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

May 13, 2026

44th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2026-May-13 vol. A (PDF)

L074A - Wed 13 May 2026 / Mer 13 mai 2026

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 13 May 2026 Mercredi 13 mai 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

Lois Fairley Nurse of the Year Award

Child care

Asian Heritage Month

Rural health services

Education funding

National Police Week

Spring It Forward Food Drive

Government investments

Developmental Disabilities Awareness Week Act

Red tape reduction

Introduction of Visitors

House sittings

Question Period

Freedom of information

Special-needs students

Special-needs students

Special-needs students

Sécurité du transport routier / Trucking safety

Nurses

Nuclear energy

Injured workers

Government’s record

Labour dispute

Small business

Conservation authorities

Special-needs students

Skilled trades

Visitor

Petitions

Health care workers

Social assistance

Collective bargaining

Billy Bishop airport

Buddhist heritage month

Post-secondary education

Online gambling

Education funding

Education funding

Education funding

Collective bargaining

Endometriosis

Collective bargaining

Health care

Collective bargaining

Billy Bishop airport

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

Keeping Criminals Behind Bars Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 visant à maintenir les criminels derrière les barreaux

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

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 May 12, 2026, on the motion for third 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. Jeff Burch: I’m pleased to stand and start our lead on Bill 98, Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act. I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Humber River–Black Creek and the member from Toronto–Danforth. Our member from Humber River–Black Creek will be talking about transit, which is a big part of this bill, and of course my friend from Toronto–Danforth will be talking a lot about green standards and about the issues we have with this bill around environmental concerns.

I want to start out by just talking about the committee purpose. We are happy in this session that the government has started using committee again. Committee is important. We heard from a lot of stakeholders at our committee last week. There are those who believe that opposition should just vote against everything, but I’m one of the people that actually thinks we should try and make the place work the way it’s supposed to work.

Interjections.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Well, that’s good. I hope you send everything to committee now, because it doesn’t always happen, but I appreciate the applause.

And when it does go to committee, I think we should be making a best effort to improve the bill, and that’s certainly what we did. I’ll talk about a number of amendments that we put forth, but, unfortunately, none of the amendments were accepted, even some very simple amendments that clarified things in the bill and things that improved it based on what our stakeholders said. That was disappointing.

The government will recall that we voted in favour of this bill at second reading because we wanted to go to committee and make improvements to it, and we did that in good faith.

The government says this bill is, in part, about housing, but it won’t make housing affordable. It ignores real solutions, like building non-profit housing, bringing back rent control and legalizing missing-middle homes, leaving families stuck with high rents and fewer options, like many of the government’s bills, and we’ve talked about these solutions we believe the government should be pursuing and hasn’t.

Seamless transit is a great idea, and we supported that. It’s a big reason why we supported the bill at second reading. But a minister-controlled fare hike with no accountability is not. We support fare integration—it’s really important we make that clear—but this bill empowers the minister to impose fare models with no commitment to affordability. New Democrats are asking this government to restore provincial operational funding that would make transit affordable. We heard that as well from the ATU and their thousands of members.

Conservatives want to hand Metrolinx more unchecked power in this bill. This government has allowed Metrolinx to operate with little or no accountability, and now they’ll be able to skirt around the building code while their endless roster of overpaid executives fails to deliver, and there’s no change in that. You can’t fix the housing crisis by relying on the same broken approach. The government is doubling down on the same old strategy, but the private market alone, we know, won’t build homes people can actually afford. New Democrats are fighting for public investments and incentives that deliver the affordable homes that the market won’t.

This government is undermining local voices and environmental standards, and my friend from Toronto–Danforth will talk more about that. Instead of working with municipalities, this bill continues a pattern of top-down decisions that weaken green building standards, limit local planning tools and put long-term sustainability at risk. We’ll work to fix what’s broken, but won’t rubber stamp it.

We pushed in committee and proposed amendments to strengthen this bill to protect affordability, defend public services and ensure transit works for riders. We’ll support what helps people, like One Fare, but we won’t back a plan that makes life harder for Ontarians.

As I mentioned, the bill fails to deliver on top NDP priorities for housing affordability. It does not legalize more affordable missing-middle housing options as of right in all neighbourhoods. It continues to rely, as I’ve mentioned, solely on the for-profit private market for the delivery of all new housing, as if the collapse of housing starts in Ontario can finally be reversed and the government can more than double the rate of home construction in Ontario with just a few more regulatory tweaks and tax cuts.

By all means, let’s reduce the cost of building homes. We voted in favour of some of those measures, and some of the measures in this bill will help, but let’s not pretend that the private market alone can profitably deliver all the homes we need. No private developer can profitably build a home that is affordable for someone sleeping in a park or on the street. We need the government to play a role in building the affordable housing that the private market won’t build, as the NDP has proposed in its Homes Ontario plan. As mentioned, the bill does not preserve affordability and security of tenure for existing tenants by restoring real rent control—vacancy control—on all rental homes.

The bill also fails to deliver on a top NDP priority for transit: restoring provincial funding to cover 50% of municipal transit net operational costs. While the NDP supports fare and service integration in principle, there are many ways the government could fail with the approach in this bill, driving up transit system costs and making service worse.

I want to talk about some of the amendments that were voted down in committee. Amendments the NDP proposed to

schedule 4 attempted to do a number of things. This was mostly around transit. This is just an example of some of the simple things we asked for in the committee.

We wanted to add “make transit more affordable” and “increase transit ridership” to the purposes of the act. I’m not sure what problem the government would have with making transit more affordable and increasing ridership, but it was not supported.

We wanted to allow ministerial regulations only for routes that cross municipal boundaries, while clarifying that municipalities and transit agencies can continue to set fare and service policies for trips within their own primary service areas. That’s an issue that was raised by the transit union, ATU.

We asked the minister to negotiate fare and service agreements in good faith, with affected municipalities and transit agencies before making a regulation. I’m not sure why the government would have a problem with doing that.

We wanted to clarify with the proposed amendment that no regulation shall require fare revenue to be shared with a non-municipal passenger transportation system so that the minister can’t force the TTC to give public money to Uber, for example. That was not supported.

We wanted to ensure that no regulation requires service integration with a non-municipal passenger transportation system. There were concerns raised about privatization of transit.

We wanted no fare by distance within a municipal transit area.

We asked to remove the indemnity provisions in

part III barring actions/remedies for government “misfeasance,” “breach of trust” and “bad faith.” This is another example of the government protecting itself in advance against lawsuits and accusations. We wanted to remove those provisions because we think that people should be free to complain about their service if something happens.

We wanted to ensure that

section 395 of the City of Toronto Act, which gives the TTC the exclusive right to operate within Toronto, continues to apply, which would protect the TTC network from fragmentation. That’s something that the TTC raised with us.

And we wanted to clarify that nothing in the act affects the operation or enforcement of a collective agreement, and that we protect workers through any changes. We heard very clearly, as anyone would expect, from ATU, who represents thousands of transit workers, that their collective agreement would be protected, and if there was any merging, that would happen under the proper government framework. I’m not sure why the government would have a problem with that. There is a framework in place.

I’ve been part of it as a negotiator myself in the hospital sector, to merge collective agreements if there is a merger, like the one that might happen here. The union just wanted the government to let them know that they would respect the collective agreements, but, unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

In other schedules, we wanted to preserve municipal green development standards, which my friend from Toronto–Danforth will talk about, and we wanted to clarify that the minister may only designate a water corporation with the consent of the councils of all the lower-tier municipalities. So aside from the issue that you’ll hear many of our members talk about with respect to concerns about privatization of water, in any case, nothing should be forced upon a municipality that isn’t asking for it.

We had a lot of presenters. It was a good list of presenters. Many of them raised concerns that we tried to capture in our amendments that we proposed.

We heard from the Ontario home builders; the Toronto Transit Commission—my friend from Humber River–Black Creek and I were in committee—the Association of Municipalities of Ontario; ATU Local 113—I want to thank them on behalf of all of their members who work so hard in our transit system; Marvin Alfred, the president, came and spoke—the Atmospheric Fund; the Building Industry and Land Development Association; the TTCriders, which gave us their perspective; the Canadian Environmental Law Association; and the Toronto real estate board.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees talked to us about their concerns regarding

schedule 9, I believe it is, and the water, waste water corporations that the government is talking about setting up; also, the Ontario Public Transit Association on behalf of riders; the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario; and we wrapped up with Environmental Defence—Phil Pothen came and, as he does for many of our committees, shared his thoughts with us.

I want to go over some of those things to make sure they’re in the record, Speaker. Environment Defence had a number of key concerns that I think are important to make sure are in the record moving forward.

They were concerned about the risk to affordability and fare increases. They said that harmonizing fares across the region may actually increase TTC fares, which are currently lower than surrounding systems, and could undermine policies like fare capping and low-income programs.

They talked about the loss of democratic accountability and concern that local oversight of transit decisions would be replaced by provincial control, reducing transparency and direct public input into decisions that affect daily riders.

They talked about the potential redistribution of local revenues and concern that TTC-generated fare revenue could be reallocated across the region with unclear implications for service levels in Toronto—and we heard that from the transit union as well.

There were concerns that there were no guarantees on service improvements, and there are no enforceable protections ensuring service levels, frequency or quality will improve under the new model. We don’t really actually know much about the new model; much of this bill will be rolled out through regulation, and so it’s kind of a “just trust us” bill. That’s why the amendments that we proposed were so important.

Failure to address core funding gaps were raised. The bill does not provide new, stable operating funding for transit systems, widely identified as the primary issue affecting reliability and service quality.

Service quality depends on funding, not governance alone, and the concern was raised that transit systems like the TTC require predictable long-term operating funding to maintain and improve service. That’s a theme we continue to hear in transportation and housing and from municipalities as well, the lack of stable, secure long-term funding.

There was concern that current gaps risk service cuts and overcrowding, that without new funding, changes to governance may occur alongside continued service pressures, and there were a lot of concerns raised about declining service.

With respect to opportunity for provincial leadership, they talked about restoring or expanding provincial operating support that would more directly improve transit reliability, affordability and ridership.

There were also, interestingly—and a lot of us are quite disappointed and confused by this, with EV charging stations and why the government would move in the direction they’re moving, and some of the other climate implications in this bill.

Bill 98 includes changes that limit municipalities’ ability to require EV-ready infrastructure in new developments, which is the future.

It restricts EV-ready building requirements. Municipalities would no longer be able to mandate EV-charging infrastructure in new residential developments, and we think that’s a mistake.

It creates higher long-term costs. Retrofitting buildings for EV charging is significantly more expensive than installing infrastructure during construction, so it’s kicking the can down the road and making this transition more expensive than it needs to be.

It limits access for renters and multi-unit residents. Without EV-ready requirements, residents of apartments and condos face barriers to adopting EVs.

It undermines municipal climate leadership. Municipal green development standards have been key tools for reducing emissions and supporting electrification.

And it was raised that there’s a misalignment with decarbonization rules, and I’m going to leave a lot of that to my friend from Toronto–Danforth to talk about.

In the last few minutes that I have, I want to address water in Ontario. That was a theme that’s been addressed, and there’s this ongoing debate about the privatization of water. What’s coming out through these discussions from the last couple of bills where we’ve talked about this is that there’s a difference in

interpretation of what privatization is. Government believes that as long as—the example, actually, was used in committee of owning a home. We own our home, but we owe the bank all the money for the home. If an investor comes in, invests money—and pension funds were mentioned; I think that’s kind of on the government’s radar, pension fund investment and water and waste water infrastructure—they would, of course, require a return on their investment.

And the government is arguing, “Well, it stays under public ownership.” But they’re missing the point that CUPE and other folks are trying to raise, which is that return on investment that’s required for an investment in water and waste water infrastructure, that’s going to jack up rates. Somebody has got to pay that.

I spoke in committee about the fact that I believe all of this is about deflecting responsibility, because while people are arguing about privatization, what’s actually happening here—and I’ve been a municipal councillor, and I’ve been on, actually, a hydro board; I know what municipal service corporations and these kinds of corporations that are being set up do. The fact of the matter is that it’s someone else for the government to blame. Someone has to pay for that return on investment, so if a pension fund or anybody else invests in the infrastructure, they want a return. Who’s going to pay for that? It’s going to be the consumer, of course.

There are all kinds of expert opinions on Peel right now, which is going to be the test case. Most experts believe—if you read them and if you talk to AMO, who has also said this—that water rates will go up, because someone has got to pay for that return on an investment to whatever, if they happen to get someone to invest in the infrastructure.

This is going to jack up water rates—there’s no question about it—notwithstanding the concerns about privatization. According to the union, and I would agree with them, this is a form of privatization. It may not be direct privatization, but it’s giving outside investors an interest. It’s financializing water and waste water, and it will lead to higher water and waste water rates. And if anyone has been involved in municipal politics, you will know that there are very few more contentious issues than increases to water and waste water. And that’s exactly what’s going to happen in Ontario under this plan, because consumers will end up paying for the return on profits under this scheme.

Water in Ontario already faces a number of threats, including climate change, pollution and land use changes. This is another threat to our water and something that we need to pay attention to. We tried to talk about it in committee, but, as I mentioned, the government was not interested in entertaining any of our amendments.

With that, Speaker, I look forward to hearing my friend from Humber River–Black Creek talk more, especially about transit, and my friend from Toronto–Danforth, who is going to talk more about the environmental concerns with this bill.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member from Humber River–Black Creek.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Good morning, everybody. It’s good to be here and nice to see you all.

Every time I get up to debate a bill and every time I step forward into the House, I often have this thought, and the thought is, there are a lot of good people on the government side. You actually get out there and you meet them—

Interjections.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: You can give a clap for yourselves.

You meet them in the hallways. You run into them outside. They’re nice people. You talk to them. They seem to care about their community.

Then you put them all in a caucus room. The door of the caucus room gets closed. They come out, and the weirdest things happen; the strangest things happen. Things nobody ever asked for come out of there. I don’t know what the heck goes on in there, but when they come out and they put legislation down, you sit and you wonder, who asked for this? Right?

And this is a perfect example of one of these things. One of the things that this government loves doing is controlling absolutely everything. They want to be in charge of absolutely everything out there. We see this over and over: school boards being taken over, get rid of trustees, cut city councils in half—“In fact, let’s take away elected mayors and regional chairs and put in our friends.” It just never, ever ends.

And so why am I raising this? Well, this is exactly what is happening to transit as a result of this legislation. Why does it happen? Friends, it’s pretty obvious. It’s expensive to run campaigns. So what we see is a government that’s really good at doing one thing, which is attracting the high-end donors. For high-end donors to come in and give something, they’ve got to get something in return, right?

One of the big things that was able, years back, in 2018, to get so many of these high rollers on board was the greenbelt, as an example. They said, “Hey guys, help us out. We want to win government.”

“What’s in it for us?”

“The greenbelt.”

“Impossible. There are rules against it. It’s so unpopular. It’s your own seats.”

“Don’t worry. We’ve got this.”

They talked about it in the campaign. It didn’t work. They talked about it again in the 2018 campaign. Again, they got rebuked. And then, the rest is history. They tried; they reduced conservation authorities. They brought in legislation to make it happen, and then they had to rip it up.

What’s happening is that all these people that have given them so much are saying, “Look, we want a return on our investment. We helped you, time to help us.”

So how do you do it? I think they figured out that silver bullet: control things, control the infrastructure, control the assets, control the contracts, give money back. You can find a way to make these people happy, wealthier.

And so, enter transit. They’re sitting around at some point, and they say, “Well, what should we take over now? How about transit authorities?”

“I don’t know. They’re autonomous. They make their own rules.”

“I know, but think about it. Think about the tracks. Think about the land rights. Think about future expansion.”

Well, I mean, they may end up building a new set of tracks that might go through a certain place. Give a call to a friend and say, “Hey, you know what? Guess what we’re doing. Maybe you need to buy that up. We’ll expropriate it from you. You’ll get some money out of it.”

This is the kind of stuff where the wheels are churning. I don’t know if they debate that in caucus. There’s a bunch of people that surround the government that make these shots, make these calls and tell them to do this, do that and everything else. Then these good people show up in a caucus room and are given their marching orders. They walk out, and they do all sorts of things that baffle and befuddle everybody.

Imagine selling this one: “Guys, let’s take over transit agencies across the province of Ontario.”

“How? What could we possibly use as justification?”

“Fare integration.”

“Verbum sap; say no more. Fare integration: Everybody wants it. But isn’t One Fare—there are arrangements out there. Municipalities are working together to make this work.”

“I know, I know, but let’s tell them we’ll do more.”

So they bring this legislation in front of us, and what does it amount to? It essentially is, “Trust us.” Like, “Hey, give me your wallet.”

“Why?”

“Don’t worry about it. Just give me your wallet.”

“What are you going to do with it?”

“Don’t worry about it. We’re the boss. We’ve got a majority government. You’re going to have to give us the wallet anyway. We’re probably going to clean it. We’re going to clean the wallet.”

“Are you sure?”

“Maybe”—well, actually no. They say, “For sure. This is what we’re going to do. We’re going to clean the wallet.” And what is it like? These guys bring legislation here where all of it goes into regulations now. So essentially, they say, “Hey everybody, we’re going to introduce an omnibus bill. It’s going to achieve fare integration. It’s in

schedule 4.”

All right, where does it actually define fare integration in a way that makes it work? Nowhere. It just says, “We’re going to do fare integration,” and, “Trust us,” and, “Do you know how we’re going to do it? In the regulations.”

So imagine all these transit agencies operating, really, on shoestring budgets, trying to make it all work, put it together, and they wake up one morning and they’re told, “The government is going to impose a whole new bunch of rules on you. In fact, we don’t even have to impose them on you. We’re just going to take you over. We are going to have the ability now to set fares and affect not just cross-boundary trips, but trips within localities, within municipalities, within locations. We are going to take over all these individual routes. Hey, you know, city of Toronto, you’ve got a specialized fare for seniors?

We’re going to control that now. Hey, you know what? Youth don’t pay—we’re going to control that now.”

What about specialized rides like Wheel-Trans? “All of this we now will have ultimate control over.” This is a government that nobody trusts anymore. I don’t think they even trust themselves.

We look at this and we say, “You know what? Let’s go to committee”—thankfully they’re bringing back committee—"and let’s listen to the hearings, where experts come in.”

Who are the experts? We had transit agencies. We had unions like ATU and CUPE and others show up. We had transit riders, and all of them said the same thing: “We were not consulted whatsoever. We had no idea.” I mean, they were checking out the Jays score the next morning and then they find out, “Oh, my gosh, there is a transit bill. What now? What now?”

So they come down. They tell us, “These are what the problems are with the bills.” The bill is—“Leave us the ability to make independent decisions. Leave us the autonomy to make decisions over our own transit agencies.”

You want to tinker with fare integration? Look, here is how it works. If a person lives in Vaughan and crosses Steeles to get into Toronto, in the past they’re paying a double fare. Fare integration is something we all support. Make it affordable; make it cheaper, right? If it’s cheaper to take the bus and transit, the math eventually works out. Maybe I’m going to get out of the car. There is enough bus service, there are enough subways, there is enough everything that it’s going to convince me that it’s probably faster and cheaper for me to take transit. But what fare integration does, of course, is now the municipality is eating a ride that they got fare for.

How does it work? Governments have to come to the table with sustainable, reliable funding. But do you know what this government doesn’t want to do? Provide the sustainable, reliable funding. Do you know why? Because every single time, these municipalities have to count and hope and say, “I really hope that the province of Ontario is going to help us out this year with the funding that we need.” Do you know what it is? It’s control. Again, the obsession of this government: control. It’s power.

And so, they all said, “Look, we want fare integration to work. We want it to work even better. But you’re going to have to give us reliable funding. And this bill? You should have consulted.” Most of them were pretty nice about saying that, but it was clear what they said: “You did not consult us.” And of course, many of the people that come to committee realize that, unfortunately, this government bullies everybody, and if people don’t listen to them, they just take them over.

So of course, they come to committee and they say, “All right, you know, maybe we should do this.” “Do you know, sir?” “Look, maybe it would have been nicer if you did it this way.” And you know what they’re thinking in their heads: “How dare you? Why did you do this? This is stressful. You’re ruining everything for us.” But this is what this government does in spades. They love bullying municipalities and telling people what to do.

We listened here in the official opposition. We listened to what the people in the hearings said, and we came to committee with 20 amendments. What did these amendments do? They limited the scope of the bill to do exactly what they said that they were intending to do: bring in fare integration, and that’s it, in a way that’s better somehow. Okay? Let’s just limit it, respect collective agreements—and in fact, do you know what? I’m actually going to read to you many of what these amendments were. Because in committee, what did the government do? They showed up. They sat through the hours of debate.

They drank some coffee. And what they did was—presumably, they were going to be singing in a concert that night, so they saved their voices. They didn’t speak much because—I want to give them the benefit of the doubt; there are some beautiful voices on that side of the House. Maybe at night they were going to perform in a concert or something. They did not want to spend time using their vocal cords in committee. So they said, “Do you know what? We’re not going to speak.”

We said, “Okay. Let’s try some easy stuff. Let’s introduce issues that are essentially motherhood.” We introduced language to bring the focus of this bill to increase transit ridership, because of course fare integration should do that. What did they do? They said nothing. But when it came time to vote—“All those in favour?” Their arms were down. “All those opposed?” Arms went up. I thought, “Okay. Maybe they weren’t listening.” I don’t know what. The Danishes were sweet that morning. I have no idea.

We say, “Okay. Let’s add affordability to the bill. Let’s say we are going to ensure that legislation enshrines the fact that transit needs to be affordable.” The vote comes; their arms are still down. Now, they’re watching—I noticed that they were looking. But they still voted against making transit affordable in language in a bill that’s supposed to improve transit: “No, let’s not support that.”

Okay. So we said, “This is about fare integration. We’re going to introduce an amendment that says, ‘Don’t mess around with local routes.’” Why? Because if you’re not adding money into a model that has fare integration, then you’re not helping. Like I said, each of these transit agencies are going to be losing a little bit of fare box income from a ride that, essentially, a transit user is only paying for once. They’re going to need some support from the provincial government. I mean, it makes sense. We used to have 50% operational support until the Harris government, in the late 1990s, got rid of that.

So we said, “Okay, let’s limit the scope to only deal with cross-boundary trips.” They said no. “What? A bill about fare integration? It’s only supposed to be about that? No.” All right.

Another amendment: Limit the scope so that you can impose a fare structure on local transit agencies unilaterally. And look at this; check this out: We said, “Put language in that all of your negotiations and all of your consultation and everything you do has to happen in good faith.” Now surely, I thought, finally, here’s an amendment that they can’t say no to, because, heck, the opposite of good faith is—what, help me out—bad faith? They’ve got to vote for this—no. Now, it’s not like, I don’t know, their sleeves were stitched down so they couldn’t move their arms, because they were voting no to everything.

I thought maybe—I don’t know what. What’s going on here? No. They voted against negotiating in good faith. It makes absolutely no sense. It’s unbelievable.

Then we said, “Okay, let’s bring an amendment that clarifies that a transit agency can continue to set fare policies for routes that are entirely within their local transit area.” We tried it again. They had voted against the amendment earlier. Maybe they didn’t hear. I have no idea. Maybe there was cross-conversation. Maybe someone was on a phone. Maybe they just didn’t hear. Give them the benefit of the doubt again. They voted no to that again. Tinkering within local routes: “Hey, let’s give ourselves the power to do that.”

Again, we introduced more stuff to say, “Negotiate in good faith.” Nope. It goes on and on and on.

We said, “All right. You know what? There’s been talk about fare by kilometre.” There are parts of the city of Toronto—it’s a huge city—like Scarborough, where some people were saying, “What if this government imposes fare by kilometre or creates these artificial zones and then you have to pay to get across?” Surely they would vote for this—if they’re not going to do it. No, they voted against that.

We said, “Give the TTC the ability and the exclusive right to operate within their own jurisdiction”—no to that. All right.

Collective agreements: Again, this government wants to pat themselves on the backs for finally—I mean, Conservatives, you know how they’ve been with unions forever. “Hey, you know what? We’re actually talking to unions now.” So we said, “Okay, surely they don’t want to get into this kind of a war. Let’s clarify that the minister can’t breach a collective agreement related to a transit system or stop the enforcement of a collective agreement.” What did they do? They voted against that.

Literally every union in the province of Ontario looks at something like this and expects, above all, that at least that this government would respect. But no, all the collective agreements are on the table, and of course, with this bill, like every other, they make themselves lawsuit-proof. So things like malfeasance can, I guess, potentially occur if you make yourself lawsuit-proof. In fact, we specified language to say we are not going to act in bad faith with amendments. No, they still want to do it.

Why are they doing this? Obviously, they want to take over transit systems or at least have the veto power to force them to do what they want. And do you know what they want? As always, privatization, for sure—they are obsessed with control and privatization. Why? Because the people out there that tell them what to do, because they pay their bills—and I don’t mean the taxpayer; I mean the people that you don’t know who they are, but they ultimately give the ultimate direction to this government—they want money.

They need it like—it’s like those old locomotives: coal getting shoved in and heated to push that train along. They want things and they keep saying to these guys, “We supported you. We go to bat for you. We fill the coffers. We buy those spaghetti dinners with ruby meatballs, all of that. But you gotta do what we say.” And what they did in this case was they said, “Let’s take over transit, and let’s ultimately create a vague bill without consultation that nobody asked for to give us the ultimate veto power and to bring in privatization.”

The track record is there, Speaker. I mean, look, you remember Ontario Place? Cutting down all those trees to bring in an international spa that had—literally, go look at the Auditor General’s report. It’s telling. Billions of dollars that they’re putting into a site so that they can extract half of that money over 95 years as if the 407 never happened. This is a government that will go to bat for big money, just befuddle everybody else, and when things aren’t looking good in the polls, start a culture war or something like that to get people to turn away from what they’re doing.

So at first glance, a

schedule in an omnibus bill that talks about fare integration looks like something people could get behind. But when you actually read the details and saw what this was, it was cynical, and what it amounted to was a takeover of transit agencies across the province, giving them the ability and the power to do everything, including ripping up collective agreements and opening the door to privatization.

In the end they say to everybody, “Don’t worry about it. We’re not specifying anything in this bill. Trust us.” Just like, “Hey, trust us. The science centre roof is going to fall so we have got to get rid of this thing and sell it off to our friends.” Guess what happens after the biggest snowfall in the history of this province? The roof didn’t fall. You know what they’re probably going to do up there in the middle of the night in spring? They’re going to send one of their younger members up there with a sledgehammer to smash away at it because it’s been a big embarrassment.

Look, the official opposition doesn’t trust this government, and the people of Ontario are starting to clue in and wake up to this cynical agenda of control and privatization and helping their insider friends. It’s got to stop.

As this moves forward, all of these transit agencies, unions and transit riders, just like they so expertly said in committee—they gave advice. They said that this is what it’s going to take to make this work, and what it’s going to take to improve transit is consistent operating funding. Give these agencies the autonomy they need because they have the expertise to make the decisions they need, and don’t touch those collective agreements.

Thank you very much, Speaker. I’ll be sharing my time with the member from Toronto–Danforth.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member for Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thanks to my colleagues, who have set the case out very powerfully. I want to make some small additions to their comments. Most of my focus will be on the green building standards, but I want to touch on one or two other things as well.

Before I talk about the green building standards, I think first we need to understand the context of the new world that we’re going into right now. I would say, for many people, this is something they’ve read about. They’ve heard the term “climate change,” they’ve heard the term “global heating,” and most of what they’ve seen so far, it’s something that is accommodatable. But we are going into a period when the world is going to be changing very profoundly.

We are in a situation now where the rate at which the world is heating up is accelerating. Temperatures that were seen to be coming forward in the 2050s or 2060s are likely going to come forward in the 2030s. The era we’ve experienced of extreme weather with significant cost for people in Ontario and people around the world is going to become far more difficult in the years to come.

In fact, about 15 years ago, the British government had a study done of the impact of the heating that we’re experiencing. Their conclusion was that at a sort of substantial change—which we’re looking at within the next 20 years—you would be looking at damage and loss equivalent to the Great Depression or World War II. That has huge implications, not only for people’s standard of living, which will not go up—it did not go up during World War II—but it will also have substantial implications for their health and, possibly, most likely, even their lives.

To have a government that has been systematically undermining and rolling back action on climate change is quite an extraordinary thing to see. With this particular initiative, they, I think, are trying to complete the full set. They haven’t wiped out all action on climate yet, but they’re well on their way. And to actually, now, after a few efforts, try to knock out the green building standards imposed in the city of Toronto—and, I think, in other municipalities in Ontario—is just an indication that for them the kinds of risks that people in this province and people around the world are facing are of no consequence or of no concern.

Speaker, I’m going to go back a bit to those consequences because they will loom large in people’s lives. As you get more extreme weather, you will find that insurance companies will either charge rates that people cannot afford or will withdraw the provision of insurance. In California, Louisiana, Florida, in many cases, insurance companies have redlined whole communities and said, “We’re not insuring there.” And when you can’t get insurance, you can’t get a mortgage. And if you can’t get a mortgage, you can’t build a house—very hard to sell a house.

The increase in temperature is a threat to our financial system, it’s a threat to employment, and, frankly, it’s a threat to people’s life savings, because they put them into their houses. Here in Ontario, we’ve seen less of that in the south, but when I talk to my northern colleagues, insurance rates are rising substantially, and that’s because of the impact of more and more flooding. That is part of our lives. Flooding is going to become much more common.

We are going to see more wildland fires and urban wildfires. I know when people think about this, it seems a very distant concept. But in New York City in the fall of 2024, in a two-week period, they had over 200 fires in that city that were in their city park system. An incredible effort on the part of the New York City Fire Department—they were able to control them. They didn’t spread to the residential areas. But in Los Angeles in 2025, people will remember the impact of the wildfires that swept through large sections of Los Angeles. Some 200,000 people had to be evacuated. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of housing value were wiped out. The costs were extraordinary.

You should know, Speaker, that the World Bank, in conjunction with a number of other institutions, has evaluated fire risk in cities around the world, and they rate Toronto as having the same fire risk as Los Angeles. The World Bank is not an organization that is generally considered a lightweight in terms of looking at risk. They publish these maps of cities that have fire risk because, Speaker, people invest in cities. Investors, and those who back them, need to know whether or not they’re going to be able to recover the money they put into developments. So the city of Toronto has been identified as having the same fire risk as Los Angeles.

The city of Halifax was rated as having a lower fire risk. In 2023, wildfires outside Halifax made it into a suburban area; 165 homes were burned down. Luckily the fire service was able to stop the fire. But I had an opportunity to talk to one of the firefighters who was there who said that when they drove their trucks into that area, the heat was so intense that it caused glass to crack on the fire engines. I asked the firefighter who responded what they needed to deal with the problem in that city and he said, “What we needed were water bombers.”

We are looking at a very different regime coming forward—and I’m setting aside Jasper, Alberta; I’m setting aside Fort McMurray or Lytton, BC, which was razed to the ground. We are looking at far greater risks to our well-being in the years to come. And yet this government has consistently undermined or eliminated action on climate change, and now it is going forward with this attack on municipalities that cannot be justified. It simply cannot be justified.

We’ve had, I think, two efforts so far previously to wipe out Toronto’s green building standard—not at all an intelligent move; in fact, a destructive move. And it looks like this time they may have found the formula that will make it impossible for Toronto or other municipalities to actually put in place the standards that will provide some protection for people from these new extreme weather events but also protect people from high and rising energy costs. I want to talk a bit about that because I’ve talked about the climate impacts of what this government is doing, the climate impacts of what we’re facing.

But the other part of it, Speaker, is that as the world changes, as economies change, those that cling to the old path are going to lose. If you invested heavily in horse-drawn carriages at the beginning of the 20th century, things didn’t work out well for you by the 2020s. It was bad news.

I have an example in Ontario. It’s an interesting one. Some friends of mine live in a small town called Yarker near Kingston. Yarker has a beautiful setting. It has rapids, a small waterfall and tremendous water power. In the late 1800s and early 20th century, it was a centre of woodworking. They did great furniture because they had all this free power which would allow them to run their tools, their machinery. They also were big manufacturers of wagon wheels—huge industry, big market.

Sometime in the second decade of the last century, Colonel Sam McLaughlin came to them and said, “Look, automobiles are going to be the market of the future. Do you want to make wheels for us in Oshawa? Because I’ve got a market that you cannot afford to stand by on.” Unfortunately, the industrial leaders in Yarker thought that this automobile thing was a passing fad, that horses would be around forever, and they turned down the deal. The rest was history. Yarker is a very small town now, not what it had been in the past.

We’re looking at a government that thinks that we can continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels in the future, that we can continue to build buildings as if nothing was going on in the world, a government that is going to lose out on huge economic development opportunities but also is going to be in a situation where people will face higher and higher electricity bills because the impact of extreme weather on electricity systems is one that drives up costs.

In California, the impact of wildfires on electricity systems and costs has been very substantial. Those who are most shielded from that are those who use the least energy in their home and have their own solar panels. To the extent that they can isolate themselves from the grid, they’re in good shape.

To the extent that this government doesn’t allow building standards that reduce energy consumption in the future, this government makes things far more difficult for this whole province in the years going forward.

At the same time, the government is attacking the electric vehicle industry. It’s an odd, odd approach for a government that has in last few years said that it would put hundreds of millions or billions into building electric vehicles in Ontario. They are indeed the future; that is where the automotive sector is going to go.

In fact, the current and ongoing war against Iran and the scarcity of oil around the world is reinforcing to people that to the extent that they’re dependent on the oil and gas industry for transportation, they’re putting themselves at risk for even getting fuel, let alone being able to pay for it.

For this government to attack standards that require easy plug-in for those who buy electric vehicles means they’re undermining the domestic market for the next generation of automotive technology. If you say that you’re in favour of having an auto industry in Ontario—and you should be—undermining the products that we’re going to need in the future, undermining the market here in Ontario is fundamentally, transparently counterproductive—in fact, damaging. This government is making a huge mistake in taking that position.

Canadian Environmental Law Association has talked about the fact that if you’re going to have electric vehicles, the cheapest way to ensure that people can power up their vehicles, given the energy they will need for the day’s driving, is to ensure that, in a new building, things are set up so that, automatically, you will have that plug-in ability. It’s far more expensive to retrofit later—far more expensive. And this government is ignoring the market that it needs to develop, but also ignoring the ability of people, on a low-cost basis, to provide themselves with transportation energy in the years to come.

That on its own is quite extraordinary and something that, in this bill, should never have been allowed to go forward.

I want to talk briefly about Metrolinx and it being exempt from the Ontario building code. My riding, Toronto–Danforth, is the site for a very large stretch of the Ontario Line, and we need that transit. When I canvass through my riding, people support the idea of building the transit. There’s no getting around it; they want it done. They want to be able to get from East York to downtown quickly, and they see public transit as the key to making that happen.

But they’ve also had the experience of dealing with Metrolinx, which is exempt from following city of Toronto bylaws and rules. And so we have had situations where failure to control dust has left whole neighbourhoods caked in dust; has led to the clogging of catch basins and thus flooding on streets, flooding in people’s basements. And I have to ask myself, if you cannot manage an excavation project so that you protect people from choking dust and from flooding, why on earth should we have confidence that you should be able to be exempt from the Ontario building code?

I mean, if you want to have buildings that are safe, buildings that—what could I say—will stay up in the long run, following a building code makes a lot of sense. And given Metrolinx’s record, exempting them from the Ontario building code makes no sense whatsoever.

I need to distinguish here: I meet a lot of the Metrolinx staff at the grassroots level—very focused on transit, very focused on trying to make sure that things work. I don’t have any doubt about their commitment to my community or to the larger project. But when it comes to Metrolinx management and systems that they have set up that, frankly, do not protect the communities through which construction is going on, I have no trust.

Exempting them from the Ontario building code makes no sense to me at all. I don’t know for the life of me why on earth this is proposed. No developer in Ontario would say, “Hey, I’m building buildings. I’m not subject to the Ontario building code. Things will be fine.” People don’t trust that. They think that there should be a fundamental law in place that guides construction and demolition, so that health and safety are protected, and so the buildings that result are ones that you can count on for years to come.

And I want to talk about these private water corporations. I know there are some differences of opinion, but having been in this place now for a number of years, I saw the stages through which privatization of the hydro system proceeded. And when you set up a corporation from an entity that used to be directly controlled by government to one that’s stand-alone—notwithstanding the fact that the shares in it are owned by the government of the day—you set up a process that allows for privatization much more rapidly at another day.

I was here for the whole Hydro One fight. I had an opportunity to question the Minister of Energy in estimates. I had an opportunity to watch the Minister of Energy being coached by the lawyer who had been assigned to keep him on the straight and narrow in estimates. And frankly, when the Liberals set up a system, a share corporation, for Hydro One that allowed the whole thing to be sold off, you invited the day when a government having financial difficulties would decide, “Yes, I have a wonderful vehicle here; I can get billions of dollars for it. I’ll start to sell it off, and I will deal with my political problems,” much like we saw with Mike Harris in the 1990s.

It was Highway 407. There was an entity that was owned by the government. He had financial troubles going into an election and decided to sell that off. It became a private toll road, and everyone who lives in the suburban GTA knows exactly what that has meant for their daily lives in terms of cost, and everyone who’s stuck on the 401, when they know that a few kilometres up there’s a highway that’s much faster, knows that they are being stuck with the huge burden of congestion while those private road users are in a much better position. It didn’t help us in terms of transportation and congestion, and, frankly, in the long run, doesn’t help us financially.

Going forward with the initiative the government has put on the table is one that I believe will prove incredibly tempting for future municipal governments to dip into. Ones that are facing difficulty with property tax rates will realize, “Hey, I just have to sell off shares here. There’s a friendly government. They don’t want to give us money. I need money. Let’s do this.”

I have to say that one of the things in the legislation saying that the water corporations have to be owned by governments or by agents of governments just kicks the door wide open. Agents can do a variety of things. Agents can make deals with governments. Agents may give governments large amounts of money for the ability to run a corporation in their private interest and not in the interest of the public as a whole. Water, hydro, roads and fundamental infrastructure function best in society when they’re provided as a service, not as a profit centre.

Ontario, way back when, used to be chock-full of private toll roads. Getting rid of private toll roads greatly accelerated trade within Ontario. It made it much cheaper for goods to be moved from one town to another. It improved the standard of living, and it was vital to Ontario becoming an advanced industrial society. Each piece of infrastructure you sell off, or you put in the position where it can be sold off, means you’re undermining the economic future of this province.

The bill is a mistake. My colleagues have made their points on a variety of other elements of it. I hope—and maybe it is a faint hope, Speaker—that the Conservatives will have a eureka moment and decide it’s not worth going forward with the bill.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Ms. Laura Smith: I want to thank the members opposite from Toronto Centre, I believe, and Niagara Centre.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Toronto–Danforth.

Ms. Laura Smith: Yes. Anyway, I’m so grateful to be here to ask this question. I listened intently about the issue of water and waste water. Our government continues to advance a plan for publicly owned municipal service corporations, and I want to be very clear that these are publicly owned corporations. They are public, not private, and they’re a tool to help our municipalities finance and deliver critical infrastructure, which we desperately need. They support growth. They spread costs more fairly over time, and they avoid placing the full burden on new home buyers.

This is about the next generation we’re working on. The municipal partners have been very clear that they need this new tool, and if they have encouraged this speedy and efficient establishment of municipally owned public service corporations, please, if you don’t—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Response?

Mr. Jeff Burch: I’m not sure I heard the last part of the question, but what I tried to make clear in my speaking—and my friend from Toronto–Danforth did as well—is when you financialize the infrastructure, whoever is investing—and the government has suggested pension funds, but whoever it is—requires a return on their investment. Someone has to pay for that. Money doesn’t just fall out of the sky.

So who’s going to pay? It’s going to be the consumer. It’s going to be people getting water bills, residents getting water bills, and who are they going to go to? There’s nobody to go to because the government will have divested themselves of the responsibility, and you can’t call your local councillors in the same way you could before. What’s going to happen is, there’s no responsibility, but water bills are going to go up, and that’s a problem for us.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

MPP Wayne Gates: I’ll go back to my colleague from Niagara South. I’m not that old. I remember Walkerton and what happened in Walkerton, where seven people died and hundreds and thousands of people got sick—hundreds are still sick—from privatization of water. Make no mistake about it, that’s where this bill is going to go.

I’m going to ask my question: Does Bill 98 rule out privatization of water with a system that could lead to higher costs, less accountability and a corporation running it for nothing more than making a profit for the shareholders?

Mr. Jeff Burch: To repeat the same thing I said to the last person that asked: It’s a financialization of the infrastructure. What that means is whoever invests is going to require a return on their investment. There is less responsibility, less transparency. Consumers are going to find that their water rates go up and there’s nobody to complain to because a corporate entity will be running it.

That’s what my friend from Toronto–Danforth tried to explain when he was in the Legislature dealing with electricity rates and the privatization of hydro. That’s where it’s headed. I think we’ve been very clear about that, and we’re not in favour of it. We think it should stay within direct government control.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Thank you to my colleagues for their remarks this morning on Bill 98. My question is for the member from Niagara Centre. He mentioned in his remarks Environmental Defence and their presentation at committee. I was just wondering if the member from the NDP agrees with Environmental Defence that no Ontario family should own a single detached family home.

Mr. Jeff Burch: That is not what they said. The member wasn’t there in the committee. I was there for the entire thing. I heard their entire presentation. I have their presentation, actually. They did not say that nobody in Ontario should own a single detached home. That’s, quite frankly, ridiculous.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I appreciate the comments from all of my colleagues. Again, I’m going to reiterate: When we are talking about privatization of water and the oversight of water, I’m just going to remind the Conservative side about Walkerton, as my other colleague did, and the outcome of Walkerton. Those are real people that died and are still very, very ill because of privatization schemes.

I’m going to ask any of my colleagues—we have a record number of people going to food banks under this government. We have a record number of people experiencing homelessness under this government. That’s not my data; that’s public data, outside agencies doing the data. We’re also seeing—a report just came out—a record number of people defaulting on mortgages or becoming delinquent on their mortgages under this government: 35% overall in the province, 45% in Toronto, Barrie and Windsor.

Do any of my colleagues see anything in this bill that is actually going to bring down the cost of rent or the cost of housing for these people that are struggling to—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Response?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The first part of the response will be no. The second

part is, in fact, that what I see is a machine for increasing costs for homeowners. My colleague was talking about water privatization. CUPE has pointed out that, in fact, this whole scheme is going to result in higher water costs for people, which is going to make it far harder for them to afford the daily expenses they are grappling with now.

We don’t see in this bill anything that is actually going to make it easier for people to pay their energy bills, because it is undermining the energy efficiency that would reduce their operating costs in the long run. This bill is not one I have found that at any point will make things more affordable.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Mr. John Jordan: I can’t stress how important communal water and sewage is to rural Ontario. This bill is the first stage in developing a framework for that to happen. It doesn’t matter in Niagara Centre; it doesn’t matter in Toronto–Danforth; it doesn’t matter in Niagara Falls—it’s very important to the people of rural and northern Ontario.

Public corporations are the framework that will make it work. A good example is Verona, where, instead of putting 14 homes on a development, we’re putting 100 homes with a communal water and sewage system.

Whichever member would like to answer, I’m just wondering: Coming up with a privatization scheme that doesn’t exist will further delay the development of communal water and sewage across the province—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Response?

Mr. Jeff Burch: The member is asking a question about a totally separate thing. In the bill, there is a

section on communal water in rural settings, and we actually support that, and we supported the private member’s bill from the member from Newmarket–Aurora who brought that forward.

So those are two completely separate issues, and we do support what he has raised.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I’m going to delve back into the fact that a report has just come out about the number of people who are 90 days or more delinquent on their mortgages, the number of people who are being renovicted or can’t find affordable rentals because this government did away with rent controls in the province, the fact that we have over 8.7 million visits to food banks under this government—a record number—and the number of people who are currently experiencing homelessness.

I’m talking about children going to food banks; I’m talking about seniors and people with disabilities going to food banks, and the fact that people in this province cannot afford a place to live. So while this government talks about building housing—and they are not even close to reaching their goal they had set for themselves. That’s a stretch goal, I believe.

I’m just wondering, again, if there is anything in the bill that is going to address the fact that people cannot afford a place to live in the province. And just on one side note, it was this government that also started—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Response?

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: There is absolutely nothing in the bill that will help renters or make housing more affordable. This is just one of their typical, “Trust us; we’ll figure it out in the regulations” privatization scheme bills. I spoke to the transit elements of the bill, of course, but there are other elements there.

We know this government is great at waste—maybe not so much waste water, but certainly waste. So there is no help for renters or for people that are hoping for affordable housing from the government. It has been eight years and we’re still waiting, and the people are still waiting across the province, especially here in Toronto.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report entitled 2024-25 Interprovincial Budget Comparison, from the Office of the Financial Accountability Officer of Ontario.

Members’ Statements

Lois Fairley Nurse of the Year Award

Mr. Andrew Dowie: The RNAO Lois Fairley Nurse of the Year Award recognizes nurses who go above and beyond for Windsor and Essex county. Today I rise to congratulate the 2026 recipient, Spenser Dionne. Spenser is a registered nurse in the clinical teaching unit at Windsor Regional Hospital’s Ouellette campus. This honour reflects both clinical excellence and extraordinary compassion.

Nominated by Ryan Peebles, Spenser was recognized for the profound difference she made after his mother suffered a severe stroke. In a moment filled with fear and uncertainty, Spenser provided far more than medical care, offering comfort through consistency and thoughtful gestures, and continuing to check in even after the transition to long-term care.

Spenser’s dedication also extends beyond the bedside through her support for students and new nurses, helping to strengthen the next generation of health care professionals.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Spenser Dionne—an outstanding credit to her colleagues and to our community—and thanking nurses across Ontario for the exceptional care that they provide each and every day.

Child care

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Speaker, Laura contacted my office, a mother who is struggling to find child care for a return to work in October. She signed up on the London daycare list shortly after finding out she was pregnant, but, sadly, signing up when she was pregnant was not enough. She said one place only has 10 infant spots, and she’s number 293 on the wait-list.

Laura’s story reflects the reality facing thousands of families in Ontario. The federal government provided provinces with the funding to build a universal, affordable child care system and reach a $10-a-day target. Other provinces have succeeded. According to the Auditor General, the Ontario government has failed to meet nearly every major target for the Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care program.

London families know this first-hand, as London was ranked the fifth worst out of 45 Canadian cities for accessing child care.

Nearly 70,000 families are still waiting for access spaces, 10,000 additional RCEs are needed, and the Auditor General warned of a nearly $2-billion funding shortfall that could push fees up to an average of $32 a day without additional public investment.

Despite knowing all these challenges, this government secured only a one-year extension of the agreement. I call on this Ontario government to protect the program, maintain the commitment to non-profit child care, properly fund the system and ensure every family has a fair chance to access affordable child care in this province.

Asian Heritage Month

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: May is Asian Heritage Month—a time to celebrate the generations of Asian Canadians whose hard work and sacrifice helped build our province and our country.

From pioneer generations from Canton who helped build the Canadian Pacific Railway, to small-business owners who opened shops and restaurants along the way, Asian Canadians helped shape the Canada we know and we love.

Chinese Canadians in particular endured legalized racism, the Chinese Exclusion Act and the head tax, yet they held on to an unwavering belief in a better future for their children and a belief in Canada.

Today, Asian Canadians are leaders in every part of our society, like trailblazers such as Vivienne Poy, Bob Wong, Dr. David Suzuki and the Honourable Vim Kochhar. They have helped define Ontario’s success.

The families who came here with little, worked long hours and built opportunities for the next generation: Their success should be a source of pride and deserves not only our gratitude but also the government’s respect and support in return.

Remarks in Cantonese and Mandarin.

To every Asian Canadian who helped build this province and this country, we thank you.

Rural health services

Mr. Matthew Rae: Today I recognize the continued progress being made to strengthen primary care and improve access to health care across rural Ontario.

Recently, I had the honour, on behalf of the Minister of Health, to announce more than $8.8 million for primary care expansion across Perth, Wellington and Huron counties through our government’s primary care action plan. This investment will help connect more than 22,000 patients to a primary care provider in our local communities.

In budget 2026, our government made further investments of $300 million in our primary care action plan, bringing the total funding to over $3.4 billion. We are firmly on track to meeting our goal of attaching every Ontarian to a primary care provider by 2029. This is meaningful progress, Speaker.

For rural communities especially, access to primary care is essential to building a strong and sustainable health care system.

And while investments like these matter, it is the people on the ground who make this work possible. I want to thank the physicians, nurse practitioners, medical staff and front-line health care workers who continue to serve our rural communities with professionalism and compassion every single day. Because when people can access care closer to home, communities become healthier and stronger.

Education funding

Ms. Jessica Bell: The Conservative government has put the Toronto District School Board under undemocratic supervision, and now the drastic cuts to our schools have begun: staff in school cafeterias cut, staff that support school libraries cut, staff who support students in disadvantaged schools cut, two outdoor education centres closed, 150 lunchroom supervisors laid off, 25 clerical staff laid off, 40 vice-principals laid off, 69 child and youth workers cut, 483 teaching positions surplussed, 72 ESL teachers cut.

Now the government says that this is all about right-sizing, modernizing, just responding to declining enrolment. Well, I have two responses to that: These cuts are far bigger than declining enrolment, and these cuts are due to a budget shortfall that is entirely of the Conservative government’s own making. Not a single parent believes for one second that this is not going to have an impact on our children.

This is also a message from parents to this government: Stop the cuts, invest in public schools and invest in our kids.

National Police Week

MPP Silvia Gualtieri: It is National Police Week, a time to recognize the extraordinary men and women across Ontario who protect our communities. To every member of the Peel Regional Police serving Mississauga East–Cooksville, I thank you. We are deeply grateful for all that you do.

On Monday, we marked police week by hosting a community safety town hall meeting attended by over 100 residents. Superintendent Joy Edwards from division 12 led the outstanding panel, along with Sergeant Claudia D’Amico, Constable Adam Cook, Constables Pierre Florensa-Bertrand and Gerard Maghanoy, Constable Haave Wright, Constables Matthew Pitula and Cory Guest, Detective Dan Masters, Constable Kasim Baluch and Constable Jason Comishen.

Residents asked direct questions on home invasions, distraction thefts and auto thefts, while officers shared prevention strategies and practical safety advice. A big shout-out to Royal Canadian Legion Branch 582 in Cooksville, where my office hosted this very important event.

Speaker, I am proud we are building strong community partnerships to keep Mississauga East–Cooksville safe.

Spring It Forward Food Drive

Mr. Jeff Burch: I would like to take a moment to highlight the incredible generosity of members of my community in Niagara Centre. Over the weekend in Welland, the Seaway Mall Spring It Forward Food Drive helped combat food insecurity by collecting almost 6,000 kilograms of food from residents and raising $19,000 in donations, including $10,000 in a matching contribution from Elevate Living.

Since launching in 2023, the campaign has raised more than $88,000 and collected more than 16,000 kilograms of food and hygiene items to help stock the shelves at the Hope Centre, Open Arms Mission and Holy Trinity. Together, these contributions represent the equivalent of more than 50,000 meals for families.

Another organization, Niagara Nutrition Partners, recently told us it costs up to $6.50 per child per day to run a student nutrition program. However, it receives funding from this government that equates to just 10 cents per student, the lowest per capita of all provinces.

At a time when the rising cost of gas, food and housing are placing enormous pressure on families, our community continues to step up where governments have failed.

Thank you to the Seaway Mall and everyone involved in Spring It Forward. You make our community proud.

Government investments

Mr. John Jordan: I was honoured to have the Premier, the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, the acting Minister of Infrastructure and our Minister of Long-Term Care visit my riding of Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston last week.

Together, we announced and celebrated two vital projects in the town of Smiths Falls: the water infrastructure work to go along with the new water tower and the new 128-bed Broadview Nursing Home.

Through the health and safety water stream, just over $13 million in funding was used to upgrade the Smiths Falls trunk water main and sewer separation. The town will have access to safe and reliable water infrastructure that will give families peace of mind that their communities’ essential systems are being upgraded. Investments like this will also support current and future growth.

The Minister of Long-Term Care was on hand to join the Premier to meet with residents and celebrate the new Broadview Nursing Home in the heart of Smiths Falls. The Smiths Falls residents enjoyed four resident home areas to create more familiar living spaces for up to 32 residents, with dining and activity areas, a secured courtyard for residents, visitors’ lounges and bedrooms.

The increased access to long-term care in my riding is making a difference to wait times and ALC at our community hospitals. Mayors, reeves and municipal leaders continue to work to expand those services. It was a great day in Smiths Falls, Speaker.

Developmental Disabilities Awareness Week Act

Mr. Billy Pang: I rise today to acknowledge a meaningful milestone in this Legislature. Yesterday marked the second-reading ballot stage for my private member’s bill, the Developmental Disabilities Awareness Week Act, 2026.

This proposed legislation seeks to formally recognize the last full week of May each year as Developmental Disabilities Awareness Week in Ontario. The intent of this bill is simple but important: to raise awareness, strengthen understanding and ensure that the voices and lived experiences of people with developmental disabilities and their families are recognized and valued across the province.

I want to sincerely thank the individuals, families, advocates and community organizations, including Community Living Toronto, Community Living Ontario, Community Living York South, Surrey Place, New Visions Toronto and Spirit of Life, as well as the individuals who attended in the chamber yesterday to witness this important legislative process. Your work continues to shape a more inclusive and compassionate province.

As we continue through this legislative process, I look forward to working with colleagues from all sides of the House to ensure this community is not forgotten.

Red tape reduction

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: I’m pro-business. I want business to thrive and grow, and, like many, I want healthy businesses and a healthy natural environment. The Ministry of Red Tape Reduction has a job to do, though it is paradoxical a whole government ministry was created to get rid of some bureaucracy and red tape.

But Ontario’s workers, entrepreneurs and job creators are asking for one simple thing: Get government out of the way so they can do what they do best. From auto dealers buried in paperwork, to tradespeople waiting on permits and certification, to farmers navigating layers of regulation, to tourism operators struggling with seasonal reporting requirements, the message during pre-budget consultations was loud and clear: Red tape costs time, red tape costs money, and, in today’s economic environment, both are already in short supply.

This government should relentlessly focus on removing duplication, modernizing outdated processes and making it easier to do business in this province, while still protecting safety and accountability. When we reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, we create room for growth, investment, innovation and jobs.

I’m hearing areas of concern from quite a few business owners in my riding of Haldimand–Norfolk, so I would suggest the government stay on course with red tape reduction but respond—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): We will move on to introduction of visitors.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I want to wish a warm welcome to Jamie and Sean Ireland, parents to page captain Kaleigh. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Jessica Bell: I’d like to welcome Miriam Barna and her daughter Sylvie Galati-Barna to the House. It’s a real pleasure to have you here. Thank you so much for coming.

Hon. Stan Cho: We’ve got a special group of visitors here, and they come here from every corner of the province. They are the young leaders of today; they’re also the leaders of tomorrow. I want to formally welcome to the House the 2026 PC internship class. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I can’t wait to see what you do.

Hon. Steve Clark: I want to introduce a recent recipient of the Order of Ontario, former MP John Carmichael of Don Valley West, who was MP from 2011 to 2015. He’s with the YPO Forum group: Tom Knowlton, Harold Lenfesty, Stuart Smith, John Bergsma, Jim Leech, Steve Overgaard and Peter Casson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I’d like to welcome the over 35 representatives of injured workers who are here today.

I would also like to welcome Virginia Burton and her service dog, Pockets.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MPP Jamie West: I want to introduce two friends of mine: David Lisi, the health and safety executive chair for Local 6500 and Vale, also co-chair of the Mining Legislative Review Committee, and Sean Staddon, WSIB rep and executive member for Local 6500. Welcome to your House, guys.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature the interns working in my office today. We’ve got Jason Holliday, Jujhar Grewal, Jiyaa Sidhu, Ahmed Hanafi and Tanjot Gill.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I have two sets of introductions. First, from the Ontario Chiropractic Association, I’d like to welcome Caroline Brereton, Catherine Melville and Dianna Pasic; and from the PC interns working in the Ministry of Health, welcome James, Paulina, Akshara, Ilesha, Cristian, Fola and Luca.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone. Great to be here, as always, with you.

I’d like to welcome Zainab Siddiqui, who is a U of T intern, starting in my office—welcome—and Adam Gill and James Dann, who have done so much for Toronto parks and music, just to liven up our city.

Welcome to your House.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I just want to give a shout-out to the Kitchener Rangers, who won the OHL championships yesterday. Go, Rangers!

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order—I’m joking.

Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of everyone in the Legislature, I’d like to welcome the associated equipment dealers here today, and in particular, my local dealer, Brian Brownlee.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to welcome Canadian Parents for French. That includes Elizabeth Gormley, Mary Cruden, Myron Karpiuk and Lynne LeBlanc.

I also would like to welcome a good friend of mine, Miriam Barna, and her beautiful daughter, Sylvie Galati-Barna. We used to work together. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I’d like to welcome three summer interns from the Ministry of Emergency Preparedness and Response: Sophie Block, Owen Massey and Andrew Ciddio.

Welcome to Queen’s Park, and I hope you enjoy your summer with us.

Mr. Brian Saunderson: It’s my great pleasure to welcome Beth Vanstone and Alice Williams, the co-founders of the Ontario Rare Action Group. They hosted a breakfast this morning, and I’m going to mention in first name only a number of supporters that came out: Rosalind, Nicola, Erin, Emma, Shelly, Riham, Ruchi, Ashleigh, Angela, Susan, Homira, Mary, Kristen and Rebecca.

Mr. Deepak Anand: I’d like to welcome Tien Leong Wong and Lilian Thung, the proud parents of Johanan Lucas Wong, the page from Mississauga–Malton.

Hon. Nolan Quinn: I’d like to welcome Tristynn, who just graduated from Western University and is an intern in my ministry this summer.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I’d like to recognize members from the Hamilton and District Injured Workers’ Group, including Marvin Mulder and the president, Victoria Daniels.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: I’m happy to welcome, from the township of Centre Wellington, Councillors Lustgarten-Evoy, Jefferson and MacDonald.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laura Smith: I’d like to welcome to the House, from the Associated Equipment Distributors, Mr. Dan Dent from Toromont, a proud member of the Thornhill community, and from Federal Signal, Michael Rugeroni.

Thank you very much for coming to the House.

House sittings

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 9(h), the Clerk has received written notice from the government House leader indicating that a temporary change in the weekly meeting

schedule of the House is required, and therefore, the House shall commence at 9 a.m. on Monday, May 25, 2026, for the proceeding orders of the day.

Question Period

Freedom of information

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Premier. Earlier this morning, Global News reported that government documents saved on Google Docs would no longer be subject to FOI requests. This would be unbelievable if it wasn’t so on brand. This government is notorious for using personal Gmail and private cellphone records and conducting government business on all of those devices for their shady deals, and now they’ve gone and changed the law to make sure their records never get out.

Premier, what exactly is in those Google documents that you are so afraid of people seeing?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery.

Hon. Stephen Crawford: It’s great to be here. I’m not going to comment on the member’s question about ongoing investigations or individual FOI requests, but what I will say is that government records—government oversight is still under the purview of the Auditor General, of independent officers like the Integrity Commissioner. Nothing has changed with respect to oversight—overseeing all of the government records, and nothing has changed.

Ontario’s rules now align with jurisdictions across Canada, be it Alberta, Saskatchewan—their NDP friends in British Columbia are pushing through legislation similar to what we’re doing to align our jurisdictions into the Westminster tradition of cabinet confidentiality.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ll tell you this: The people of Ontario, they play by the rules, right? And they expect their government to do the same. But this government simply changes the rules when they don’t feel like playing by them. When the truth starts to catch up with them, they know the rule book and they throw it in the trash—probably the same dumpster that the jet receipts are in.

If there is nothing to hide, why did the government go to such lengths to hide things?

Hon. Stephen Crawford: What the people of Ontario care about right now are the tariffs that have been imposed upon us by the United States and about growing an economy that we need to build for the future. What people care about is over 42,000 jobs being created in the province of Ontario in the month of April. That is 680% more jobs per capita than the United States, Speaker; over 8,000 manufacturing jobs.

When the previous Liberal government, supported by the NDP, was in power for 15 years, they gave up on manufacturing. They viewed manufacturing as a has-been industry. We’re going to back manufacturing. We’re getting more manufacturing jobs back to this province, back to this country, so we can be the economic engine of Canada. We’re proud of that record, and that’s what the people of Ontario care about.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: It’s a bit rich, coming from a government that has record unemployment rates.

But do these government members need to be reminded that they are under a criminal investigation for the greenbelt carve-up? The evidence of that carve-up continues to live, by the way, in private Gmail, in personal cellphone records of the Premier and, yes, in Google Docs.

When records are about to come out, the government changes the law to bury them. When the Premier and the top staff in his office—when their court cases start heating up, they change the law to nullify those cases. You’ve got to ask yourself, Speaker, is this Queen’s Park or the Kremlin?

Can the Premier tell us why he thinks he’s so above the law?

Hon. Stephen Crawford: Speaker, I can tell you, on this side of the House, we have a democratic process when we elect our leader, unlike the party opposite, who was crowned as emperor of the NDP opposition. We elect our leader, and we support our leader wholeheartedly.

What we are doing with the FOI legislation, which has already been discussed, is bringing us in line with other provinces.

But what I want to talk about is the economic growth, the investments that are pouring into Ontario as a result of our team, of our Premier and our ministers going around the world, making sure that we have an environment for business to strive here in the province. We are doing that. We’ve had $45 billion of investments, in the last eight years we’ve been in power, by foreign companies investing in—why are they investing in Ontario, Speaker? Because they know they have a government that stands up for businesses small and large so we can create the economic opportunities for Ontarians for generations to come.

Special-needs students

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, first let me say, yes, you bought him a private luxury jet; we know you support him.

Yesterday, unfortunately, the Auditor General’s report told us what parents have been telling us for so many years: The government is failing our children, and especially children with special needs. Sending kids home because there’s no support for them, unmanageable teacher-student ratios, ignoring education plans—that is the state of our classrooms under this government’s watch.

So to the Premier: Does the Premier even care about students with special needs and that they are being left behind?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Obviously we do, and that is why we’ve increased funding to special education to record levels across the province of Ontario.

But as I’ve said on a number of occasions and I will continue to say, I don’t think parents care and I don’t think teachers care that ministers get up here and say it’s the highest level of funding or that the opposition says it’s not enough. What they care are about is, what are the outcomes for their students and for their children? That is what we are going to continue to focus on: outcomes.

As I said yesterday, I’m very concerned by a number of the things that I saw in the report. That is why the ministry needs to step up and show more leadership across the province of Ontario and stop downloading to school boards that are clearly incapable of dealing with some of the situations they have in front of them. For 50 years that leadership has not been shown. Two bills that we brought before this House over the last year have brought back that leadership to the Ministry of Education, and we will make sure that this job gets done for the students and teachers of the province of Ontario.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I find it a bit rich to hear the minister talk about this as if it’s the first he’s ever heard of this because, I’ve got to tell you, we’ve been raising these issues in the House for years, and so have parents and teachers and so have, frankly, students, because there’s horror story and horror story, one after the other, for so many years under this government. Teachers, education workers, are struggling. Our kids are struggling. Parents are struggling.

And this minister is sitting in his ivory tower, gathering power and throwing, frankly, very callous comments out there and saying, “You know what? Too bad, no more funding for you. You’re on your own.” That’s what we heard yesterday.

Why has this government so badly neglected special education and the students who need it?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I think what the Leader of the Opposition actually heard me say yesterday, and has been hearing me say for the last year, is that the Ministry of Education has not shown the leadership that is required to provide the best quality education for our students. It has constantly been downloaded for the last 50 years, and we are going to step up and show that leadership.

Now she says that we don’t care about special education. She voted against every single increase to special education. It is the highest level of funding that this province has ever had. That started under the previous ministers of education. It has continued under us right now and in this last budget that she voted against.

But it doesn’t matter that the minister says it’s the highest level of funding; it doesn’t matter that the Leader of the Opposition says it’s not enough. What matters are the outcomes. Clearly the outcomes are not matching the funding levels, and that is what we’re going to make sure of. You know how we’re going to do it? By listening to educators who are constantly telling us that perhaps the inclusion model isn’t working; perhaps the resources that they need aren’t there. We’re going to listen to them, we’re going to provide the appropriate level of funding, and the ministry is going to step up and show leadership.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Very interesting comment that the minister just made—maybe inclusion isn’t working. Does the minister even believe that children with special needs, like every other child in this province, have a right to an education? Because that’s not what I’m hearing. They are being excluded. They are being sent home. The government has no data, no tracking, no guidelines.

The minister really needs to go back and read the Auditor General’s report, because what the Auditor General said is that special education amendments and plans from the boards are collecting dust on his desk. That’s what’s going wrong. But he still thinks he should be the emperor of education. He still thinks that his downtown office knows what’s best for local schools.

Back to the minister and to the Premier: How can the Premier have any confidence in his minister after the mess he has created in our schools?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Speaker, for 50 years governments of all stripes have downloaded responsibility for education to school boards. What we have seen is that they’re incapable of dealing with what we have downloaded to them. What we’re saying is that it’s time for us to step up.

The report clearly highlights failings of the ministry—it clearly highlights that—failings that have come from the decentralization of education. So what we’re going to do—the bills that we have before the House that have been passed are about the ministry stepping up and showing that leadership so that we can centralize and we can have a consistent level of education across the province.

What I care about for kids with special needs is that their special needs are accommodated in our schools. It’s not one-size-fits-all. Every child matters, and that is why every child should have access to a special education system that works for them—not for the opposition, not for me, but for the child.

Special-needs students

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier. I think I’ve asked this question 20 times, about who owns the Premier’s luxury private jet, but the good news is I answered my question, Speaker. I answered my own question: The Premier owns the luxury private jet, because he will always own it.

I thought about it in relation to the Auditor General’s report. We saw some pretty scary stats. Nine out of 10 teachers feel that they can’t give children with exceptional needs the help they need, the help they deserve, the help that’s in their plan.

So juxtaposition that to “the Premier can buy himself a luxury private jet.” If there are no resources, no money for children with exceptional needs in this government, how is it we can afford to buy the Premier a luxury private jet?

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: This, coming from a member whose party underfunded special education for 15 years—that is the reality of the previous Liberal government. This, coming from a member who has been afraid to ask about education—the only question they asked about education was, how come we can’t go to graduation ceremonies, and can the minister help them get to a graduation ceremony?

Now he’s coming and lecturing us about special education when previous ministers before me have increased funding for special education to the highest level that we have ever seen in the province. But you know, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if that level is the highest unless the outcomes match the funding, Madam Speaker. And the outcomes are clearly not matching the funding, and that is why we’re going to make sure that we’d better listen to educators, we’d better listen to those who are providing assistance for our students, including our parents, and that every child has the opportunity to succeed in the province of Ontario.

It’s not about Liberal ideology or NDP failings. It’s about making sure our kids succeed, and you do that by listening to teachers and giving the—

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

Mr. John Fraser: It’s about eight years—eight years the Minister of Education and the Minister of Energy have made a mess of kids’ special education. We know from the Auditor General’s report three years ago that they were shorting kids $350 million. Now we know it’s over $800 million, so our kids are suffering. And we know that the supervisors now are cutting special education, totally opposed to what the minister is saying right now.

So if cabinet can line up and unanimously approve a luxury private jet for the Premier, who already has access to one, why do we have no money, no resources for kids with exceptional needs?

Hon. Paul Calandra: The member clearly did not read any part of the report, because what the member is trying to do is actually defend his record when they were in office, a record of failure when it came to special education across the province.

What did the previous minister do? He guided us through a COVID challenge, a global health and economic pandemic—that kept our kids in school. That’s what this government dealt with. And now we’re dealing, of course, with a global tariff war.

But despite all of the challenges this government has faced, what are we doing? We’ve increased funding for education to the highest level in provincial history. We’ve increased funding for special education to the highest level in provincial history, Madam Speaker. But you know what? The results aren’t matching the highest level of funding. We’re hearing that from teachers, we’re hearing that from parents and we’re hearing that also from the Auditor General.

So what are we going to do? We’re not going to double down and give more money to a system that is failing our kids. We’re going to find out why it’s not working, and we’re going to provide the appropriate level of funding so that the achievement matches the funding better, and the ministry is going to step up and show leadership, something that they have been—

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

Mr. John Fraser: The minister is failing them by just simply not giving the resources that are needed to help our kids. That’s what’s happening here.

The Auditor General confirmed for us what we already knew, that the wait-list for assessments in the schools are too long, so people are having to pay privately. So they pay through their taxes, and then they pay privately.

I told the story of Marigold, the six-year-old who lives in my riding, and how her parents had to pay for an assessment at four years old because they couldn’t get one in schools. Two years later, she’s still not getting services. Two years is a long time when you’re a little kid. Think about it. When you’re six years old, two years is a long time. But you know what? The Premier couldn’t wait to get his luxury private jet, right? Couldn’t wait, had to get it—it was that important. But Marigold? She can languish.

So maybe the minister can answer why he signed off on the Premier’s luxury private jet while Marigold sits stranded without services in her school.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Really, this member has the nerve to get up and talk about failings? This is a member who, in his own riding, refused to give money to the children’s hospital—in his own riding—so that they could expand. Our government had to step up.

This is a member who voted against every single long-term-care expansion. He never actually built long-term care in his riding. This is a member who closed down 600 schools across the province of Ontario. This is a member who increased taxes for every single person in the province of Ontario. This is a member who spent billions upon billions and has nothing to show for it.

Fifteen long, dark, miserable, agonizing years of failure under the previous Liberal government, and, thankfully, in 2018, a Progressive Conservative government building schools, building hospitals, building long-term care, building roads, bringing jobs and economic prosperity back to the province of Ontario, ending the failures of the previous government and—

Interjections.

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

Special-needs students

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, back to the minister: At four years old, Marigold’s parents, Kristin and Mason, knew she had exceptional needs. They couldn’t wait more than a year to get her assessed, so they paid thousands and thousands of dollars to get her an assessment. Then she gets to school; two years later, no services.

Her parents work full-time, and they can’t get time off work, so her aunt Karen supports her by taking her to appointments and helping the family with the cost of those appointments. They’re paying for those appointments too. They’re paying in their taxes, they’re paying for assessments, and they’re not getting anything from this minister. No matter how much he blows off steam here in the assembly, she’s not getting what she needs.

So they pay taxes, they pay out of pocket, and do you know what? They paid for the Premier’s plane too. How is it that this minister can sit there after signing off on the Premier’s luxury jet and knowing that Marigold is not getting the services that she needs? And I called the supervisor, and no action.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: He called the supervisor and no action, he said, in Ottawa—a supervisor who is putting more money back into the classrooms in Ottawa; a supervisor who has the vast, overwhelming support of parents in his community; a supervisor who ended fighting in his community.

These were trustees in his own community who he supported, who were spending more money fighting each other than they were investing new investments in special education.

Where was that member when he had the opportunity to do something? Sitting on his hands, as he always did. Where was that member when the Liberals were spending a billion dollars to save two ridings in the gas plant scandal? Sitting on his hands and doing absolutely nothing, because that’s what Liberals do best.

This is a party, colleagues, who think they’re ready to govern the province. The only thing he can say is, “Oh you’re an emperor.” That’s the best they’ve got. “Oh, please, help me get to graduation ceremonies, Minister, because people in the schools like you better than they like the Liberal Party.”

Do you know what, Madam Speaker? We’re going to focus on what is important: jobs and economic growth. Do you know why we have to focus on that so bad? Because under 15 long, dark, miserable years of the Liberals, they chased away jobs, they bankrupted the province, and they made us the laughingstock of—

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

Mr. John Fraser: A supervisor, Minister—

Interjections.

Mr. John Fraser: Listen up—a supervisor who is cutting speech pathologists. And do you know what Marigold needs? Speech pathology.

All the yelling, all the blowing off steam, all the big talk, all of this bluster that you’re giving, Minister, isn’t getting Marigold and children like her—thousands of children in this province aren’t getting what they need, and they don’t need to hear the minister blowing off steam. They need to hear him say, “We’re going to invest in special education. We’re going to make sure that kids get what they need,” and a minister who is going to say, “No, Premier, you can’t get that luxury private jet right now, because I’ve got this other thing that we have to do for Marigold and thousands of kids like her.”

And you may all be smiling there, but do you know what? You all approved a luxury private jet while people are in need in this province—

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

Mr. John Fraser: —and kids like Marigold.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: Well, then, by that logic this member holds responsibility for every single investment that we’ve made in 2018 that has gone against the people. He’s voted against his hospital. He’s voted against tax cuts. He’s voted against the gas tax cut. He’s voted against eliminating taxes for the most vulnerable in the province of Ontario. That means he’s voted against long-term-care expansions in his riding. He’s voted against improvements to transit and transportation in his riding. By that measure, he is responsible for every bad thing that has happened in the province of Ontario because he votes for it.

We are responsible for jobs. We are responsible for growth. We are responsible for prosperity. We are responsible for the billions of dollars of economic investment. I will take that responsibility.

He talks about the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Yes, the supervisor eliminated some 300 positions there at head office. And do you know what he’s doing with the millions of dollars that he has saved by reducing the executive corps? He’s putting it right back into the classroom on top of the million dollars this—

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

Mr. John Fraser: Marigold needs a speech-language pathologist. The minister’s supervisor is cutting them. It’s that simple, Minister.

If you want to talk about executive offices, in this government, in 2018, they were $34 million; they’re now $82 million. If you want to talk about the Premier’s office, it was $2 million in 2018; it’s now $8 million.

If you want to talk about something else, the Premier gets a luxury private jet, and all of you line up. All you co-pilots better be careful, because the captain and Teneycke are going to take you down.

You approved a luxury private jet when people need speech-language pathologists, when kids need help in school, and you’re not delivering it. So how is it you can approve a luxury private jet when you know this, Minister?

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

I recognize the Minister of Education.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, this is a member who just made light of the fact that we cut head office jobs—absolutely—executive positions at the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, because we could save a million dollars that we could put back into the system. He disagrees with that.

We’ve ended trustees at that board fighting each other—over a million and a half dollars. We have stopped that, and we’re putting it back into the classroom.

This is a member, of course, who fought tooth and nail to—we all remember the billion-dollar gas plant scandal to save two ridings. That’s a billion dollars that didn’t go into special education.

This is a member who, every single time he had the opportunity to vote in favour of increases in special education, voted against them. When the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services put record levels of funding for children, he voted against it.

What are we responsible for? Jobs and economic prosperity, the likes of which this province has never seen, and—

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

Sécurité du transport routier / Trucking safety

M. Guy Bourgouin: Ma question au ministre des Transports. Pendant des années, mes collègues et moi-même avions sonné l’alarme sur les problèmes dans l’industrie du camionnage et le ministre a fait la sourde oreille. Ça a pris le rapport de la vérificatrice générale pour mettre en lumière un système fragmenté où la surveillance est diluée entre ministère et les entrepreneurs privés.

Compte tenu de ces constats, le ministère reconnaît-il que le modèle actuel ne fonctionne pas et s’engage-t-il à rapatrier la pleine responsabilité de la surveillance et de la délivrance des permis des camionneurs au ministère des Transports?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: We’ve accepted the recommendations that have been put forward by the Auditor General, but, over the past few years, we have been implementing many of those recommendations already before this report was tabled, Madam Speaker.

We have our teams at the Ministry of Transportation assisting our Minister of Colleges and Universities in ensuring that we have higher enforcement. In fact, over 26 of those that have been found to be outside of the scope of training have ceased operations. We have also ensured that we have more proactive inspections into anyone that is seen to be operating outside of the guidelines that have been put forward.

We have zero tolerance for any of these individuals. Where we have seen any of the activity that is not allowed, we have referred it to our Ontario Provincial Police, who have also investigated and have also laid charges on any of those who are operating outside of that scope.

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

M. Guy Bourgouin: Monsieur le Ministre, pour les personnes qui ont perdu la vie sur les routes et les familles qui ont perdu des êtres chers, vos paroles sont vides.

La privatisation et la dégradation ont contribué à de graves lacunes dans le système. La vérificatrice générale a constaté que 25 % des écoles de camionnage n’avaient jamais été inspectées, que les étudiants n’étaient pas formés correctement à des compétences essentielles comme reculer un camion ou d’autres manœuvres de base—même des cas de fraude.

Pourquoi est-ce que ça prend un rapport de la vérificatrice générale pour vous informer du désastre dans votre propre ministère?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: We have put forward, in the last two years, supports to ensure our roads are safer. Over 200 transportation enforcement officers are now on the road in the past two years—54 of those, specifically, just for the north; a $30-million investment in the Shuniah truck inspection station, Madam Speaker, to improve safety, which the Leader of the Opposition and the NDP have not supported.

Every single time that we have put forward support, more inspections, more enforcement in the north, those opposite have opposed them.

Last year, in 2025, we conducted 118,000 inspections on the road because of the investments that we made; a year prior, it was 68,000. That is the support that we are putting towards this, and that is the investment that we are putting towards this, Madam Speaker. The members opposite have not supported those investments, have not supported that extra enforcement that we have put onto our roads, but we—

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

Nurses

MPP Tyler Watt: This week is nurses’ appreciation week, but appreciation means more than photo ops and empty words.

This out-of-touch government has no idea what it’s like to be a nurse in 2026. Speaker, does this government know what it feels like when this government claps for us during a pandemic when we’re working the front lines, but then slaps us in the face with Bill 124 and caps our wages? Actions speak louder than words, and that was insulting. Do you know what it’s like to miss your breaks, to be punched on and spit on, to be verbally abused, to care for patients in a hallway or a closet, because that’s the norm under this government? Do you know what it feels like to be so burnt out that you contemplate leaving the profession altogether?

“Respect for nurses” is not a hashtag. It is safe patient ratios, safe workplaces and fair pay.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Health: What is this government doing to respect and retain nurses?

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

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to once again congratulate all of our Ontario world-class nurses on nurses’ week.

When I sit down with nurses, what I hear is the acknowledgement and appreciation for the investments that we are making, whether that is a first-in-province Learn and Stay under the leadership of colleges and universities, where we are covering tuition and books for new young people who are wanting to train in the nursing profession, or whether it is nurse preceptors who are now training with new nurses in our hospital system. When I sit down with nurses, what I hear is those programs are absolutely making a difference in retention, in recruitment.

I will completely support Ontario nurses as we continue to ensure that we provide world-class nursing in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Nepean.

MPP Tyler Watt: The minister just proved my point. That was just a bunch of empty words. I specifically asked about retention and respect.

Interjection.

MPP Tyler Watt: You can laugh, Minister, but I asked about retention, and all you talked about was recruitment.

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

MPP Tyler Watt: Speaker, here’s a real story from Peterborough Regional Health Centre. Multiple nurses have been punched in the face and head and had to visit the ER after their shift to treat bruising and broken bones.

For eight long years, nurses on the front lines are still experiencing burnout, chronic understaffing, workplace violence and impossible patient lists. I have no idea what that minister was talking about, saying nurses are sitting her down and that they’re doing a great job.

Again, I ask the Minister of Health not what you’re doing for recruitment, but what you’re doing to show nurses respect and what you’re doing to retain them in the field that we desperately need them in.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: Allow me to quote Dr. Doris Grinspun—you may be familiar with Doris—“RNAO commends the government’s intention to accelerate the integration of” internationally trained nurses “as one of the urgent actions required to address” nursing.

Jill Colin, who is the VP of patient care: “Supporting nurse education has a direct positive impact on quality of care and supports a high-functioning health care team by increasing morale, improving teamwork, reducing scheduling gaps and building a reputation of excellence that drives recruitment and retention.”

I will say, again, we have seen a 15% increase in the number of nurses that are working in our publicly funded system. We’ll continue to support nurses, we’ll continue to train nurses, and we will absolutely continue to welcome nurses from across the world to Ontario.

Nuclear energy

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Mines. Over her time as Leader of the Opposition, the member opposite has not once asked a question about our nuclear energy build-out. Nuclear power in Ontario is the backbone of our grid, responsible for over 50% of our baseload power—uniquely uninterested in that, apparently, on that side of the House.

This power keeps the lights on day and night, 24/7, and is a clean, reliable and affordable solution, unlike the policies of the previous Liberal government. The Liberals wanted to close Pickering, while our government is taking a different approach and refurbishing Pickering’s B units. This nation-building project will create 30,500 jobs to strengthen Ontario’s nuclear workforce and contribute over $41.6 billion to Canada’s GDP. This is the kind of action the people of Ontario have come to expect from our government.

Through you, Speaker, could the minister share the impact of the newly announced Bruce C expansion and educate the opposition members on a subject that they could not be bothered to ask about?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you to the member for that question. For the opposition members, about a third of Ontario’s clean nuclear energy comes from Bruce Power alone. Bruce C’s expansion is the province’s first large-scale nuclear project in over 30 years. We’ve directed the IESO to enter a cost-sharing and recovery agreement to allow critical activities, including continued engagement with First Nations and local communities, workforce planning, preconstruction and site preparations.

This project will add up to 4,800 megawatts to the grid, enough to power 4.8 million homes. It will add $238 billion to Canada’s GDP, over 18,000 jobs during construction and 6,700 jobs when it comes online.

We’re doubling down on made-in-Canada power with 95% of Bruce Power spending staying in Canada. The Bruce C expansion will create the world’s largest nuclear generating facility. Speaker, that’s how this project will engage Ontarians and create jobs right here in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Bay of Quinte.

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: Thank you to the parliamentary assistant for the update, who is also an incredible energy champion for our government—great work in Mississauga–Lakeshore. Thank you so much. I hope the opposition was paying attention this time.

Speaker, we know that our Premier isn’t stopping at one nation-building project alone. Not only are we acting to build the largest nuclear generating facility on the planet, but we are also bringing the Western world’s first small modular reactor to the Darlington nuclear site. We completed the refurbishment of Darlington unit 1 five months ahead of

schedule and unit 4 four months ahead of

schedule and $150 million under budget. Can you imagine energy products under budget? Not under the Liberal government, ladies and gentlemen.

Recently, the minister announced that our government reached a major construction milestone on the G7’s first small modular reactor at Darlington. Could the parliamentary assistant provide an update to the House on the progress on the Darlington New Nuclear Project?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I would be happy to provide an update on the Darlington SMR project. The basemat model, weighing over two million pounds, has been installed for the first SMR. This is the same as lifting over three Airbus A380 planes, the largest passenger plane ever built, and lowering them with incredible precision using one of the world’s largest crawler cranes.

This is the first foundation for a new nuclear project in Ontario in over 30 years. Darlington’s SMR will produce 1,200 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 1.2 million homes, while creating 18,000 good-paying jobs. Over 100 Canada-based businesses help build SMR components, adding over $500 million to Ontario’s economy. This project will add $38.5 billion to Canada’s GDP over the next 65 years. This is a major achievement as the world turns to Ontario for clean—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member from Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas.

Injured workers

Ms. Sandy Shaw: My question is to the Minister of Labour. WSIB is cutting funding to injured workers groups across the province. In Hamilton, workers and community members are reeling from WSIB’s decision to end its funding of the Hamilton and District Injured Workers’ Group. The group’s peer-based programs have been operating for 25 years and have helped over 1,500 injured workers in their recovery.

So please explain why this Premier is allowing WSIB to cut vital funding to a city and a program that has some of the highest rates of injured workers in the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for York South–Weston.

MPP Mohamed Firin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Speaker, protecting injured workers is a must. It’s something that our government takes seriously. Since we’ve come into office, five million workers have received benefits and services from WSIB. Workplace safety insurance covers approximately 75% of Ontarians; 60% of claimants have not lost any time at all, and of the 40% of those who missed work, actually 87% of them returned to work within three months.

Speaker, we’ve shown, with our investment of $400 million in health and safety program for workers—we’ve expanded WSIB’s mental health programming to partner with 11 public hospitals and their networks of community service providers. Over 2,600 people have received mental health support where they need it.

Fanshawe College is receiving $20 million over four years to look at new tools and methods to train first responders in supporting workers. This is the record of our government, and this is what we’re doing, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Every time we turn around, the government is finding new ways to punch down on injured workers. Under Bill 105, workers with permanent injuries will be under lifelong threat of losing their benefits. By removing the 72-month compensation lock-in, workers with permanent, life-altering injuries will be under forever surveillance, leading to endless stress and financial instability.

Why is the government looking for excuses to claw back compensation for workers with permanent injuries?

MPP Mohamed Firin: We’ve recently announced that we’ve increased the wages for workers who are injured from 85% to 90%. Our government has shown time and time again that we’re here to protect the workers of this province, Speaker.

Workplace Safety North received $6.7 million from the WSIB to do research on and enhance monitoring opportunities to mitigate risk exposure. WSIB has expanded health care programs into 11 hospitals, as I mentioned. Almost nine out of ten people are back on the job with no wage loss within a year, Speaker. The WSIB offers skills training—and that can include job search training and job placement—to people who cannot return to work.

Post-injury earnings are determined for less than half of a per cent for all claims a year. That is our record. That is what ou