have to ask, what is the long-term financial viability of these communal water systems, and how does one assure that the actual operation is at a level such that those who drink that water will be protected?

That is a substantial concern. I can also see—because I accept that these systems can be useful for small, rural, northern places—that, given human ingenuity, they can also be used to facilitate sprawl. And if you’re concerned about the affordability of government or the affordability of housing, facilitating sprawl is not your friend. So that is a real concern for us.

My hope is that, in committee, we’ll actually get an opportunity to dig into this further and hopefully make some amendments that would put us in a position where the bill would be beneficial to the people of Ontario. So there are a number of amendments, obviously—one of which being either drop the attack on green building standards or make sure that the Ontario building code reflects the highest possible level.

And I did leave something out—the member for Guelph remarked on this: The attack on requirements for charging for electric vehicles is quite extraordinary. The world is going to electric vehicles, in terms of technology. If you want to be building tomorrow’s products, you want electric vehicles. And if you want a market for electric vehicles in Ontario, you need to have the charging capacity. So if you take away that charging capacity, you undermine people’s incentive to buy electric vehicles; you undermine your industrial future. Why would you do that? Who does this serve?

I just find this bill to be contradictory in the way it’s set up, contradicting statements of the government around its commitment to future manufacturing by undermining the conditions that are necessary to make that future manufacturing viable.

We are going to need committee hearings on this bill. The custom in the last year has been far fewer committee hearings. I don’t know what the government is currently planning. My hope is that they will have committee hearings and that the public will have an opportunity to come, present information, be questioned and, although they won’t get answers, at least raise questions that may be substantial in the way people assess where things should go with this bill.

One of the things that I hadn’t mentioned earlier and I want to mention now is that reducing development charges will, or should, make housing less expensive. It depends on whether or not the builders are charging at what the market will bear or charging at what it actually costs the builder to put a house in the ground. But if you reduce development charges which are collected by cities, the cost of putting in place the infrastructure doesn’t disappear.

So, effectively, what you do is say to cities, “You will now pay for this infrastructure that previously was paid for by the new development.” Cities will be pushed to have property tax increases. This government says, “We don’t raise any taxes.” That’s right; you farm it out. You put the pressure on lower levels of government, and, in the end, they’re the ones who are forced to raise taxes so that the roads are paved and the infrastructure is there for new development.

Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk to the bill. There’s a lot here, but I covered as much as I could.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Questions?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank my friend the member from Toronto–Danforth for his ever-eloquent presentation on Bill 98.

He spoke about power without accountability. In Metrolinx, we see that there are now 124 vice-presidents, which has been revealed through a scan of the sunshine list—the same as the number of members of provincial Parliament for the entire province of Ontario. It’s up 5% since last year. Having a bloated, top-heavy and arrogant administrative overlord—overload such as this is really—

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Overlord?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: —siphoning money away from the core mandate of Metrolinx, which is really to get people to their location faster and more effectively.

My question is, what does it say about the Conservative government, that they have allowed Metrolinx to become this bloated and this top-heavy?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the question, and I thought the Freudian slip about overlords was entirely appropriate. I urge you not to correct your language, sir. I think it simply reflects the culture of the government.

As people are aware, the Premier has, I think, the largest Premier’s office in history, and you have to ask why. Seriously, why? If the Premier is operating with some efficiency, he shouldn’t need a larger bureaucracy than the Liberals had. And let’s face it, the Liberals were very, very generous with themselves.

Do you need to be more generous than the Liberals with your political staffing? I suggest not. I would suggest some modesty in this matter and going to a level that is defensible.

Frankly, your comments are well put, sir—overlords indeed.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Question?

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Thank you so much, Speaker. Through you to my colleague: We know that Metrolinx has been plagued with well-documented concerns: ballooning executive ranks with an unusually high number of vice-presidents, a pattern of costly delays, decisions that have too often disconnected from the communities that the transit was meant to actually serve.

At the same time, in my riding of Parkdale–High Park, we’re not asking for luxury announcements or glossy press releases; we’re asking for reliable, accessible, affordable transit.

So my question to my colleague is this: How does—if it does—the Metrolinx

section of Bill 98 actually improve accountability and deliver better transit rather than simply reinforce the same top-heavy structure and decision-making that has led to the challenges in the first place?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, that’s a puzzler. I don’t know how it actually does in fact make things better and more accountable.

I know this may sound strange to some members of this Legislature, but ensuring that government operation is as close to the population it serves as possible makes a lot of sense to me. So the idea that the TTC had its downtown relief line taken away from it and the Ontario Line put in place raised serious questions.

We were told the Ontario Line that was being put in place would be done faster than the relief line. Well, the relief line was going to be under way shortly before or about the time this government came into power. Instead of having transit from the east end to downtown in the mid-2020s, we’re looking at closer to the mid-2030s. I don’t see that as being responsive to the needs of the population.

I would say that structuring things so that accountability is lost and power is vested at a much higher and much less accountable level is a huge problem. I don’t see this bill actually correcting that.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Question?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question is regarding public transit and the fare integration that this government is talking about.

I will just say that one of the things that municipalities struggle with is all the downloading that they have to deal with from the province. The province dumps all the costs on municipalities and expects them to deliver expensive services like public transportation.

One of the things that we have been saying is that the government needs to actually take back, upload the 50% cost of running public transportation, but now, instead, we’re going the opposite way.

With this minister’s ability to integrate fares but have no consultation with municipalities and no indication as to whether they can increase fares, whether local municipalities will receive additional funding to support this, do you have any confidence that this government’s meddling in public transit will improve things for the people trying to use that as an affordable option for getting around their cities?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, that is a toughie.

No, I don’t have any confidence. I would say that—

Interjection: I’m shocked.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I know the member is shocked by my response and by my apparent cynicism. But no, I don’t think the government is going to be very responsible on this.

Frankly, if they did care about transit and they did care about the impact on fares, they’d start putting the money back in; they would reverse the decision that was made by Mike Harris and actually put provincial dollars, in a substantial way, back into public transit and municipal transit corporations around this province. It would make for more affordable transit. It would make for transit systems that were better funded and thus better maintained.

I would say that what we see here in this bill is in fact an undermining of that ability to make sure transit works well and make sure that transit is accountable to those who ride it.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Question?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I have a question for the member from Toronto–Danforth about parkland dedications.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’m sorry. I can’t hear.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: —a question about parkland dedication. It could be a maximum of 5% parkland dedication under the Municipal Act for planning purposes—actually, I don’t know if it’s the Municipal Act or the Planning Act.

Sometimes municipalities and developers have difficulty negotiating what portion of the development should be dedicated to parkland—“Should it be that part? Should it be this part? Should it be something that looks like along a river valley?”

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report entitled 2026 Ontario Budget Note, from the Office of the Financial Accountability Officer of Ontario.

Members’ Statements

John Henry

Ms. Jennifer K. French: When I was first elected to serve Oshawa, in 2014, it was alongside then-Mayor John Henry. John was always kind and thoughtful and fair and interested in the story of Oshawa and its people. I was very grateful to work with John. Lefties thought he was a Conservative, and Conservatives thought he was a progressive, but from my vantage point he was always a principled, community-minded politician and neighbour. When we didn’t agree on an issue, I remember John having said to me, “It’s just politics, Jennifer. We can still have coffee.”

In 2010, the people of Durham region voted in a referendum to stop appointing and start electing our regional chair. So in 2014, we elected Roger Anderson. In 2018 and again in 2022, Durham region elected John Henry to be regional chair, responsible to the voters across all our communities and for the staff at the region.

Unfortunately, John Henry is being very publicly fired by this Premier and his minister through new legislation that overturns the will of Durham region residents, who voted to elect their regional chair. This minister and Premier will be appointing someone who will answer to them and not to the electorate—a puppet for the Premier who can be hired and fired by this minister. This unelected chair will have control over the regional budget with strong-mayor powers and will not have to answer to voters. This is taxation without representation.

The Premier and minister want someone to do as they are told, and I don’t believe John Henry was ever that man.

John Henry has always worked tirelessly and sincerely on behalf of the communities he has been elected to serve. He doesn’t—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): I recognize the member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

Municipal planning

Ms. Lee Fairclough: A complete community is one with quality schools for children, parks, affordable housing, and reliable transit for people to make their daily commutes.

But in Etobicoke–Lakeshore, we are seeing more high-density luxury condos without any accompanying new infrastructure like schools, public transportation, recreational centres and parks that communities need to thrive. Municipal planning decisions are being completely overridden by this government in all corners of our riding, including on Bloor Street and in Long Branch.

The community of Humber Bay Shores, for instance, has over 30,000 people without schools or a promised GO station. The congestion is unbearable. Eight years ago, this Conservative government halted the procurement of GO stations. People in Humber Bay Shores are still waiting for this government to build Park Lawn GO.

The Ministry of Transportation must get back to directly financing and building our public transit infrastructure.

We need to build complete communities—ones with affordable housing, reliable transit and schools.

Communities in my riding or anywhere in Ontario shouldn’t have to fight for basic infrastructure; they should be able to count on it.

Firefighters

Mr. John Jordan: I want to thank the Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Response and this government for announcing in last month’s budget that it’s maintaining the $20-million enhanced funding for the Fire Protection Grant in 2026-27, after doubling it in 2025, to ensure firefighters on the front lines have the infrastructure and equipment necessary to protect themselves and do their jobs effectively. This funding provides municipal fire services from across the province with funding to purchase equipment and supplies for cancer prevention initiatives, equipment to address lithium ion battery fires and infrastructure upgrades and modernization.

I was very happy to see funding go to our fire departments in Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston. I visited several of them in the fall to see first-hand how this funding will assist our firefighters.

By investing in these resources, departments can respond more effectively, protect their firefighters and deliver faster and safer services to the communities they serve.

The Beckwith fire department, the Carleton Place Fire Department, Central Frontenac Fire and Rescue, Drummond/North Elmsley Tay Valley, Lanark Highlands, Mississippi Mills, Montague, North Frontenac, Perth, Smiths Falls, South Frontenac, and the Kingston Fire and Rescue team received just under $671,000 to purchase life-saving equipment, ensuring municipal firefighters have access to the tools and equipment they need to stay safe in critical situations, when they are needed.

Land use planning

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Speaker, it would be nice if the Premier governed for the whole province, but, instead, like a child whose parents have failed to buy him a Lego set, he obsessively uses taxpayers’ money to build infantile schemes along Toronto’s waterfront.

While families across Ontario are buckling under the weight of grocery bills and rising rents, this Premier is focused on a luxury spa, a convention centre in the lake, and the Billy Bishop airport takeover. He’s trying to turn our public shoreline into a private playground. I’d like to remind him that his predecessor Bill Davis halted the Spadina expressway, saying, “If it’s not for the people, stop.”

Ontarians want clean, E. coli-free beaches for boats and sandcastles, but this government is rerouting sewage overflow to accommodate a private spa, risking contamination in Lake Ontario. Waterfront land on one of the world’s Great Lakes is rare; it should belong to everyone, not just those who can afford luxury spas and private jets.

The Premier keeps giving away our children’s future for developers’ payday, and that has to stop.

While this Premier consolidates power and hides his business dealings, the NDP is standing with the millions who are pushing back—just like we did on the greenbelt—because Ontario deserves better.

Now to the Premier: I see the obsession. I’ll buy you a Barbie beach house or a Lego beach amusement park—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): I recognize the member for Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Heart and Stroke Foundation

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault: I’d like to welcome the Heart and Stroke Foundation to Queen’s Park today, as it highlights two critical health issues that affect Ontarians every day: stroke and cardiac arrest.

In Ontario, someone experiences a stroke every 12 minutes, and delays in treatment can lead to permanent disability or even death. That’s why it is essential that Ontarians recognize the FAST signs of stroke:

—face: Is it drooping?;

—arms: Can you raise them both?;

—speech: Is it slurred or jumbled?; and

—time to call 911.

Knowing the FAST signs offers a simple and effective way to identify stroke and seek urgent treatment.

When someone experiences cardiac arrest, the heart suddenly stops. Every minute without CPR and defibrillation dramatically reduces the chance of survival.

This government has demonstrated leadership through Bill 141, Defibrillator Registration and Public Access Act, which establishes a framework for a provincial AED registry to map AEDs and connect these life-saving devices to emergency responders. Fully realizing the impact of this legislation depends on public awareness, including ensuring people, especially young people, have the confidence and skills to respond.

Please join the Heart and Stroke Foundation in the legislative dining room tonight at 5:30.

Government accountability

Mr. Chris Glover: This Premier is not satisfied with being the Premier of Ontario. He also wants to control the chair of every region. He wants to control the mayor of every city and town in this province. He wants to control the directors of all of our school boards. And he wants to control every police officer and judge.

The latest attack on our democratic rights is Bill 100, the seizing control of regional governance act. With this act, he’s going to be replacing elected regional chairs with his appointees, and these appointees will be able to govern with only one third of the votes of the elected councillors. This is an assault on our democratic rights. Ontario is the only region, the only jurisdiction in the Western world where we do not have the right to majority-vote decision-making in our democracy.

Under this government, you no longer have the right to democratic municipal elections.

We no longer have the right to impartial judges, because this government is appointing Conservative judges.

He has tried to appoint his friend to be the chief of the Ontario Provincial Police.

He’s gutting the freedom of information act so he can hide his phone records and not obey a court order.

He has stripped us of freedom of speech and our other charter rights, using the “notwithstanding” clause.

And what is he doing with this consolidation of power? He is using it to hide his attacks on our public services and to hide his corruption.

We need to restore our democratic rights in Ontario, and removing Bill 100 is a start in that direction.

Hospital funding

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: I rise today to share an announcement in my riding of Bay of Quinte.

Last Friday, I had the pleasure of making a significant announcement at Belleville General Hospital on behalf of the Premier and the Minister of Health. BGH’s aging HVAC infrastructure challenges needed to be addressed in order to ensure that staff and patients alike had a safe and welcoming environment that was conducive to providing high-quality care. That is why I was so proud to announce $20,037,000 to replace the boiler plant, to replace one of the chillers, and to refurbish the other two 700-ton chillers, and to replace the emergency power system.

These upgrades will not only ensure that everyone at BGH is comfortable in the climate-controlled environment but will also double operating capacity when using the emergency power system, and reduce energy usage by 25% to 30%. This investment represents 90% of the costs associated with the projects, and I want to thank the leadership and the maintenance team for their advocacy and planning for this project.

I especially want to thank Tim from the maintenance department, who got creative and was able to source the emergency power system over four years sooner than the projected timeline, meaning that the units are already on-site and ready to be installed.

Tim, thank you for the incredible work, on behalf of our hospital and all the people of the Bay of Quinte. And I know we have you until the end of the year, but in case I don’t see you, congratulations on your retirement—very well deserved.

Ronald McDonald House

Mr. Deepak Anand: Each year, there is one thing in common for more than 26,000 families across Canada: They receive support from a Ronald McDonald House program. One of the hardest realities any family can face is having a child in a hospital far from home. This charity provides a place to stay for family members during a child’s medical journey, by giving them the ability to be by their child’s side during some of the most difficult moments of their life. These homes are truly a godsend for these families in pain.

One in four Canadians has either stayed at a Ronald McDonald House or knows someone who has.

Over the past 45 years, more than half a million families have been supported across Canada by Ronald McDonald House.

Today, there are 16 Ronald McDonald House programs and 21 family room programs, including one at SickKids, providing families with meals, mental health and wellness support and a place to rest and recharge close to their child’s bedside.

Colleagues, May 6 is McHappy Day. I encourage everyone to visit their local McDonald’s, take part and support this noble cause. Together, let’s do our part and support those who are supporting our communities.

Volunteers

Mr. Ric Bresee: Speaker, I was recently honoured to stop by the volunteer appreciation day hosted by one of my smaller municipalities, the township of Tudor and Cashel. They were hosting the day for all their volunteers, but with an extra special thank you to one in particular: Debbie Woolley.

Debbie has deep roots in the community of Tudor and Cashel. For over 30 years, she has been volunteering and contributing to help sustain small-community life. Debbie has organized and coordinated so many initiatives and events for families and children, from improvements to the playground equipment at the community centre, to this last term serving as the library board chair. Her long involvement in the community has set a great example for her children and for her grandchildren, showing them what it means to be there for your neighbours and to take

part in local life, helping your small community.

Speaker, my role as MPP for Hastings–Lennox and Addington has given me the opportunity to interact and engage with so many volunteer organizations and people just like Debbie. With each visit, I’m reminded that it is these people, the everyday folks who share their time and energy, who make the difference and help to define the amazing quality of life in rural communities.

Speaker, as we approach volunteer appreciation week, I want to express my gratitude to all those who help. Volunteers are the very heart of our communities, and we are very grateful to you.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Joining us today in the Speaker’s gallery we have the Right Honourable Alison Johnstone, the presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament; accompanied by Mark Brough, principal private secretary; and Steven Bell, international relations officer at the Scottish Parliament. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

And the timing for the kilt was perfect today.

Introduction of visitors. I recognize the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Todd J. McCarthy: I would like to introduce and welcome to the House today my niece Julia McCarthy, who has just finished second year at the University of Toronto Victoria College. She is the youngest daughter of my younger brother, the Honourable Justice Mr. John McCarthy.

Welcome, Julia.

Hon. Nina Tangri: I just want to take an opportunity to wish my husband, Ashwani, a very, very happy birthday.

And for those of you celebrating today and tomorrow, a very happy Vaisakhi.

Mr. Jeff Burch: It’s my pleasure to introduce Melinda Chartrand, who is here from the French Catholic school board, and also the chair of an organization I used to run, immigrant services Bridges, from Niagara.

M me France Gélinas: I want to introduce my son, Michael, and my granddaughter Anika, but they’re not here yet; they’re on their way.

But I will introduce people from the Heart and Stroke Foundation: Liz Scanlon, Dr. Robert Ohle, Joanna Degez, Maggie Zhang, and Orli Joseph.

Welcome, Heart and Stroke Foundation.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): And when the member’s family arrives, we will stop the clock and actually greet them. How is that?

I recognize the member for Orléans.

Mr. Stephen Blais: It’s my pleasure to welcome Daryush and his mother, Neha, to Queen’s Park this morning. Daryush is joining us as a legislative page, proudly representing the great riding of Orléans et le Collège catholique Mer Bleue. Bienvenue, Daryush. Je suis sûr que tu feras un excellent travail.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Today I’m pleased to introduce Meg and Danny Young. They are joining their granddaughter, Paige Young, who is one of my ministry team leaders.

Welcome to Queen’s Park, Nonni and Poppi.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Today, I am also pleased to welcome Heart and Stroke—of course, the leading funder for life-saving research and a champion for healthier lives across Canada. Joining us are Brady Carballo-Hambleton, the senior vice-president for Ontario and Nunavut; and Liz Scanlon, vice-president of health systems and provincial mission teams. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Laurie Scott: I’d like to introduce page captain Catherine Charpentier. Her family is in the gallery. Christina and Josh, her parents; and Maggie and Eve, her sisters, are here.

Welcome, and have a good time.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I have some friends from Thunder Bay who are here: Nathan Vaillant, Ivan Brady, Ellen Yeast, and Jim Bailey.

Welcome to your House.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m delighted to welcome Jelena Jelich from London West, who is here today with the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I’m looking forward to our meeting later this afternoon.

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: I want to welcome Ted Arnott, the 42nd Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and my predecessor, here to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): To our guest from Scotland: He is the previous Speaker, and he is my mentor as well.

Welcome, Speaker.

I recognize the Associate Minister of Energy-Intensive Industries.

Hon. Sam Oosterhoff: We have Colin Anderson, president of the Association of Power Producers of Ontario today, with a number of companies from across Ontario.

Welcome. It’s great to have you at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Doug Ford: I’d like to welcome the Etobicoke—I’ve got to emphasize the Etobicoke—women’s U22 Elite hockey team. They did something that no one has ever done, ever: They won the triple crown—only from Etobicoke, the greatest jurisdiction anywhere in the world. U22 girls—champs.

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: I’d like to welcome, from l’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, Melinda Chartrand. Bienvenue.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: I’d like to welcome two people from my riding of Oakville North–Burlington, from the Heart and Stroke Foundation: Avril Goffredo and Donna Bedell.

As well, I’d like to welcome page Mayra Kaushish from Oodenawi Public School in Oakville, who will be with us for the next two weeks.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston on a point of order.

Mr. John Jordan: If you seek it, you will find unanimous consent from the House for members to wear pins in recognition of heart and stroke disease.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston is seeking unanimous consent from the House for members to wear pins in recognize of heart and stroke disease. Agreed? Agreed.

Shooting at Lambton College

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: If you seek it, you will find we have unanimous consent from the House for a moment of silence for the victims of the shooting at Lampton College last Thursday in my riding of Sarnia–Lambton.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Sarnia–Lambton is seeking unanimous consent from the House for a moment of silence for the victims of the shooting at Lambton college last week. Agreed? Agreed.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): You may be seated.

This morning, in the members’ gallery, we are joined by Joanna Majoko. She is a vocalist, composer and bandleader from the riding of University–Rosedale, who will be performing O Canada and God Save the King.

Please stand and join her in the singing of our national and royal anthems.

Singing of the national anthem / Chant de l’hymne national.

Singing of the royal anthem / Chant de l’hymne royal.

Question Period

Education funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: This question is for the Premier.

This Premier’s gutting of public education has been going on since 2018, and I can tell you that parents see it every day. They see the impact of that. Our children are living it.

Now, nearly 300 teaching jobs are being cut at the Toronto District School Board alone. These are real educators, these are real classrooms, and these cuts are going to have real consequences. This is what we get when this minister is in charge of our public education system.

Why is this Premier forcing school boards to fire teachers instead of properly funding our schools?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Leader of the Opposition, it’s like déjà vu. This is a question that comes up every time this year.

The Leader of the Opposition will know that in Peel region in particular, student enrolment is down some 5,000 students. There will be fewer teachers who are required, as a result of the declining enrolment.

Having said that, every year this is something that happens. And every year, very few teachers are ever laid off, because the amount of retirements through the system far outpace the potential reduction in staffing.

I suspect that in September of this year Peel will be the exact same as it has been every single year before that.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, Speaker, do you know what’s not down? The needs of our students in our schools. That’s not down.

This isn’t about this minister and his ego and his power play to take control of our school boards. It is about our kids, and it is about our classrooms.

I want to say, as a parent, I know that you would do anything out there, parents, to support your kids.

If your kids need extra help, if your child is getting bullied at school, when there are fewer caring adults in our schools, then we know that they have nobody now to turn to.

Some 331 teachers are being let go in Peel—78 jobs in York, hundreds more cut across the province of Ontario. This is a pattern. It is a choice by this government to make cuts to our kids’ classrooms.

Why is the Premier choosing to make cuts to classrooms when students are already struggling?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. We are continuing to invest at record levels in education across the province of Ontario.

What we want to ensure, though, is that teachers, parents and students are supported to the maximum potential. We want to put more resources into the classroom and less resources on administration. Later on today, I’ll be introducing a bill that continues along that that path.

Madam Speaker, what we’re hearing from parents and what we’re hearing from teachers is that as long as you give them the support that they need, our teachers will be able to give the best quality of education to our students. That is what this government is all about. It has been what we’re about since 2018, and we’ll continue on that path.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: The bottom line is that this Premier is firing teachers, is eliminating vice-principals, and is reducing supports for our kids in classrooms right now.

It means something when your kid loses their teacher. It means that we’re going to have larger classes. It means we’re going to have fewer supports for our children, who are already falling behind the rest of the students in this country. More students are falling behind every single day, less resources for our kids—that’s what this means.

Will the Premier stop deflecting, take some responsibility, and stop firing our teachers?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Madam Speaker, let’s put that into context: Literacy rates—reading and writing—are the highest that they have ever been in provincial history, under this government. Graduation rates, of course, are higher than they have ever been in recorded history, under this Progressive Conservative government. Math scores are starting to finally trend up, after a decade and a half of Liberal failure. We’re starting to see those math scores move up. But do you know what? We aren’t satisfied with just moving up. We want them to be the best, like they are in literacy, reading and writing.

That’s why we are doubling down on programs established by previous ministers to ensure that more support gets into the classroom for our teachers so that they can deliver quality education. That is what this government is all about. We’re putting more resources in the classes—$750 supply cards for our teachers. Do you know who wants to cancel that? The NDP and the Liberals.

We’ll plow more money into education because it’s the right thing to do. We want better outcomes, and we’ll hold people responsible for—

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

Highway safety

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: ᒥᓄᑭᔐᐸᔭ. It’s a good morning.

Last month, families shared their stories, their experiences of losing loved ones to the dangerous and unsafe conditions on Highways 11 and 17. Actually, some of them are here today with us in the gallery: Nathan Vaillant, Ivan Brady, Ellen Yeast, and Jim Bailey.

I ask the Premier: Your government has the power to stop the cycle of grief and loss in the north. When will you take real action to make northern highways safe?

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I express my condolences and sympathies to the members in the gallery who have lost loved ones. I can’t begin to think of what the families who have been affected by these accidents are going through.

Road safety, in my job as Minister of Transportation, is a top priority, as well as for all the members of the northern caucus, who have continued to advocate on this issue. We continue to make targeted investments on these highways to improve safety, protect all road users across the province—through targeted investments as well as legislative changes that we have put forward through this Legislature.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to continue working with that member, the members of the north and the political leadership in the north to continue building upon the work that needs to be done to move forward on this. I look forward to working with that member, whom I spoke with last week, on northern highways as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: We appreciate your condolences, Minister, but we need action now.

People in the north are tired of hearing this minister deflect while their families and friends continue to die in collisions.

Minister, what you are doing now is not working. People keep dying on our roads.

So I ask again: What will you do differently to make our highways safe?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: We have continued to make investments into northern highway systems.

Madam Speaker, just this year alone, we increased the amount of transportation enforcement officers in the north by over 48 individuals and conducted over 129,000 inspections, which is up over 50% from the year prior. We’ve got individuals on our highways across both the northern parts of the highways as well as all across the province.

We’ve also made over $650 million of targeted investments into the northern highways, to continue the expansion of that, which is a part of our $30-billion plan to continue expanding our road networks across the province of Ontario, but specifically the north.

I’ve also had the opportunity to work with many of my colleagues in the north on ensuring that we continue to move forward on historic projects like the 2+1 pilot that we are moving forward with—the first in North America.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. John Vanthof: To the Premier: Highway safety, especially on 11/17, is at a crisis level. For some of the people in the gallery, their families have paid the ultimate price. Jim’s family paid the ultimate price eight years ago. Ivan’s family paid the ultimate price just a few months ago. Do you know what’s the worst thing? They know. Everyone in northern Ontario knows that there’s a crisis. What the worst thing is—so do you. You’ve had the northern highway safety task force. The MTO keeps stats on every kilometre of the highway, every accident. It’s not that you don’t know; it’s that you are deciding to ignore the crisis. You are deciding to ignore—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Through the Speaker.

Mr. John Vanthof: So what is it going to take—because we are going to do it. What is it going to take, Speaker, for this government to recognize there’s a crisis, to recognize that people are dying needlessly on 11 and 17?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order. Order. The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. Order. Order.

I recognize the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: We continue to make investments into the northern—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the Minister of Transportation.

The opposition will come to order.

I recognize the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: As we continue to make investments into northern highways, I’d like to remind that member that the Leader of the Opposition has voted against every single one of those. The $670 million that we have put towards investing in the highways in the north, that member voted against. When we increased the number of transportation enforcement officers, that member voted against that as well.

Madam Speaker, we’re going to continue to work towards building more transportation infrastructure across the north, as we have historic investments into the north and the northern communities. Whether it’s the Ring of Fire, whether it’s Highway 11, whether it’s Highway 17—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order. The member for Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas will come to order.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Madam Speaker, those are priority projects for this government, and we’re going to continue to move forward on that. I’m working with my colleagues from the north. We’re building a plan to continue moving forward on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Before we go to the leader of the third party—I will start warning people today.

I recognize the leader of the third party.

Education funding

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier.

After eight years of this tired, out-of-touch, out-of-ideas Conservative government, our schools are not safe places for our kids to learn or for our teachers to teach.

Class sizes are too big. They’ve grown. Special education has been starved. Simply put, kids aren’t getting what they need. And there’s a mental health crisis in our schools that the Premier and his government are ignoring.

So my question to the Premier is, what’s it going to take for the Premier to understand that investing in our kids’ schools is not just investing in them, but investing in our collective future?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: This coming from a member who sat on his hands while the government that he was a part of closed 600 schools across the province of Ontario; this coming from a member who forced on students something called discovery math—and every year, as math results kept falling and falling and falling and our kids got left behind, that member and the party that he was a member of, the government, couldn’t care less. Literacy rates falling behind—did they care? No.

What we’re doing is, we’re putting more money back into the classroom. We’re supporting our teachers. We’re ensuring that students, parents and teachers are at the heart of the education system. We’re plowing away the bureaucracy that has held them back for so long. And what we’re doing is this: We’re insisting that the education system is focused on student achievement by supporting the very same people who deliver it, our teachers. That’s what we’re doing, and we’re going to continue to do the job.

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

Mr. John Fraser: This government has cut about $150 million from education this year, so he can blow as hard as he wants; it’s not going to change that.

After eight long years, this Conservative government—this tired, out-of-touch, out-of-gas government—has dug a billion-dollar hole in special education.

I’ve told the story about Marigold, a six-year-old girl in Ottawa who has been waiting two years for the support that she needs—two years. When you’re six, two years is a heck of a long time. And she’s one of thousands of those children across Ontario who aren’t getting the support that they need.

Now the Premier’s hand-picked supervisor at TDSB is cutting special education, making the lives of families here in Toronto harder.

Speaker, does the Premier think it’s okay to cut special education, to have an almost billion-dollar hole and create hardship for families not just in Toronto, but across Ontario?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, it’s interesting, coming from a member who never supported special education with funding and resources.

When we came into office, we knew that there was a challenge in special education, because for 15 long years, the Liberals did nothing. So what did previous Ministers of Education do? Supported by the Minister of Finance and Premier, we increased the budget for special education by 36%.

The member opposite complains that I’ve taken over Ottawa, I’ve taken over Toronto—I’ve taken over both of those school boards. Do you know why? Because they were more focused on themselves and not on students, not on parents, not on teachers.

What are we doing? We’re putting more money back into the classroom. We’re stripping away bureaucracy and funding the things that matter to people, and part of that is student achievement. I know that it’s foreign to the Liberals—insisting that a school board focuses on student achievement as opposed to the ideologically driven failure that they had for 15 years.

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

Mr. John Fraser: In more than 50 years, there has never been a Premier who is less interested in our kids’ schools than the one across from me. And it shows, Premier.

Now this Premier and his tired, out-of-touch Conservative government are making life harder for families.

When your child has an exceptionality, it’s a life of advocacy—I know this, Minister, because I spent 27 years at a community office that’s mine now helping families like that. I don’t know if you’ve done that, but I know what it takes—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Through the Speaker.

Mr. John Fraser: It’s not working. The Premier has made it hard for those families.

So my question simply is, when is the Premier going to get interested in education in some way and make life easier for these families of children with special needs?

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member opposite acknowledges his own failure, doesn’t he? He spent 27 years in a constituency office, 15 of which he was in government—15 of which he was in government. Failure after failure after failure, supported by a group of people around him who insisted on nothing more but failure—all they cared about was ideology.

What are we doing? We’ve increased funding to the highest level in the history of the province—billions of dollars more to build modern schools. While he was closing them, we are building new schools. We’re investing in special education. We’re investing in curriculum. We’re investing in teachers.

Do you know what we won’t do? We won’t waste money on things that keep our students from succeeding.

We’ll put more money into teacher education. We’ll put more money into students. We’ll take away the constant battles that put teachers in the middle of a battle between school boards and parents.

We’re going to focus on student achievement, and we’ll let them focus on failure, because for 15 long years, they did failure very well.

Education funding

Mr. John Fraser: That’s rich, from the minister who has not made one class size smaller, not funded special education properly, and is totally ignoring a mental health crisis that exists in our schools.

A big reason for that is, our class sizes have grown. The Premier and his ministers have let that happen. Right now, between grades 4 and 8, there are 1,000—that’s right, 1,000—classes of more than 30 students. I know this too because my grandson is in one of them.

The Toronto District School Board supervisor, the Premier’s hand-picked supervisor—that’s the only address he takes in something like this, if he’s going to appoint somebody he knows to something that pays $300,000 a year. The supervisor has lifted the cap of 32. How does that make any sense?

How does making class sizes larger help our kids?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I suppose that what they’re doing is respecting what was negotiated by the trustees and the unions in that area.

That aside, what we’re doing is focusing on—and I know it kills them. We are focused on student achievement, and the results are there: highest literacy scores ever, under a Progressive Conservative government, and highest graduation rates ever, under a Progressive Conservative government.

In fact, I’m pleased that there’s a Scottish delegation here—because I met with a Scottish delegation in one of their smaller, poorer districts. Do you know what they did? They revamped the system in much the same way we’re doing, and now that district is one of the highest-scoring districts in Scotland. They are showing the rest of the United Kingdom what you can do when you focus on student achievement.

So do you know what we’re going to do? We’re going to steal good ideas from around the world, we’re going to make our students better than they ever were before, and we are going to let the Liberals focus on failure, because as I said, they do it better than anybody else.

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

Mr. John Fraser: The minister excels at finger-pointing and pumping himself up.

Speaker, class sizes aren’t the only thing growing here in Ontario. The Premier’s office salary budget has gone from $2 million to over $8 million a year. Executive offices in the Premier’s government have gone from $34 million to $82 million—that’s 243%. So the Premier’s gravy train just keeps rolling; it’s just not stopping for our kids.

There is a mental health crisis in our schools that everyone else can see—except for the Premier and all these folks, because it is being totally ignored. Ask any teacher. Go into any school; ask anyone in the school. Our kids are suffering. There are more behavioural instances and more violence in our schools.

But the Premier has no plan. They have cut $150 million from education.

What is the Premier going to do to make our kids’ class sizes smaller, so they’re safer?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Madam Speaker, talking about safety in our schools—this is a party that decided that it was more important to pull police officers out of the schools than it was to keep them in there. And what happened when they did that? What happened? We saw the results of that. We saw less safety in our schools.

So do you know what we are going to do? We are bringing police officers back into our schools. Thanks to the good work by the previous Minister of Education, they are coming back in. When I am talking to teachers, they are excited about this.

The opposition thinks that it is a teacher’s responsibility to go and police bathrooms. The opposition thinks it is a teacher’s responsibility to break up fights in the hallways. Do you know whose responsibility it is? It’s police. That is whose responsibility it is.

We are going to double down to support our teachers, to support our students, to make sure our schools are safer than ever before. But we’re not going to do it by cutting the very things—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order. Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The members of the third party will now come to order, especially the ones who know—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Thank you.

I recognize the leader of the third party.

Mr. John Fraser: The minister would benefit from stopping to look at their rear-view mirror. Look out the front window and see what’s happening.

I spoke to my neighbour who is a principal and he told me a story. He has told me stories before, but this one was about a 12-year-old boy who was going after an eight-year-old girl, so he got in between them. He got hit more than 20 times, and the teacher who came to help him got hit in the head and had to go to the ER. That’s a 12-year-old. Do we need a cop for that? Do we need that? I don’t think so. We need more adults in schools.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Through the Speaker.

Mr. John Fraser: Every day in Ontario, across Ontario, this is happening in schools. We know that. Go talk to any teacher. Premier, go and talk to anybody in a school, if you haven’t already.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Through the Speaker.

Mr. John Fraser: And through it all, the Premier has been cutting special education. But we found $10 million for a strip club owner or $2 million for the family dentist.

Why will the Premier not spend some money and make our kids’ class sizes smaller?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I have said this a million times; I’ll say it again: We spend more on education than anybody else has ever spent in the history of the province. But ultimately, I don’t think parents care about that. They don’t care, when the Minister of Education gets up here and says, “Oh, I spent $43 billion.” Do you know what? They don’t care about that. They care about, “How is my kid doing when he or she goes to school? What are the achievements that they are getting?”

And that is what we are focused on—student achievement. For 15 long, miserable years under the Liberals, they were focused on failure. We are focused on achievement.

This is the party whose education adviser went to jail, for crying out loud, and they’re trying to give us advice on how to build a bigger, better, stronger school system. I think we’ll take no lessons from them.

But the lessons that we will take are from educators—educators who are telling us that what we are doing is seeing positive results, to keep doing it.

We are going to double down and support our teachers, parents and students.

Education funding

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Our children are already in overcrowded classrooms in unsafe schools, and now, thanks to this government’s funding cuts, schools are losing even more teachers and education workers next year: 124 staff in Hamilton-Wentworth, 100 teachers and ECEs in Upper Grand, 97 elementary teachers in Waterloo region, 78 custodians and trades workers in York region, 30 elementary teachers in Waterloo Catholic.

Our kids are struggling under this government; EQAO scores show that.

Why does the Premier think our kids deserve fewer teachers and supports instead of more?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: What the EQAO scores show is that when we started focusing on proven delivery of curriculum, we started seeing results increase. That is why our literacy rates—reading and writing—are literally the highest they have ever been in recorded provincial history, under this Progressive Conservative government.

Math scores are starting to increase. But we’ve said that we’re not happy with slight increases in math scores. We have to be able to compete with the rest of the world. That’s why we are doubling down on some of the things that were brought in by previous ministers to put more supports for math in our schools—and we’re going to see results; I am very confident of that.

What we’re doing is putting more money into the classroom. They have already said the $750 school supply fund—the Liberals and NDP are going to take that away. The Liberals called it an unnecessary frill for teachers. I don’t think giving teachers the resources they need for their classroom is an unnecessary frill. I think it’s what helps our students achieve, by giving teachers the support that they need.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Ottawa West–Nepean.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Let’s talk about the minister’s record on getting money into classrooms. He appointed supervisors who are billing almost $400,000 a year for their paycheques while cutting educators from our schools: 515 in Toronto, 331 in Peel, 120 in Ottawa-Carleton, 77 in Toronto Catholic.

The minister’s vision is grift for Conservative insiders and cuts for our kids.

Will the Premier do what parents actually want: Tell his minister to stop firing teachers and properly fund our schools?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Millions of dollars spent by trustees fighting each other—not in the classroom, supported by the NDP and the Liberals, right? That is what the record is. A trustee going out and buying a milkshake at 2 o’clock in the morning because he needed to wash down his cheeseburger that he had at 2 o’clock in the morning—that’s okay for the Liberals or the NDP, right? That is the type of system they want.

Do you know what we want? A system that supports our teachers, a system that supports our parents, a system that takes away the conflict between school boards and parents. And do you know who is always put in the middle of that? It’s our teachers. When those two fight, it’s teachers who are put in the middle.

What we’re going to do is support teachers. And the results are there: highest literacy rates, highest graduation rates, and math scores finally starting to trend up. It drives the opposition crazy, because everything they’ve talked about for 20 years in the education system has proven to be a failure.

Under Conservative governments, all the stats are going in the right direction. But we’re going to double down and work even harder.

School boards

M me Lucille Collard: My question is for the Minister of Education.

It’s no secret that the minister is planning to bring changes to school board governance, and the minister’s past comments to this effect are raising serious concerns, particularly with the francophone community.

For generations, French-language school boards have been at the heart of protecting our language and culture. This is not simply an administrative question; it is a constitutional right. The Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear:

Section 23 of the charter guarantees not only access to French education, but also the right to manage and control the education.

My question is simple: Will the minister commit right now to not taking any measures that would weaken the autonomy and governance of francophone school boards in Ontario?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

M me Lucille Collard: I’m very much looking forward to the announcement this afternoon and the new legislation that will be introduced, and I will be looking very closely—because when we talk about keeping the governance at the same level it’s at, with the same power, the control and management, this is very important. So I look forward to this, and I will hold the minister to this promise.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Sometimes you’ve just got to go on the fly when you get an answer that you like, I suppose. So I do appreciate the member, which really highlights—I don’t know why it is that they’ve picked the three-time leader of the opposition for the third time when you have a qualified person sitting just beside him.

Let me conclude by saying this: I’m very proud of the work that is done in our francophone school boards. The results far outpace those in our public system. We’re going to be doing even additional work. I know Minister Quinn announced some teacher education reforms which will help us get more educators in the system, including the francophone system, building on some of the work done by the Minister of Francophone Affairs. So I continue to be very optimistic about the future of francophone education across the province of Ontario.

Indigenous economic development

MPP Billy Denault: My question is to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Economic Reconciliation.

We are defining the next generation of responsible resource development and economic prosperity by advancing the Ring of Fire. Through the submission of the First Nations-led environmental assessments, we will see the completion of the construction of the all-seasons roads to the Ring of Fire five years ahead of schedule.

Our accelerated plan to access the Ring of Fire is gaining international attention, with northern Ontario taking its place as the jurisdiction that is stable, reliable and committed to responsible development.

Speaker, can the minister provide further details on how our government is accelerating the Ring of Fire and building a stronger Ontario?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I want to thank the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for the great work that he does.

Here at home, there’s a lot of excitement. We spoke last week about the different projects. What I want to expound on in this intervention is the hundreds of new jobs for young First Nations people in the corridor to prosperity this actually represents. Think of it: three different access sites to this corridor roughly the size of Toronto to Montreal, commercial plazas being built, young people in their communities working with the political leadership to understand through our community partnership agreements just exactly what they need to be supported in the workplace.

I was talking to the president of TKG Group. They’re an exciting company that supports and works with a major road construction company that happens to be in my riding. He goes by the name of Jonathon Mamakwa. He’s a pretty cool guy, and he is bent on delivering reliable businesses and services. His only problem was, he says, government doesn’t move fast enough. I said we’ll live up to that commitment—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

MPP Billy Denault: Thank you to the minister for his response.

The Ring of Fire represents one of the most important economic opportunities of our time. This is about more than just critical minerals; it is about generational employment, generating clean technology and advancing economic partnerships with First Nations communities.

We know that, increasingly, jurisdictions around the world are turning their attention towards our province.

Last week, the minister joined First Nations leadership at the Canadian Indigenous Investment Summit to highlight the opportunity that is Ontario, that is the Ring of Fire.

Speaker, can the minister share how partnerships in the Ring of Fire are positioning Ontario to lead globally while also advancing economic reconciliation throughout the province?

Hon. Greg Rickford: Chief Achneepineskum from Marten Falls, and I, and Michael Fox, who works closely with Webequie First Nation, were on a panel at the London Stock Exchange—palpable enthusiasm from global investors at the London Stock Exchange. It’s the third annual summit. It brings some of the biggest and best investment companies around the world. They were asking and looking for investment opportunities and were keenly interested in the legacy infrastructure that’s going to be required to support development in the Ring of Fire. This is not just about a responsible resource development project.

They understood that it checked so many other boxes, working with First Nations communities who are looking for an opportunity to share in the kind of prosperity that people from across this province should and would come to expect.

Health care funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, I encourage the Premier to check his inbox and read the email he received last week from London West resident Kate Reid. Kate’s mother was left in a hallway stretcher at University Hospital for six hours in acute pain, waiting for surgery, along with 11 other patients. Two patients had been forced to sleep overnight in the hallway, with no way to dim the lights.

Speaker, how does the Premier think that no longer collecting data on hallway health care is going to help patients like Kate’s mother and the 2,000 other Ontarians who are being treated in hospital hallways every day?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: The member highlights exactly why we are investing in our hospital and our health care system. It is precisely those examples—because we have invested in dedicated off-load nursing programs to make sure that when someone comes into an emergency department, they are quickly assessed and triaged based on their area of need. It is why we have expanded our medical education in every single school across Ontario, including, of course, a brand new medical school in Brampton that has already taken on—

Interjections.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: —and coming soon in York region as well.

As we make these expansions, as we enhance and have opportunities for primary care—multi-disciplinary teams across Ontario—it really allows us to make sure that not only our hospitals have the support, but also in community.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, the government’s investments are obviously not working because there are double the number of patients being treated in hospital hallways under this government’s watch. It’s not just hospital hallways where patients are lining up. Londoners are still waiting months and even years for specialist referrals. Janet Bruce was first referred to a spine specialist in 2022. Almost four years later, she is still waiting, still in pain and still without a specialist appointment.

Speaker, why does this Premier think it is acceptable to force Ontarians like Janet Bruce to wait years to access the specialist care they urgently need?

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Well, again, the member opposite is highlighting exactly why in the budget, most recently, a number of weeks ago, we actually had another 4%, over a billion dollars, to our hospital sector. Why? Because we see that they are an important part of our health care system, but they are not the only one.

On Friday, I had the opportunity to be at the Humber River Health centre, where we were able to acknowledge an incredible philanthropic gift from the Hennick Family Foundation. I had a physician come up to me, after the announcement, and say, “Thank you for what you are doing in the primary care expansion. It is truly making a difference in our hospitals and making sure that our patients have access to those primary care, multi-disciplinary teams.”

Technology in schools

Mr. Stephen Blais: My question is for the Minister of Education. Parents across Ontario are telling us that school is no longer the refuge it once was. It’s yet another place where children cannot escape screens—smart boards, Chromebooks, Google Classroom. And when a teacher loads up a YouTube video, children often sit through ads. Those same children go home unable to focus, unable to put the screen down, and parents are told to fix it.

Denmark has brought back textbooks. Sweden has returned to paper after declining literacy rates. They tried more screens, and they’re reversing course. Screens don’t always lead to better student achievement.

Will the minister commit today to a comprehensive review of technology in the classroom?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the question. It is something that we have been reviewing.

The member will know, of course, that there are very few people who publish textbooks in Canada.

It’s something that the Council of Ministers of Education nationwide are actually seized with—what is the balance between technology and textbooks and paper? And I think it is a very important discussion that we have to have, because there is obviously a balance that has to be struck.

We have to prepare our kids for the jobs of tomorrow, but we are hearing increasingly—and it’s not only just that type of technology—as I said, the availability, with Minister Quinn. We also have to look at cellphones and the impact that that is having in our classrooms and whether we need to expand the ban on cellphones even further. It is work that is continuing.

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

Mr. Stephen Blais: Ontario is the largest market in the country. If Ontario schools aren’t using textbooks, it’s no wonder people aren’t producing them anymore.

Teachers know students are struggling to focus. They know children learn differently from a book than from a screen, but many feel trapped. The textbooks are gone. The workbooks are gone. Even photocopies are rationed, replaced by screens, replaced by subscriptions and replaced, in some cases, by advertisements to our kids.

School should not be a place where kids are trapped to the screen.

Will the minister hear teachers, hear parents, conduct a real, comprehensive review, show leadership in Canada, and bring more textbooks and paper back into the classroom?

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member will know, of course, that the trend actually started under the previous Liberal government, withdrawing textb