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

April 23, 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-Apr-23 vol. A (PDF)

L067A - Thu 23 Apr 2026 / Jeu 23 avr 2026

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 23 April 2026 Jeudi 23 avril 2026

House sittings

Orders of the Day

Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 pour protéger les travailleurs et la résilience économique de l’Ontario

Members’ Statements

Armenian genocide anniversary

Welland Jackfish baseball team

Don Valley East community survey

Volunteers

Dr. Andi Jones

The Learning Enrichment Foundation

Fort Erie Race Track

Volunteers

Palliative care

Michael Grant

Introduction of Visitors

Correction of record

Kezia Mamakwa

Question Period

Government jet

Government jet

Freedom of information

Freedom of information

Freedom of information

Freedom of information

Public transit

GO Transit

Freedom of information

Small business

Environmental protection

Public safety

Health care

Affordable housing

Member’s birthday

Legislative pages

Deferred Votes

Better Regional Governance Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 pour une meilleure gouvernance régionale

Plan to Protect Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2026 / Loi de 2026 sur le plan pour protéger l’Ontario (mesures budgétaires)

Premier’s comments

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Government Bills

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

Introduction of Bills

M E Investments Inc. Act, 2026

Nepali Heritage Month Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 sur le Mois du patrimoine népalais

Petitions

Health care workers

Highway safety

Government accountability

Student assistance

Education funding

Health care workers

Education funding

Social assistance

Health care workers

Social assistance

University funding

Orders of the Day

Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 pour protéger les travailleurs et la résilience économique de l’Ontario

Military honours

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers / Prières.

House sittings

Hon. Steve Clark: I’d like to thank the opposition members for collapsing the budget debate last night, and because of that, I would like to announce that this evening’s night sitting has been cancelled.

Orders of the Day

Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act, 2026 / Loi de 2026 pour protéger les travailleurs et la résilience économique de l’Ontario

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 22, 2026, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 105,

An Act to enact the Strengthening Talent Agency Regulation Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 105, Loi édictant la Loi de 2026 visant à renforcer la réglementation des agences artistiques et modifiant diverses lois.

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

M me France Gélinas: I think I was halfway through a word yesterday when that was it, the session was ended and it was time to pass to something different. I’m happy to be here this morning to continue my remarks about Bill 105, the Protecting Ontario’s Workers and Economic Resilience Act. I had gone through some of the 170 pages of this bill and made comments. I won’t repeat what I already talked about about this bill, but I will move on.

I want to talk about WSIB benefits ending at 65 and few people would be allowed to continue to have benefits past 65. As you know, Speaker, I worked in rehab for a long period of time and dealt with a lot of injured workers, mainly miners because of where I live, and a lot of them get seriously injured when very young—seriously injured where they will be in a wheelchair for the rest of their lives; seriously injured where they will be severely handicapped for the rest of their lives. How does a 25-year-old worker who gets seriously injured at work prove to WSIB that they had the intention to work past 65?

The bar is set so that it’s a step forward, but a step forward that won’t be accessible to so, so many seriously injured workers who need money—we all do—who need to continue to have access to the health care benefits that are covered by WSIB, which they continue to use for the rest of their lives. They continue to need special equipment to be able to live independently. An electric wheelchair is very expensive. Lots of things we use in rehab are partially covered or not covered at all.

It’s the same thing with amputees. If you get seriously injured at work, you lose a leg—I don’t wish that upon anybody, but I’ve worked with many people who have, unfortunately, faced that. WSIB pays for different prostheses so that they can bike, they can run, they can just do what they need to do. Now all of this disappears at age 65. They no longer are covered. They no longer have access to the health benefits that come with being covered by WSIB unless they prove that they had intention to work past 65.

So a step in the right direction, Speaker, but that will still leave a lot of workers who did nothing wrong—they got injured at work. They deserve to be supported. This is what WSIB was meant to do. But at age 65, we push them out the door and they’re left on their own. This is wrong. The small step will do some but not enough.

Restoring the earnings: It was Mike Harris, the last Conservative government, who took the earnings from 90% to 85%. I’m quite happy that the earnings will be back up to 90%. That’s something that should have come years ago.

And I’m out of time, which is too bad.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Questions?

M me France Gélinas: Speaker, let’s put things into perspective: This government decided to cancel the French-language commissioner and move his office under the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has been there—Paul Dubé, who was a bilingual man, has been there. The transition was tough. Now an ad went to recruit a new Ombudsman that says bilingualism is an asset.

The recruitment has been done. The date to apply is past. Now, in 10 years from now, when we recruit a new Ombudsman, we will make sure that that position is filled by a bilingual person. Is it a good step? Yes, but way too late. Nobody thought about this when the ad went out just before Christmas, that the ad should have said mandatory bilingual? You are in charge of the French-language commissioner. You are in charge of a French department, and nobody thought of making it mandatory until it went into the papers, until it went into the media because I complained about it. Is it a good idea? Yes, absolutely.

But it shows one more time how low this government cares about francophones, that they do this, but it won’t come into effect for another 10 years.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to congratulate the member for Nickel Belt on her remarks.

Recently, the Workers Action Centre did a report called The Crisis of Wage Theft in Ontario. They reported that, over the last 10 years, $200 million has been stolen from workers’ wages because of the lack of enforcement and other measures to protect workers from wage theft.

This bill provides or requires employers to pay for the uniforms of some employees in the province. Do you think Ontario workers would rather be protected from having their wages stolen by their employer or their uniforms paid for?

M me France Gélinas: I really don’t understand why the Ontario government would subsidize companies like EllisDon that made $5.6 billion in Canada; 50% to 70% of this comes from Ontario. We will subsidize the uniforms of those workers. But for all the gig economy, for all of the precariously employed people who are the main victim of salary theft by their employers, very, very little is done.

Those employees are vulnerable. They need government protection. We are in a position where we can help them, where we can enforce some of the laws that we have and make laws to make sure that, if the gig economy is to continue, we protect those workers and we protect the meagre salaries that they get, but none of that is in the bill. Instead, we’re going to give money to EllisDon so maybe they’ll make a $6-billion profit next year.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Ms. Natalie Pierre: Thank you to the member from Nickel Belt for her remarks this morning. My question is around the current CaRMS system, the residency matching system.

In my riding of Burlington, there are a large number of students who have gone abroad—specifically, it seems to be Ireland—to study medicine. As part of this legislation, we’re looking at tweaking the CaRMS system so that students like the ones in my riding who grew up in Ontario, went to Ontario universities, their families paid taxes here in the province of Ontario, want to come home and practice here.

Part of this legislation is about prioritizing Ontario-connected international medical graduates. I just wanted to understand the member from Nickel Belt’s position on what we can do or their thoughts on the proposed legislation about bringing Ontario international medical graduates—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. Response?

M me France Gélinas: One of the main reasons Ontario’s health care system is as good as it is, that we have tertiary care system programs that only exist in Ontario, is because of the talents of the physicians and everybody else who works within the system. I want a system where the brightest minds who want to come and work in Ontario get selected.

When hospitals and different people select who they want as an intern, they look at those people. They look at how successful they are, how bright they are, how dedicated they are, how they are going to help our system in time. If this person is an international medical graduate, they should be welcome in Ontario. We want the brightest to be at the top of the list of who gets an internship in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

MPP Wayne Gates: Thank you for your presentation. You spoke a lot about WSIB and injured workers. I’ve probably spoken about this now for 10 or 12 years. The biggest issue facing injured workers is that they go to work, they get paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work and they get hurt on the job. Then, WSIB decides to deem them, which means that they say you can do this phantom job over here and then they reduce their benefits.

My question to you is: Why would we have seven Working for Workers bills and at no time have they ever addressed the issue of deeming, which forces injured workers into poverty?

M me France Gélinas: It is incomprehensible that we still haven’t fixed that. WSIB was put in place so that you didn’t have to hire a lawyer and go against your employer and prove that—all of this is meaningless if you’re forced to live in poverty.

Nobody chooses to become paraplegic at work and live the rest of their life in a wheelchair. If you were a miner, you worked underground, you made $130,000 a year, and now they say, “Oh, you could answer calls. You can’t walk anymore, but you’re able to answer calls at $18 an hour.” No. This is not what WSIB was supposed to do, but this is what they do: They deem you fit for a job that pays barely over minimum wage. This is wrong. Everybody in the NDP has spoken out against this. When are we going to be respectful of those workers and pay them what they’re worth?

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

M. Anthony Leardi: Vu que dans le Nord c’est un peu plus difficile d’attirer des gens pour travailler dans le monde de la santé et d’attirer des médecins, est-ce que ça serait une bonne idée, comme prévu dans le projet de loi, de donner un peu d’effort et de « recognition » à ceux qui ont un lien fort avec l’Ontario pour, peut-être, garantir que ces gens-là vont rester dans le Nord et devenir des médecins pour le Nord. Que pense-t-elle, la députée, de cette question?

M me France Gélinas: Je dois dire que dans le nord de l’Ontario, la discrimination, ça n’existe pas. Dans plusieurs des petites communautés que je représente, une personne de race noire, on l’appelle docteur.

Pour nous, on veut les personnes les plus qualifiées choisies pour travailler dans le nord de l’Ontario. Est-ce qu’on a des problèmes de recrutement? Oui. Est-ce que le gouvernement pourrait en faire plus pour nous aider avec nos problèmes de recrutement? Absolument. De nous faire dire le 16 juin qu’on a de l’argent pour embaucher des « locums » pour l’été—le 16 juin, tout le monde sait déjà ce qui va se passer pour tout l’été.

Il y a beaucoup de choses qu’on pourrait faire, mais de bloquer les gens à l’international de venir en Ontario, ça, ce n’est pas une bonne solution.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone. It’s nice to see you.

This is truly getting old, this bill. I’m rising again to speak to yet another omnibus bill with some really great sections woven in to some sincerely horrendous ones, and that seems to be classic with this government.

But I am an eternal optimist, so I’m going to kick it off with the good: schedules 1 and 5, the Employment Standards Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, respectively. Most notably, these schedules ban employers from requiring that employees pay for their uniforms as part of mandatory equipment for the job. These are great provisions.

Ontario has dangerously high unemployment numbers, especially for youth. We know that. We had an opposition day motion on that to help youth, which unfortunately this government chose not to support.

Ontarians already expend so many resources to find a job: travel time, money, effort spent drafting résumés, cover letters, preparing for interviews, background checks, obtaining certifications. Simultaneously, the affordability crisis rages on. So, for an often-expensive uniform and/or safety equipment that cannot be repurposed or reused—which actually, as a side note, would contribute more textile waste to our already overflowing landfills.

You know I have a private member’s bill that I already introduced—you were captivated with it—on textile waste, and I’m sure you’re worried about our landfills reaching capacity, especially Green Lane, which is Toronto’s landfill, by 2034. I’m sure that keeps you up at night and you have a solid plan for waste diversion. But uniforms—why community members cannot continue forward in their employment is unfathomable and inequitable—and that this government is doing something to make employment more accessible.

I would like to take this opportunity, while we are on the subject, to discuss the ways we can bolster these provisions. The train of thought that resulted in these adjustments is a good one. Thinking intersectionally, extending consideration beyond the obvious processes around gaining employment to look at how we ensure one maintains employment and that their work environment is safe and fair.

Let’s take it a step further. I encourage this government to examine how they can further support people seeking employment and current employees through building better and more affordable connected transit to get people where they need to be: offering bike-share that is informed by an understanding of the first and last miles—and, of course, we need physically separated bike lanes to keep people safe, if that’s is how they choose to commute to their employment; instituting more transparent job postings; jobs that actually pay a living wage; jobs with child care options and with opportunities to upskill.

Schedule 8: the Strengthening Talent Agency Regulation Act. I know that the Minister of Labour was mentioning that ACTRA was here the other day supporting this, so that’s great. In the same vein of addressing unemployment and maintaining employment in safe and fair working conditions, I’m thrilled that entertainment workers will be more protected and experience more stability and predictability in their work, specifically pay schedules and set fees.

Ontario has some of the most talented performers in the world. In and around my riding of beautiful Beaches–East York is a hub for talent with many theatre companies like the Coal Mine Theatre; the Second City comedy club; collectives like East End Arts, Beach Chorale, Beaches Art and Crafts, Sing!, the Beach Guild of Fine Art and venues. We also have major events with the Fox Theatre, History—which is the Live Nation facility that I happened to help put in back in the day—Woodbine Park, and of course our famous Beaches Jazz Festival. Anything we can do to support artists is a good thing.

It is imperative that these communities to are able to produce their arts. Rest assured their rights will be protected.

Schedule 9: the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. Building on the importance of workplace safety and fairness, this

schedule permits workers to receive loss-of-earnings payment beyond the previous cut-off at 65 years of age, increases the WSIB loss-of-earnings benefit rate and mandates WSIB coverage for all residential care facilities and group homes, whether they are private or public. In an affordability crisis, people are forced to work longer just to afford living expenses, and they should not be penalized or left unprotected for this.

Schedule 2—now we’re not going to be positive: the Environmental Assessment Act. I’m sure that when you decided to include this schedule, you knew you would be hearing from me. Just when I thought there was nothing left to kill on an environmental protection front, you’ve already picked all the meat off the bones and now, I don’t know, you are crushing the bones or pulling out the marrow. You are just desecrating any type of environmental oversight.

This

schedule empowers the government to prescribe a new class of environmental assessments, which would excuse a whole slew of projects, including highways, railways and energy transmission lines, from comprehensive environmental assessments wherein impacts on the natural environment like ground water, surface water, species at risk, climate change and more is assessed. Socio-economic environment considers odour, noise, dust, litter and the general economy.

We know that systematically low-income and marginalized communities are disproportionately impacted by environmental threats, including noise, poor air quality, odour and emissions caused by close proximity to major roadways. This coincides with worse health outcomes, less mobility, isolation and more.

We cleaned up air quality in Ontario massively when the coal plants got closed and now, we are just trying to go backward, it seems. This is what the government will continue to perpetuate by completely removing the requirement to engage in environmental assessments for these projects. Why can we not find a way to build necessary infrastructure at a pace that reflects its need but does not completely violate the well-being of communities? This government has not found a way to do that—not yet. There’s always a little glimmer of hope, maybe.

Cultural environment examines potential effects to cultural and archaeological resources. Built environment looks at surrounding land use, transportation networks and traffic. This is exactly what I’m talking about—the One Project, One Process approach is really just the government’s way of saying that they can only deal with one project, one process, one problem at a time. Removing the environmental assessment requirements means that this government must plan around creating whole communities. We need to think about how we can connect neighbourhoods, businesses and parks.

Landfills: This

schedule would allow the government to bypass an environmental assessment when they are proposing to increase a landfill service area, fill rate, or consult with the public in the Environmental Registry of Ontario, the ERO.

That’s right, you heard it first: Bigger landfills holding more waste may be coming to your backyard, but definitely not with your input. And we’ve seen that when we debated the bill about Dresden. I’m sure your communities would have something to say about that.

We really need to focus on waste diversion. Moreover, these landfill changes will not be subject to natural environment, socio-economic, cultural environment and built environment impact considerations without the environmental assessment.

Public consultation: Gutting environmental assessments is not limited to landfills. This government seeks to alter the fundamental environmental assessments by removing the requirement to publish and consult on a ministry review; the opportunity for the public to request a hearing before the Ontario Land Tribunal—OLT—while maintaining the minister’s authority to refer an application or matter related to an application to the tribunal for a hearing and decision on their own initiative; remove the requirement for cabinet approval of the minister’s decision on the application for approval to proceed, while providing the minister discretion to refer an application to cabinet for a decision.

When the minister of red tape introduced the bill this week, she stated that the comments received in the ERO were often not used in the amendments of the bill. Wow, that’s really telling. There are hundreds and thousands of comments all the time, not just one line, but genuine, thoughtful comments. Simultaneously, their colleagues claimed that feedback has informed bills in depth—so you’re kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth there—that the government’s bills are a response to consultation. So I question how both can be true.

I beg the government to genuinely ask themselves, truly reflect on what have you done to earn Ontarians’ trust. What have you done that makes Ontarians feel like you are listening?

Your bill claims that there will be ample opportunity for Indigenous consultation, but do you remember Bill 5? I was in committee and they begged for you to come up north to do your consultations there. Instead, they had to pay thousands of dollars to come down all the way to Toronto to speak to us at committee. That is not thoughtful or genuine consultation.

Twenty-four First Nations came to Queen’s Park from thousands of kilometres away for weeks to depute, to protest, to voice that Bill 5 was an affront on the duty to consult.

The OSAP cuts: Thousands of students rallied outside of Queen’s Park. They were not asked about how their government could best support them.

The greenbelt: Did you speak to farmers before? I don’t think so. Did you ask the stewards of the land? Definitely not, but then you had to reverse it because you didn’t do it right the first time.

When do you listen? When you do listen, it’s only to a select few: your friends, your donors and your supporters. So when you say that you will consult, you must evaluate the amount of trust in this government that this demands from the public.

I’m not against efficiencies or changing a system. I want to get ’er done. But truly changing to make it better for you? You’ve not shown that you can be trusted.

Your rap sheet includes, but is certainly not limited to, selling off the greenbelt, completely exempting certain zones from regulatory oversight, time-allocating countless bills, bypassing public feedback on bills and skirting debate, buying a private jet for almost $30 million during an affordability crisis, pausing the affordable housing mandate, investing in a strip club with public funds and, most recently, legislating shielding the Premier, ministers and their staff from any obligation to disclose their records under the freedom of information act.

Schedule 6, the last one I will speak about, is the Ombudsman Act. I am definitely with and I really valued the comments from my colleague from Nickelback—Nickel Belt, sorry, Nickel Belt. They were bang on.

M me France Gélinas: You’re not the first one to make that mistake.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I just have the songs in my head.

How is this a red tape concern? Please explain to me how baking bilingualism into the Ombudsman Act is in service of red tape reduction, because what I see here are some of the most glaring examples of red tape.

Let’s review how we got here. In their first fall economic statement, the Premier and his government cut French-language services. Two key features of Franco-Ontario: This government cancels the French-instruction university in Toronto promised during his campaign and rolls the previously independent French Language Services Commissioner under the umbrella of the Ombudsman’s office, much to the outrage of the Franco-Ontarian communities and their colleagues in the Quebec government.

If you are genuine in supporting Franco-Ontarians, you would leave the French Language Services Commissioner as an independent officer. That’s number one. Well, the fall economic statement is an announcement of priorities, so this particular statement confirms that right from the get-go, French language and Franco-Ontarians would not be prioritized.

But this is not the end of the offences—no. The 2024-25 French Language Services Commissioner’s report reveals the systematic deviation and discreditation of Ontario as a genuinely bilingual province. Namely, the report details the many times the duty to provide active offer was neglected in everything from road signs, court services, government websites to public consultations and more. “Active offer” specifically outlines the legal obligation that services must be offered in French from the first point of contact without request.

Not only were French-language speakers repeatedly unable to easily access French services, but a regulation meant to provide limited exemption to certain types of publications from offering French options was abused to skirt responsibility.

Regarding the adjustment to the Ombudsman Act laid out in Bill 105, the story is more of the same: French language and creating an inclusive society that lives the spirit of bilingualism is not a priority for this government, and can and will be sidelined based on the government’s poor discretion.

The Ombudsman hiring process began in November 2025. The committee is comprised of members from all parties. We reviewed hundreds of résumés and worked with HR. There were countless opportunities for this government to declare that the next Ombudsman be bilingual, but nothing—crickets—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Sorry to interrupt the member.

Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

I recognize the member from Essex.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Please continue the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I return to the member from Beaches–East York.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: That was a surprise. Thanks for that.

Where was the Minister of Francophone Affairs during this whole process? That is a good question.

People expended their time, money and resources applying for this position, a position that many did not have any shot at in the first place because this government failed to think through the needs of Ontario. They failed to consult with each other and those with expertise on important issues. They failed to pay attention to what was going on around them, and to honour a promise to the Franco-Ontarian community.

The thing that makes the circus even more wild is that the government claims that they know best to the point that they have made a habit out of removing the power and decision-making capabilities from the hands of councils, conservation authorities, city planners and school boards because, according to the government, they weren’t “efficient,” they weren’t “responsible,” and there was “too much red tape” and “duplication.”

Because this government handled this process, they initiated a costly program—check; drew out and delayed the process—check; shifted responsibility from ministry to ministry—check. Then they started all over again when they decided to add bilingualism as a requirement to the Ombudsman Act.

So I guess I do not understand why this bill is under the Ministry of Red Tape Reduction with this section. I suppose that is exactly what happens when people and the systems and programs that were designed to meet and protect the needs are viewed as red tape to cut, crumple or throw out.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions?

Mr. Anthony Leardi:

Schedule 4 of the bill in front of us right now talks about making regulations “governing the admission of graduates of a medical”—I’m literally reading from

schedule 4—“a medical school outside of Canada to an Ontario medical residency program, including prescribing processes” for that. We call that CaRMS, Canadian Resident Matching System.

I think the member from Beaches–East York is somewhat familiar with the proposition in front of us. It’s to encourage Ontario-linked individuals to get into the process and get them a residency and perhaps even to give them a little bit of preference. I invite her to offer her observations on that proposition.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Thank you very much to my fellow member from Essex, Ontario. Yes, I think this

schedule 4, although I did not mention it in my speech, is a good step forward, for sure, so thank you for doing that.

I would just say, if you truly believe in supporting health care and ending our health care crisis, you might actually do things like sign off on the phase 2 development project for Michael Garron Hospital, which is in my riding. They have been waiting over three years for you to sign off on it. It will take probably 10 years for it to be built once you do sign off. Unfortunately, the last time I asked the Minister of Health about signing off on it, she just smirked at me.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Thank you to the member for Beaches–East York for your remarks on this bill.

One of the things that Bill 105 does is extend WSIB coverage to 29,000 workers in residential care facilities and group homes. Obviously, every time more workers in Ontario have access to protection in cases of injury, that’s a good thing, but there are still 1.5 million workers in Ontario who don’t have access to WSIB. If we look at another care profession, child care workers have no protection. We know that’s a profession that’s already having difficulty retaining and recruiting workers. Their wages are very low. In many cases, there is no wage grid that allows them progress throughout years, and then they have no protection against injury when it occurs.

Does member think that the bill should go much, much further, that the government should actually provide protection to the 1.5 million Ontarians who still have none?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Thank you very much to the member from Ottawa West–Nepean. That’s a great question.

I’ll throw this government a teensy, tiny bone on this bill. There are some good things in it, but, as usual—it’s interesting. Sometimes, they take baby steps. This is a baby step. Everyone should be covered. It’s 2026. We know we want to take care of Ontarians in general, but especially in the workplace, especially child care workers, who are doing God’s work, essentially, taking care of our future generations. But they take baby steps with some things and then they just ram through, like a bull in a china shop, with other things. It kind of defies logic, but I’m with you: They all need to be supported.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Mr. Ted Hsu: I’d like to ask my colleague about

schedule 2, which changes the Environmental Assessment Act. I wanted to ask her a couple of things. What is motivating the government to do this? And how does removing the requirement that the government review comprehensive environmental assessments affect the average person living in Ontario?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Thank you to my fine-feathered friend and colleague from Kingston and the Islands for your great question. What it does to Ontarians, by removing the Environmental Assessment Act, it actually is a very dangerous move and it puts them more at risk. If you’re removing environmental oversight from landfill sites, that’s very dangerous.

We know that this government does—first of all, they’re allergic to the words “climate change,” I’ve said that before. But they also do things under the guise that it will speed up building housing, because they think anything to do with the environment slows it down, which is completely unfactual. We know the green development standards have not slowed down any type of housing, including in Toronto, where we were 51% higher on our housing starts with the green development standards.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: I would like to ask the member across, on francophone services. Speaker, our government has continued to strengthen access to French-language services, including expanding the six designated areas under the French Language Services Act, and we know now that the Ombudsman can work much more efficiently in both languages. The member opposite, should you be supporting this motion?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: To the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore, thank you very much for the question. I’m glad you gave me more time to talk about this, because

section 6 gets under my skin—because it’s too late. You should have done it in the first place. If respecting Franco-Ontarians was so important to you, you would have kept the French Language Services Commissioner as an independent officer, number one. The fact that you didn’t, you threw that role into the Ombudsman area, is completely disrespectful.

Number two, if this were so important to you to have the Ombudsman bilingual, you would have said so at the beginning of the process in November 2025. You wouldn’t have waited until the process is basically over and we have to start all over again because of your mix-up.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): A reminder to speak through the Chair.

Question?

M me France Gélinas: Still on

section 6, where the Ombudsman—in a bill that has to do with Ontario workers and has nothing to do with the Ombudsman. The position in 10 years from now will have to be posted as bilingual.

How does that make you feel and how do you think the francophone population in Ontario feels that a government who took away the French Language Services Commissioner, the Black Thursday of November 15, saw 40,000 Franco-Ontarian on December 1 push back against the government decision—and then sees a government who thinks about making the position of Ombudsman bilingual after the process has already gone. Do you think that this makes Franco-Ontarians feel good?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Thank you very much to the member from Nickel Belt, who has been such a strong advocate for Franco-Ontarian communities.

I don’t understand because, actually, there are many MPPs across the floor who do speak French, that are bilingual—I think that’s great, but where were their voices when we first started the Ombudsman process in November? Where were the voices when we formed the selection committee, when we put out the job advertisement that did not say bilingual, when we had all the résumés come in—hundreds—who wouldn’t want to be the Ontario Ombudsman, right—and then we start the interviews?

It is so disrespectful. It’s disrespectful to people who applied. It’s disrespectful to the Francophone community.

Thank you for sharing about Black Thursday. I’m sorry to the francophone community for what has happened.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: The member from Beaches–East York had said that perhaps the Minister of Health was grinning at her. If the Minister of Health was grinning, the Minister was probably grinning because of the completion of the new eight-storey hospital tower at Michael Garron Hospital, which the Ministry of Infrastructure spent approximately $500 million on, which was a fantastic addition to Michael Garron Hospital and I’m sure is a spectacular, spectacular accomplishment.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. A very quick response from the member from Beaches–East York.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: The Minister of Health was not grinning, she was smirking, and she even drew a smirky picture afterwards and waved it.

Thank you for that first installation, but their ER is over capacity and they need help, and you’re not giving it to them.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Further debate? Further debate? I recognize the member for Essex.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There was just a little delay on my part because I was double-checking with the whip.

I wanted to start off with somewhat of an anecdote, which will touch directly upon the very important provisions in the bill before us today. I’ll start my anecdote by observing that the member from Windsor–Tecumseh yesterday ordered pizza for our caucus. It was fantastic pizza, and it was a lot of pizza. And I’m calling it pizza because that’s what it is. My understanding is that other people refer to this as “Windsor pizza.” After a bit of discussion, I understood why that was.

Of course, I had always known it as pizza because I grew up in Essex county. Eventually, as time went on, I learned that other people referred to it as “Windsor pizza.” And this is how I learned it: I went to law school. We sat down to eat some pizza. We opened the box and I said, “Oh, dear, a terrible mistake has been made. They made the pizza wrong. We should send it back and tell them to make it right.” And everybody stared at me blankly. I said, “What’s the issue here? I know what’s right and wrong.

We need to send the pizza back and have them make it properly.” People questioned me about that, and I explained to them how pizza is made. They said, “Well, that’s Windsor pizza. We don’t make Windsor pizza.” That’s how I learned that there was pizza, and then there was pizza.

We discussed that a lot during law school, and that could take up an entire day of discussion in itself, but I’m going to skip that part of law school. I’m going to go to the part where I graduated, notwithstanding the long discussions regarding culinary preparations. When you finish law school, you have to do something called articling, and articling is something like an apprenticeship for law students. Some people refer to that as your articling year. People refer to the people doing their articling year as articling students. Colloquially, you can call an articling student a “lawyerling.” Sometimes we call them “lawyerlings.”

When I was a lawyerling, I got an articling position at a law firm called Fazio Martini, which sounds like a delicious drink but it’s actually a law firm, or was at that time. When you start out as a lawyerling, as an articling student, they typically give you tasks which are not complicated so that you can get some experience under your belt and prepare yourself for more complicated tasks.

In those days, I was assigned to go to landlord and tenant court, which used to be held in a courtroom. Today, it’s held at a tribunal, but back then it was held in a courtroom. As a lawyerling, I went down to the courthouse and I sat down in landlord and tenant court and waited for the judge to arrive. Judges hated doing landlord and tenant court because they perceived it as being perhaps below their experience. I certainly didn’t see it that way, but I think some judges saw it that way. We calmly waited for the judge to come in, and then the judge entered and climbed up the very high dais to sit in the judge’s chair.

Madam Speaker, you’re sitting on a dais today, but the judge’s dais is much higher than that.

And so, the judge climbed up onto the dais and sat in the chair, and immediately got a scowl on his face. He was very dissatisfied with the chair. He started complaining that the chair was uncomfortable; it was not ergonomic. He stood up and he literally, Madam Speaker, grabbed the chair and shoved it, and it went bang, bang, bang down the dais, down the steps. It created a big commotion. The courtroom staff were shocked. I was shocked. The other lawyerlings were shocked. The judge stormed out of the courtroom demanding a new chair.

Eventually, the courtroom staff, after doing a considerable amount of scurrying around, found an ergonomic chair, put it on the dais and called the judge back. The judge reconvened the court, and then we started calling cases.

Case after case after case, that judge tore a strip off of every single articling student that appeared in front of him. And then it was my turn, and he tore a strip off my back. I replied with something that might be interpreted as impertinent, and he interpreted it that way and it didn’t land well. This judge, he adopted the fiercest scowl on his face—he looked like a gargoyle hanging off of Notre-Dame cathedral. He scrunched himself up like that and he said this to me: “Mr. Leardi, you’re going to learn law the way I learned law—the hard way.”

That, Madam Speaker, leads me into the topic of today’s debate, which is how we train professionals in the province of Ontario. In this particular bill, we talk about professionals, and they are medical professionals, and in this particular bill, we talk about graduates, and they are medical graduates. Doctors also go through a form of apprenticeship after finishing their medical schooling; it’s called residency. It’s a form of apprenticeship—I call it that, anyway.

Doctors applying for residency go through a process called CaRMS—Canadian residency matching system. As the system exists today, if you’re a graduate from a Canadian medical school, then you have no problem applying to CaRMS. CaRMS is broken up into two rounds—there’s a first round and a second round—and if you’re from a Canadian medical school, you can apply to both rounds.

If you’re not a graduate from a Canadian medical school, you can still apply; however, there are fewer opportunities open to you. International medical graduates can still apply, and they can still get a residency position in Ontario.

However, there’s a slight issue with the system. People raised in Ontario, who might have gone to high school in Ontario, who might have done their undergraduate degree in Ontario, who are permanent residents of Ontario and who have a very powerful connection with Ontario—whether that powerful connection is through residency or citizenship—might need to go outside of Canada for their medical school education. And if they want to come back and do their residency in Ontario, they’re not treated like they’re from Ontario; they’re treated like everybody else who got their education outside of Canada.

I don’t think that’s quite fair, and I don’t think it serves the needs of our province. Because what we really want is to make sure that people who do their residency in Ontario stay in Ontario and don’t leave after they finish. We want these newly trained doctors to stay in Ontario and not leave Ontario. That’s why this piece of legislation is in front of us.

I’ll make specific reference to

schedule 4, because

schedule 4 seeks to address this issue. The proposal still breaks down the application process for CaRMS—Canadian residency matching system—into two rounds, round 1 and round 2.

The first round is proposed to have a certain number of seats reserved for people who got their medical education in Canada, and then a certain number of seats to be reserved for people who got their medical education outside of Canada but have a strong connection to Ontario. That’s round 1.

Then, in round 2, there’s the proposition that the seats will be reserved, again, in certain proportions: a certain proportion for people who got their medical education in Canada; a certain proportion for people who got their medical education outside Canada but who have a very strong connection to Ontario; and people who got their medical education outside of Canada, regardless of their connection to Ontario. And of course, everybody will have more opportunity under the system because of the progress made by our government. There will be more opportunity because our government has increased the number of students being trained in our various medical schools.

In addition to that, we are expanding the number of medical schools in Ontario. Of course, when you expand the number of people being educated at the medical schools, that means you’re going to have more medical school graduates, which means you’re going to have more people into the system, and that gives more opportunity out there for people to pursue that course of professional development. When fully implemented, our government’s plan will add approximately 340 additional educational spots for people to pursue a medical education. That is a very big increase, and it should come as welcome news.

In addition to that, we are increasing the number of residency training positions that will be available. Also, when fully implemented, we will be adding more than 500 residency positions. A residency position, of course, is the apprenticeship process that a medical graduate goes through after graduating from the medical school—and then goes into the apprenticeship process called residency. There will be over 500 more spots when fully implemented, and that, of course, creates more opportunity for everyone.

It creates more opportunity for those individuals who have a medical degree from a Canadian university, and it creates more opportunity for those people who have their medical degree from a university outside of Canada as well. So everybody benefits, but the primary beneficiary, of course, is going to be the patients of Ontario.

These are changes being proposed by our government in Bill 105, which is the bill that we are speaking about today. These changes are practical. They are fair. We are protecting Ontario’s health care system. We are protecting Ontario’s medical students and making sure that we have a reliable pipeline of talent going into the future.

I will also take this opportunity to talk about a few of the other accomplishments of our government in the field of the Ministry of Health.

First, I’d like to talk about the remarkable increase in the number of nurses who have been registered in the province of Ontario. Since taking office in the year 2018, this government has registered approximately 100,000 nurses in the province of Ontario. I was kindly asked about that yesterday, and when you calculate the net benefit—because of course, there are always people entering the profession and exiting the profession. Some people exit the profession for retirement. Some people exit the profession for other reasons. And some people enter the profession.

So we will talk about the net new increase of nurses in Ontario. And the net increase of nurses in Ontario is 15% since this government took office in 2018.

In addition to that, this government has seen approximately 20,000 doctors enter Ontario since taking office in 2018. That is also a very excellent achievement.

I would also like to take an opportunity since this bill also talks about

schedule 7, the Retirement Homes Act, to touch a bit on that and this government’s accomplishments in that area.

We’ve heard the member from Peterborough discuss the benefits that have accrued to his riding as a result of the efforts made by our government. The member for Peterborough correctly observes that in his riding alone, this government has added an additional 800 resident spots for people in various retirement homes and long-term-care homes. Those 800 spots exceed all of the spots created by the previous Liberal government in their entire 15 years of governing the province, which I believe is quite a remarkable achievement.

But there’s going to be more because in my riding of Essex, we have two new homes being built. One is being built in the town of Belle River, which will add a net increase of 80 spots, transferring 80 spots from a former home in a town which is now going to be transferred to Belle River. The 80 spots will be, of course, upgraded into a modern, state-of-the-art facility and add an additional 80 spots, for a total of 160 resident spots for people in the town of Belle River, for a net gain of 80 in that location.

Then, in the town of Amherstburg, the same thing is happening. Another home is being, let’s say, transferred into another use. Those 80 spots are being transferred to Amherstburg, and an additional 80 spots are being added, for a net gain of 80 spots, for a total of 160 retirement home resident spots in the town of Amherstburg. So I just wanted to touch on those accomplishments at that time.

Finally, I want to turn my attention to what I had alluded to earlier in my speech. In the final analysis—notwithstanding the words of the gargoyle-esque judge in the landlord and tenant court on that particular day—I did not wind up learning law the hard way; I wound up learning law my way. Eventually, after receiving guidance and initial training at other law firms, I moved on and I founded my own law firm.

As a sole practitioner lawyer, I gradually built up my law practice and became, with time, moderately successful at it. I hired an assistant. I hired articling students of my own—lawyerlings of my own—who I then trained and hopefully gave good guidance and a fair amount of mentoring to. They entered the system—in this particular instance, the law system, the legal system. I’m proud to say that many of them are still practising law today.

That’s how these systems work: They go from university training to training under the mentorship of an existing professional to the final stage, where you go off on your own and practise on your own and then maybe even train people yourself. The medical system operates in a similar fashion, where people who study medicine at university graduate and then do a period of training and then go off on their own, either as individuals or in a group practice and then maybe even train people under their own wing. That’s a good thing. It should continue to happen.

As a sole practitioner lawyer who then eventually hired lawyers as well as part of a small, boutique-type practice, we did do long hours of work. It was quite routine for us to work past the regular hours that other people work. We worked until 8 o’clock at night, 9 o’clock at night, 10 o’clock at night. So during last night’s discussion, when other people were observing that it was dark outside, I didn’t find anything particularly unusual about that because I routinely work to 8 o’clock or 9 o’clock or 10 o’clock at night. I did that when I was a lawyer and continue to do that today.

I do think that, perhaps, not everybody should be required to do that, and it was clear that we did force some members of this House—not all, but some members of this House—to stay up past their bedtime. That’s an unusual thing, but I can say, in the final analysis, the pizza was very good. I fuelled myself up, and that helps you get through the dark hours of the night.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Questions?

M me France Gélinas: The member talked a little bit about the changes for retirement homes in this bill. We all know that retirement homes—if you make a complaint, it is an industry-driven agency that handles your complaint. We all know that in retirement homes, they are allowed to increase the cost of everything but rent every 90 days, and many of them do. Whether it is the cost of food, the cost of cleaning your place or doing the laundry, many of them increase.

People put in complaints and say, “Why does the cost of living here keep increasing and increasing?” The industry-driven complaint mechanism says that it’s allowed, and that’s the end of it. Do you figure this is a fair way to deal with the 70,000 frail, elderly people who live in retirement homes?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I appreciate the question from la députée de Nickel Belt. There is a complaint mechanism in place, not only for what she just mentioned, but also there are government-appointed inspectors who go into the various homes across the province of Ontario. You can file a complaint with a government-appointed inspector who will then determine whether or not that particular home is in compliance with government regulations and laws. That is a frequent mechanism that can be used if you choose to use that mechanism.

Many people discuss these issues directly with staff and management at the various facilities, and many, many disagreements are resolved in that fashion as well. So yes, there’s more than one mechanism to resolve these issues, and everybody should try to use the mechanism that’s right for them.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Thank you to my colleague from Essex for his very riveting remarks this morning. I always enjoy when the member from Essex rises in the House to speak.

I was wondering if they could elaborate—I know he spoke extensively, because he is the parliamentary assistant to health, on some of the changes in the Ministry of Health we’re proposing through this legislation. But I know the Minister of Red Tape Reduction and our entire government have worked hard to reduce costs for small businesses and Ontarians, putting more money back in their pockets, reducing regulations. I was wondering if the member from Essex can share with this place how this bill, if passed, will build upon those great successes.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: What a great question from the chief government whip. He’s probably heard me before talking about my experience as a boutique lawyer in the province of Ontario.

When the government increases costs or increases compliance—we’ll call it compliance; it’s really regulation—small businesses either have to eat the cost or pass the cost on to their customers. In the case of my law office, we tried to come up with very inventive ways of trying to make sure that things got done without having to pass the cost on to the customer, on to the client, and sometimes that’s just impossible. Sometimes the only way you can do that is to pass the cost on to the client, which makes, of course, things more expensive for everybody and sometimes defeats what you’re trying to accomplish.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Mr. Jeff Burch: Through you, Speaker, to the member from Essex: In the bill now, within six months of certification, if there’s not a collective agreement reached in union negotiations within six months, there could be a decertification vote.

I used to bargain first collective agreements for a living. I did it for about three years for SEIU. There’s almost never a collective agreement within six months. So I’m wondering if the member could tell me: Did the government fail to do its homework or is this just a blatant attack on unions?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: The member has asked me quite a complex issue, and I suppose I could answer it by making reference to the law. But I remember once that the member accused me of using legal mumbo-jumbo. I don’t want to use any legal mumbo-jumbo. I just want to say that the certification process can’t go on forever. Nobody wants it to go on forever, and there has to be a point in time when people decide whether or not they’re going to become a member of a union or a member of a different union. There has to be a cut-off date to be fair to people who choose to join a union. You have to be fair to people who choose to join a union, so there has to be a cut-off date.

We could have a long discussion about where the cut-off has to be. I’m sure people would have fair opinions on where it has to be, and I’m sure this discussion will continue, but to be fair to union members, there has to be a deadline.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

MPP Bill Rosenberg: My question to the member for Essex: Speaker, Ontario families need more doctors. We need a physician workforce plan that brings talent home and keeps it here, especially in the communities that need doctors most. Can the member explain how the proposed CaRMS revisions prioritize Ontario-connected international medical graduates and strengthen our physician pipeline?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I want to thank the member for that question. I know that this is an issue that’s going to be particularly important for his riding because it’s those types of ridings—rural ridings, northern ridings, communities that need assistance in attracting doctors—those are precisely the ones who are going to benefit from these provisions the most.

Because what these provisions do is they say, if you happen to be a permanent resident of Ontario and you have a strong connection to Ontario and you just happen to have gotten your medical degree from outside of Canada, we’re not going to treat you negatively just because you got your medical degree outside of Canada. We’re going to recognize that you have a strong, strong connection to Ontario and you want to come back and stay in Ontario and become a doctor in Ontario.

So we’re going to do that. We’re going to recognize people who have a strong connection to Ontario and give them the benefit that they did not previously enjoy.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Question?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: This bill, as the member pointed out, prohibits employers from charging employees for the purchase of their uniforms or for laundering their uniforms, which is great for the employees who will be covered by that schedule.

However, the bill also allows the Ministry of Labour to reimburse employers for the cost of required protective headwear. So my question is, why is this government subsidizing major employers like EllisDon by enabling the compensation of those employers for the cost of required protective headwear?

Mr. Anthony Leardi: Yes, it’s great progress to make sure that a required branded uniform is not adopted at the cost of the employee, that a required branded uniform must be paid for by the employer. That’s progress.

As I’ve said in previous remarks in this chamber, we have introduced previous legislation which we have colloquially dubbed Working for Workers. And I had said that we would continue introducing Working for Workers legislation. I had really gone on a crusade, saying we would have 13 and 14 and 15 and continuing and continuing, because we’re going to continue making progress.

We’ve made progress since 2018. We’ve shown that progress over the last eight very short years of government, and I’m quite confident that we’re going to continue making progress, maybe not specifically as the member from London West—who, by the way, is a very great conversationalist and I give her that compliment. It might not be specifically what she requested today, but it will certainly be progress and it will continue over the course of this government.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): There is not time for another round of questions and answers.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Armenian genocide anniversary

Mr. Aris Babikian: As the grandson of survivors of the Armenian and Greek genocides, I am honoured to rise in this House to pay tribute to the memory of one and a half million Armenians and one million Greeks who were victims of state-sponsored and premeditated crimes against humanity.

Tomorrow, Armenians around the world will mark the 111th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. As a member of the provincial Parliament, I join Armenians globally and all those who stand for truth and justice in commemorating the memory of one of the most heinous crimes of the 20th century.

April 24 is not only a day of solemn remembrance. It is also a moment of responsibility. It reminds us that historical injustice must never be forgotten or ignored, and that preventing genocide requires principled leadership and unwavering commitment to the truth.

May this day serve not only as remembrance, but—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you.

Welland Jackfish baseball team

Mr. Jeff Burch: I’d like to give a shout-out to the reigning Canadian Baseball League champions, the Welland Jackfish, as they prepare for their home opener on Saturday, May 16. The evening promises to be a memorable one, featuring an all-new pre-game plaza party, a championship banner giveaway for fans, an official banner unveiling and post-game fireworks.

Last season marked a record-breaking milestone for the organization as they welcomed over 67,000 fans for the first time in franchise history. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting many of the players and staff, and they are champions both on and off the field. Their deep connection to the Welland community is evident in their ongoing support for local food drives and community initiatives.

Their commitment goes far beyond the diamond. Recently, at the 52nd Welland Sports Awards Night, Welland Jackfish majority owner and team president Ryan Harrison accepted the special recognition award as the team’s director to honour what they have contributed to the community.

Congratulations to the entire Jackfish organization. We look forward to another record-setting season.

Don Valley East community survey

Mr. Adil Shamji: For the past two years, my office has conducted a community survey to better understand the needs of my constituents in Don Valley East. It’s how I make sure that their voice is reflected in my voice every time I rise in this chamber.

This year, our survey revealed that 61% of my constituents rank health care as their number one priority, with 39.6% of them saying their top local concern is improving access to family physicians and their hospital. Another 16.6% reported that prescription drug costs are affecting their household budgets, and 28.9% said rising costs have forced them to delay medical or dental care.

These are astonishing numbers that the Premier and members of this House need to hear. My constituents aren’t asking for alcohol and convenience stores or a tunnel under the 401; they’re asking for health care that’s accessible, reliable and meeting their needs, because right now, it isn’t.

That’s why this government must work faster to publicly integrate nurse practitioners; to adopt pharmacare; to fund our hospitals, including Michael Garron Hospital; and to introduce a real retention strategy for health care workers that are overworked and far too often under-appreciated.

Thank you to everyone who is participating in our community survey. Your voice is heard and directly shaping the work and advocacy that I do here on behalf of Don Valley East.

Volunteers

MPP Billy Denault: This week is National Volunteer Week, and I want to say a big thank you to all the volunteers in my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

In my first year in office, I’ve had the privilege of travelling to many organizations to honour and acknowledge the role volunteers play in our community. They truly are the backbone and lifeblood of what makes rural Ontario shine. From Legions to Lions, Optimists to Kiwanis, they embody the community spirit in every activity they take

part in.

Palmer Rapids Lions Club, Renfrew Lions Club, Arnprior Optimists, Arnprior Rotary Club, and the Legions in Arnprior, Pembroke, Petawawa, Calabogie, Renfrew, Chalk River and Barry’s Bay—I have had the opportunity to attend celebrations with them all, and many more community organizations. But true to form, it’s the people within these organizations who make the difference in small towns across my riding.

I also want to acknowledge today the passing of a super volunteer in our community, Rev. Leo Hughes of Arnprior, who passed on April 11, 2026. His kindness, care and compassion rang out on every Remembrance Day, at the cenotaph, on the 11th day and the 11th hour. His voice etched into every boy and girl, every man and woman who attended, as the words rang from his heart like a melody.

To the Hughes family, I extend my deepest sympathies. May his example remind us of our duty to serve our communities with honour, compassion, care and the heart, as he did.

Dr. Andi Jones

Ms. Catherine Fife: On March 10, Dr. Andi Jones passed away after a courageous battle with cancer. Andi gave so much to her community of Penetang. Andi was a teacher and mentor to so many in family, sports and emergency medicine, including as the team physician for the under-18 Canadian women’s national hockey team.

Dr. Jones dedicated more than 24 years to the Georgian Bay General Hospital as an ER doctor. She was the first full-time female emergency physician at the hospital, paving the way for future generations of women in emergency medicine. They dedicated a room to her at GBH.

My friend Jeannie MacGillivray said this about Andi: “Her intelligence, tenacity and generosity are what made Andi such a phenomenal teacher. To be an exceptional teacher, one has to be willing to give so much of oneself. She was a natural.”

She was also an exceptional friend, daughter, sister, wife, and loving parent.

In Jeannie’s eulogy, she wrote:

“Jack, Case, Cal and Tate (and Olivia and Soph)—you are so loved. Her love for you was palpable and fierce. She loved each of you so uniquely that her voice had a different tenor when she would speak about each of you.

“A love that profound doesn’t dissipate or fade—it’s etched in your DNA, it’s the essence of your being and will always be part of who you are. So when life is hard, remember that love and draw the strength you need from it.”

Sincere condolences to Andi’s loving husband, Dan, and parents, Tom and Lindy, family and community. Thank you for sharing Andi with us.

The Learning Enrichment Foundation

MPP Mohamed Firin: Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize and celebrate the Learning Enrichment Foundation, a Toronto-based charitable organization that has served one of our city’s most diverse communities for more than four decades. Established in 1978 and headquartered in Mount Dennis, the Learning Enrichment Foundation has grown from a small community initiative into a cornerstone of York South–Weston.

Each year, LEF provides licensed child care to over 2,000 children and families and supports more than 6,100 individuals through settlement services, language training, and employment and skills training programs.

Programs like the Family Well-Being Program give parents and caregivers tools to strengthen relationships and prevent youth violence, while the youth program empowers people through mentorship, leadership training, career counselling and recreational activities.

LEF’s social enterprise bicycle assembly and repair program—BAM—provides affordable bike repairs and, through a partnership with the Air Canada Foundation, has given bicycles and helmets to children in the local community.

Looking ahead, LEF is continuing to build economic resilience as they are redeveloping properties into a 14-storey mixed-use development in the riding that will put community and economic development at its heart. Once completed, it will offer 149 units of affordable housing and approximately 30,000 square feet of community space, creating a vibrant hub where residents can live, learn, work and shop.

Madam Speaker, I’m proud to stand with the Learning Enrichment Foundation and thank them for more than four decades of dedicated service to the community of York South–Weston.

Fort Erie Race Track

MPP Wayne Gates: I rise today to stand up for workers, families, and small businesses who rely on the Fort Erie Race Track. For over a century, this track has supported good local jobs—from the trainers and jockeys to the farmers who supply feed and equipment. It’s one of the largest employers in Fort Erie. But today its future is at risk.

A $35-million funding agreement developed with the OLG and Ontario Racing is being delayed by one stakeholder, Woodbine Entertainment Group. The CEO of the Fort Erie Race Track pointed out that the delays from Woodbine are at the direct expense of the remainder of Ontario’s 13 horse-racing venues. The concerns raised are serious. The one person that controls Woodbine, Jim Lawson, can’t be allowed to jeopardize the future of the Fort Erie Racetrack.

We’re hearing about restrictions that prevent horses from moving freely between tracks and scheduling decisions that pushed the Prince of Wales Stakes out of the peak summer season. The letter from the Fort Erie Race Track warns that these actions aim to weaken and eventually close the Fort Erie Race Track. Workers at the track haven’t seen a purse increase in nearly a decade. Raising costs are pushing them to the brink. They shouldn’t have to relocate. This is their livelihood. Fort Erie is their home.

I’m calling on the government to finalize the agreement as intended, protect jobs, and ensure a fair and balanced horse racing industry. Supporting the Fort Erie Race Track means supporting Niagara.

Volunteers

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: It is Volunteer Appreciation Week, and I cannot think of a better way to recognize all the outstanding volunteers in my constituency of Newmarket–Aurora. My riding is home to so many non-profit organizations, all of whose work would not be possible, would not get done without the hundreds of volunteers that make it work.

This year’s theme is “Ignite Volunteerism.” This is an opportunity to spark new energy, reconnect with community members and recognize the vital role volunteers play in strengthening the social fabric of our community.

My office and I owe an endless debt of gratitude to volunteers for their years of support at my signature community events like the annual community barbecue, the seniors expo, non-profit appreciation gathering and community events like this weekend’s Run for Southlake and York Pride parade, as well as the Canada Day parade and the Santa Claus parades.

Volunteers make our community kinder, stronger and more supportive. Thank you all, all you amazing volunteers in Newmarket–Aurora, who make a great difference.

Palliative care

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: Palliative care is so important to each and every one of us. Everyone that lives will one day face death. This is a common reality for all of mankind. I am proud to be a part of a government that has made record investments in palliative care. Hundreds of new hospice beds have been funded across the province since we formed government in 2018, bringing Ontario’s total to 768 beds.

Just in my riding, we have two hospice projects currently under way, and last week the Townsend Smith Foundation announced that they would be moving forward with a new name: North Halton Hospice. This change makes the organization’s mission crystal clear, and that mission is to bring a hospice to north Halton. With the property conveniently located on Trafalgar Road in Halton Hills, between Georgetown and Milton, North Halton Hospice is well placed to fill an essential need in our community.

Our government has stepped up to support the creation of 10 beds at the North Halton Hospice, representing millions in capital funding. I have been and will continue to be a strong supporter of bringing palliative care to our communities. On May 2, the North Halton Hospice will be hosting their hike for hospice event starting at 10 a.m. In Halton Hills, there will be two hikes, one starting at Prospect Park in Acton and the other at beginning at Norval United Church on Danby Road. If anyone is interested in participating and supporting this important cause, you can register at northhaltonhike.ca.

I want to thank executive director Kim Kohlberger, the board of directors and the countless volunteers and donors for their tireless work supporting the North Halton Hospice. I am confident that as a community we will—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Members, if I could have your attention please.

Michael Grant

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): It is with mixed emotions that we share that after 36 years of outstanding service of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, PSO constable Michael “Mikey” Grant is retiring tomorrow.

Michael is widely respected for his professionalism, reliability, positive spirit, and of course is well known for his contagious laughter. He has also proudly served part-time in the local reserve Queen’s York Rangers regiment. He is deeply valued and will be truly missed.

Mikey, we extend our gratitude and best wishes for a well-deserved, fulfilling retirement. We love you, and we will miss you.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Oh, that smile. We’re going to miss that too.

Introduction of Visitors

MPP Mohamed Firin: I’d like to introduce, from the Learning Enrichment Foundation, Amina Yassin, Fei Tang, Elizabeth McBain, Montsy Bassas, Michelle Trigiani, and the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Honourable Laura Albanese, who was also an MPP for York South–Weston.

MPP Jamie West: I’ve spoken about the Patel family, who died in the fatality on Highway 69. Kush Patel, their son, is here, as well as Jay Mahida, Minal Mahida, Pankaj Patel, Hardip Vaghela, Hardipsinh Mahida, Suketu Patel, Puneet Mehta, Parixit Patel, Deep Mahida, Devan Patel and Arsh Patel. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park. They’re going to be having meetings with members from the government side.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’d like to introduce some friends from Dufferin–Caledon. From the NDP riding association, we have President Andrea Aloe, Lynda McDougall and Brenna Flynn. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Welcome to your House.

MPP Billy Denault: This morning, I’d like to welcome to the gallery constituents of mine from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and family members of page John Lepack from Arnprior. Please welcome Tiffany; his dad, Jason; his sister Lucy; and his grandparents Tom and Pam. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: I’d like to welcome members of the Catholic Women’s League of Canada’s Ontario provincial council to Queen’s Park: Colleen Martin, Hilarion Mitchell, Karen McDonald, Lisa Henry, Linda Squarzolo and Susanna Lubowitz. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Sylvia Jones: I would like to introduce page captain Henry’s mother, Karla; his dad, Chris; and his brother James.

Congratulations, page captain Henry. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I want to wish a warm welcome to June Muir and Maxine Deleersnyder from the UHC Hub of Opportunities. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I’d like to introduce some amazing people from Kayanase and Ogwehoweh Skills and Trades Training Centre, Grand River Employment and Training—especially jazzy Jordon Myers and energetic Erin Monture.

Welcome to your House.

Mr. Steve Pinsonneault: I’d like to welcome my new executive assistant for my constituency, Arlene Morrell, here today; my new executive assistant here at Queen’s Park, Shan Dhanoa; and Jeanue Chung, my retiring executive assistant. I wish him all the best in his new endeavours.

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: I’m happy to welcome my good friend and the best man at my wedding, Elijah Gortson, to the Legislature today.

Mr. Deepak Anand: I would like to introduce a non-partisan, non-political resident group from Sudbury: Jay Mahida, Minal Mahida, Pankaj Patel, Hardip Vaghela, Hardipsinh Mahida, Suketu Patel, Parixit Patel, Deep Mahida, Kush Patel, Devan Patel and Arsh Patel.

Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I’m delighted to welcome June Muir and Maxine Deleersnyder from the UHC Hub of Opportunities. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

And to the parents of Windsor West’s page, Dr. Darren Cargill and Amy Seibel: Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to welcome Linda Squarzolo from the Catholic Women’s League, who came down from my riding to visit.

And I’d like to remind everybody that 16 days ago, Vinod and Shilpa Patel died on the two lanes of Highway 69. In the gallery with us today, we have their son, as well as many of their friends from Sudbury, who came down to let the Legislature know what it feels like when you lose a loved one on Highway 69. I’d like to welcome Jay and Minal Mahida, Pankaj Patel, Hardip Vaghela, Hardipsinh Mahida, Suketu Patel, Puneet Mehta, Parixit Patel, Deep Mahida, Kush Patel, Devan Patel and Arsh Patel. Thank you for being here today.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member from Peterborough–Kawartha on a point of order.

Mr. Dave Smith: I’d just like to correct my record. Last night in my speech, I said that there were 1,200 people who had been consulted on the budget. There were actually 900 individuals that came and spoke to us directly, 1,000 written submissions and 12,400 electronic submissions.

Kezia Mamakwa

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m sorry to have to share this with the House today. But over the last few years, we’ve had the great pleasure of welcoming the member from Kiiwetinoong’s mother, Kezia, here into the Legislature. Sadly, after an illness last night, Kezia Mamakwa passed away.

I just wanted to say, on behalf of everyone here, we’re sending our thoughts, our prayers, our love to MPP Mamakwa, the member for Kiiwetinoong. We’re with you. We’ll miss her.

Question Period

Government jet

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. “No one is as scrutinized as I am”—those were the words of this Premier. It’s pretty much all he’s been saying for the last few days as he’s been going on his private jet pity party tour of Ontario.

While he was setting the people’s money on fire with a plan to buy a luxury private jet, people in this province were worrying about how they were going to afford their groceries or their rent. Students—who he has cut OSAP program funding for—are having to change their plans about whether to go to university or college.

I have to say, it was really astounding to see this Premier force his own members—his government cabinet members—to get up and defend this day after day after day this week. I’m wondering if the Premier will finally stand in this place, apologize to the people of Ontario and tell them exactly how much they’re on the hook for.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Peterborough–Kawartha.

Mr. Dave Smith: The Premier has said, repeatedly now, he listened to the people. He understood that this was not the time to purchase the jet. The jet has been sold back to Bombardier for what Ontario had paid for it.

When we talk about affordability, let’s take a look at the budget. The NDP have an opportunity to vote in favour of this budget. This budget, with the actions that we’re taking in it, this year alone, will save the people of Ontario $12 billion. That is money that goes right back into the pockets of the hard-working people of this province. It’s because we heard loud and clear, when we were travelling Ontario with the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, affordability is one of the biggest issues facing people of Ontario. That’s why this government has taken those actions.

I encourage the members opposite to vote in favour of the budget today.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, Speaker. I’m very sorry the Premier couldn’t stand in that place and speak for himself and defend this himself. Every other member of his government, apparently, has to wear this—fair enough, because apparently, the cabinet all approved it. They all signed off; that’s what we heard.

What a terrible decision. And if it was only the one decision—but it isn’t. This is part of a pattern with this Premier and this government. When it comes to things like money to fix the leaky roofs in our kids’ classrooms: “Sorry, we’ve got nothing.” When it comes to patients being treated in hallways, or now storage closets, in our hospitals: “Sorry, we’ve got nothing.” But when it comes to, I don’t know, a spa in downtown Toronto or some other vanity project of the Premier’s, and now a luxury personal private jet, they have endless amounts of cash, of taxpayer dollars to burn.

So I would ask the Premier, I would like to know exactly which members of his cabinet—who signed off on this?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Premier of Ontario.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Madam Speaker: Let’s talk about affordability here—they don’t believe in affordability—which they are going to vote against: tax cuts for small businesses, corporate income tax. For 375,000 small businesses, we’re giving a tax break. Each business will get $5,000. They’re going to vote against that.

They’re going to vote against the $4 billion to establish the Protect Ontario Account Investment Fund to help businesses in face of the tariffs. They’ll vote against that.

They’ll vote against the additional $325 million for primary care, bringing four-year investments to $3.4 billion. They don’t believe in that. They would rather play politics than help the people.

They don’t believe in an additional $300 million to community sport and recreation infrastructure funding. They don’t care if there’s recreation or any sport.

They don’t care about the $66 million to give teachers a $750 supply card—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: You’re darn right I do. I care that our kids don’t have pencils in their classrooms right now.

Let’s talk about affordability, shall we—a budget that doesn’t even mention rent or groceries, a budget that is only about passing laws that will prevent Ontarians from being able to find out the truth. That’s what’s in this budget.

Changes to the freedom-of-information laws: That’s what this budget is about. This is a budget that is about protecting the Premier and his phone records. Because guess what? We all know that this Premier has been up to something. We all know it. The RCMP knows it. The courts know it. They’ve ordered him to release his phone, but no, he doesn’t want to do that.

So let me just ask the Premier again: I want to ask him, when did he go to his cabinet about this luxury jet purchase and when did they first learn about it?

Hon. Doug Ford: Let’s talk about the freedom of information that every single government in this country—we’re duplicating. The federal government, your colleagues up in Ottawa—we’re doing exactly the same. But what they aren’t saying is 95% of all information will be able to FOI.

Just because you don’t give your number out, but you gave my number out there to everyone—which is good, because I get more people calling me for support because you don’t return phone calls. I return the phone calls.

But what I’m not going to do, Madam Speaker, is give personal information about health records that people send me, about personal issues or having family problems. I’m not going to hand that out to the public. I know you have no problem handing out personal information, but I will not be handing out personal information.

We’re duplicating exactly what the federal government is doing and every other province in this country. So it can’t be that bad, can it? If your colleagues—

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

Government jet

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, if he is so proud of those changes to the freedom-of-information laws, why are they passing it in the middle of the night under the cloak of darkness?

I am getting pretty tired, and I tell you, what I’m hearing from Ontarians is how tired they are—how tired they are of this Premier and his excuses, this whininess. “Everybody but me has a law to protect them. Everybody but me has a private luxury jet.” That was not true, Speaker. Every other province, every other Premier, does not have a private luxury jet.

What I would really like to know, and I would love the Premier to table this today: I would like to know how many times he has chartered a private plane over the last eight years and who he’s brought with him.

Hon. Doug Ford: She doesn’t even know the Premiers, by the way, but anyway.

Madam Speaker, let me tell you: What we did do is we chartered a plane down to Texas. And I’ll tell you what happened. We went to three cities—13 appointments—in two days and one morning. But guess what we brought back that they could never bring back? We brought $6 billion of investment back to Ontario, thousands and thousands of jobs. Because they don’t understand business. They’ve never understood business, ever, in their entire lives. You would be a disaster. We see with the NDP: tax and spend.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m going to go back to the Premier, Speaker. This is embarrassing for the Premier, I have to say. It really is.

I will tell him, my dad used to say to me, when I kept the door open too long in the winter: “We’re not trying to heat the outdoors.” But that’s exactly what this government is doing with Ontario’s debt: $16 billion out the window on interest—$16 billion.

You want to talk tax and spend? This is a Premier who is leaving the next generation of taxpayers with endless debt while he decides that the priority is not to fix their schools or to treat their elderly or to help out the nurses and the teachers—everybody who is so burned out. No, no. He wants to build a luxury spa. He wants a private luxury plane with recliners and I don’t know what else. Again, he asked for Blu-rays last time; I don’t know if there are Blu-rays on this one. He wants a shiny toy and he’s really mad that he had to return it to the toy store.

I would like to know, Speaker, from the Premier: When is he going to stop whining about not getting what he wants?

Hon. Doug Ford: Madam Speaker, isn’t it a little rich they’re pretending to be prudent fiscal managers? You have to be kidding me. On one side, they’re saying, “Spend more, more, more taxpayers’ money,” and on the other side they’re saying, “How dare you have $16 billion?”

Let me tell you something, we have the best finance minister we’ve ever had. We’re at a AA credit rating. As every other province has collapsed, we have a path to balance. We’re investing $230 billion into infrastructure. We’re building the schools and the hospitals and the roads and the highways. That’s what we’re doing, and they vote against it every single time. That’s their mentality.

I can tell you, we have saved businesses and taxpayers $12 billion. We’ve never raised a tax. There’s a million more people working today than there was when you two were in power, because you chased every company out of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: The Premier needs to stop feeling sorry for himself. It is extraordinary. I will also point out that Ontario has never had a debt like this in history. He’s so busy having a party on the taxpayers’ dime, it’s extraordinary.

People out there are struggling to pay for their groceries. I meet people every day now who are mature students, single parents who went back to school and are having to stop that because they cut OSAP; seniors losing their homes because their rent is through the roof because they ended rent control. Yet he thinks that it’s time to get a gravy plane. Oh, yes, I remember when he used to talk about ending the gravy train, but now he’s sidling right up to the trough. The people of Ontario, they see through it.

I want the Premier, again, to apologize, just apologize. And I would say also—because I’ve got to say, I do not believe that there won’t be some additional cost to this complete boondoggle—will he pay the difference?

Hon. Doug Ford: I apologize for the NDP for voting against the $1 billion for autism. I apologize for the NDP and the Liberals for destroying our province for 15 years and putting 300,000 people out of jobs.

The $332.5 million through Operation Deterrence: They all talk about protecting communities, but they vote against our police. You don’t like our police. You stood there and said, “Defund the police.” The other previous leader said she’s scared of the police.

We support our police. That’s the difference. We’re tough on crime. They vote against our bail conditions. They vote against getting more crowns. They vote against getting more judges. They vote against everything—no solutions.

As we are still an economic powerhouse around the world—think of this, Madam Speaker: Out of 220 countries when it comes to the GDP, we’re number 20 in the entire world, just Ontario alone—$1.2 trillion of business, and we’re—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Freedom of information

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier, but before I get started, I read the news this morning, and between the Premier and the Solicitor General, there seems to be a lot going on in Home Depot parking lots. So maybe they could get their act together.

Last night, under the cover of darkness, this government was covering up the cover-up, rushing through the gutting of our rights to freedom of information in this province.

So Speaker, a simple question: Just what is the Premier trying to hide?

Hon. Doug Ford: Do you want to know something, Madam Speaker? Maybe he should do his hotline up to Ottawa and ask. We’re duplicating exactly what the federal government is doing. We’re duplicating exactly what the federal government has done for 15 years, that he knows.

At the end of the day, 95% will be FOI, and that’s no problem. FOI everything; I have no problem with that. But we’re duplicating what your cousins are doing up in Ottawa. We’re duplicating what every single province is doing across the country.

But there’s a double standard. They say one thing and then they change their mind. They’re prudent fiscal managers; then they’re saying, “Why aren’t we spending enough money?”

Again, we’re seeing billions and billions of dollars being invested here because we’ve created the climate, the conditions, for countries around the world to come and invest and create thousands and thousands of new jobs.

No matter if it’s mining or if it’s our energy policies, we’re leading the world. We’re leading the world—

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

Mr. John Fraser: I’d just remind the Premier—it’s not in his notes, but there are 9,000 fewer manufacturing jobs in this province than there were in 2018.

Here are the things we found out about this tired and out-of-control Ford government—things that we learned from freedom of information about these folks: the $8.2-billion greenbelt scandal; the Skills Development Fund and millions of dollars for strip club owners, the Ford family dentist and ministers’ best friends; and also the fact that the Premier and the Solicitor General can’t seem to keep criminals behind bars. It’s like the Keystone Kops over there. What’s going on?

Ontarians know these things. They deserve to know these things. And after last night—actually, after lunchtime today—they won’t.

So Speaker, back to the Premier: Just what is it you’re trying to hide?

Hon. Doug Ford: Again, I want the leader of the third party to call his hotline up to Ottawa and say the same thing to the Prime Minister or all their ministers.

And by the way, I actually agree with what they’re doing up at the federal government because—try to get a cell number off the Prime Minister’s line, or get it off one of their ministers, or get it as they just bought $753 million of jets for their ministers. There seems to be a double standard going on.

The other area—the leader of the third party says, “My dentist, my dentist.” I talked to him outside, and he goes, “I know it’s not your dentist, but it sounds good. That’s my job.”

So what’s he saying? One second, privately, he’s saying, “I know it’s not your dentist, but I’m going to say it anyway.” What credibility does he have? He has zero credibility. That’s what he’s all about. It’s politics.

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

Mr. John Fraser: So how did we get here? The Premier was ordered to turn over his personal cellphone records. He challenged it, it went to court and he lost—again.

The Premier needed a workaround, right? “I need a workaround.” I don’t know who he went to over there—maybe the finance minister—and he said, “We need to gut freedom-of-information laws. What can we do? We’ve got to hide it somewhere. We’ve got to bury it in the budget. We’ve got to make sure that people don’t see it.”

Then the Premier rips it out of committee without a word being spoken about the budget. Not a word—nada, zilch.

And last night, under the cover of darkness, he’s covering up the cover-up. And now, by lunchtime today, it will be law, and it will be retroactive. I know you know what that means Premier—retroactive.

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

Mr. John Fraser: You’re changing the laws retroactively, so there must be something really, really, really bad on your cellphone. What is it?

Hon. Doug Ford: They want to get confidential constituents’ information, which is confidential, that we all swore an oath—we all swore an oath. When someone contacts you, you don’t advertise it on the front page of the papers and the news. They believe we should; we should break that confidentiality that we got elected on, that we swore an oath on.

But what we’re focused on—we’re focusing on the economy. We’re focusing on making sure that we’re creating hundreds of thousands of jobs—150,000 jobs on our nuclear build-out. By the way, we’re leading the G7. We’re leading the world. We’re leading the world when it comes to our critical minerals. We’re looking at tens of billions of dollars in the north because we’re moving forward, creating more jobs. We’re creating more manufacturing jobs than any time in the history of this province.

Again, Madam Speaker, we have seen $230 billion invested in this province that has never, ever been done, ever—not the federal government, no other province except Ontario.

Freedom of information

Mr. John Fraser: Nice try, Premier. You bought a $29-million jet while we’re half a trillion dollars in debt. But that’s not what this is about.

Let’s talk about the Premier’s phone records. The Premier does government business on his personal phone, and that’s wrong. He knows it, so why does he do it? Why does he do it, Speaker? He does it because he doesn’t want you to see the people who call him and text him, and what they have to say. Because it will show that the Premier—this government—treats taxpayers’ money like it’s his personal piggy bank. It’s there for him to use to reward friends; wealthy, well-connected insiders; donors; whoever he chooses. He doesn’t want you to see those things. That’s why he does it on his personal phone. We have government phones for a reason. That’s why you use them, Premier.

The real question here is, just what are you trying to hide, Premier?

Hon. Paul Calandra: A parliamentary phone is not FOI-able.

Hon. Doug Ford: Yes.

Well, let’s talk about this again. We’re focusing on jobs; we’re creating jobs. We’re adding more health care workers. We’re adding 100,000 registered nurses, 20,000 doctors, and building 50 new hospitals or sites to the tune of $60 billion. We’re spending $80 billion on creating the largest transit system expansion in North America.

We’re spending $30 billion on building roads, highways and bridges that they voted against. They don’t believe in transit. They don’t believe in increasing health care. We’ve increased health care, including long-term care, to $100 billion. Let me put that into perspective, Madam Speaker: $50 billion under them. No one has ever spent more money on front-line health care workers, on hospitals than this government.

We’re going to continue supporting the people of Ontario as they have no solutions. They just sit there and talk and talk and talk.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, the Premier’s phone holds the proof and he doesn’t want you to see it. It’s proof of all his backroom deals—proof of favours for friends, proof of millions of dollars to a strip club owner. The Premier wants to do everything under the cover of darkness. He wants to sneak around on you. He wants to keep us in the dark.

Just how bad are the things on that phone that you’ve gone to this length to protect it?

Hon. Doug Ford: You know something? It’s getting a little tiring, actually, listening to the leader of the third party go on and on and on about the plane and this and that.

Well, let me tell you, Madam Speaker—and I have no problem with this. I have no problem with this, but I’m the only Premier in the history of this province to fly commercial. As he was sitting there flying around with Dalton McGuinty—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order.

Hon. Doug Ford: —on Dalton McGuinty’s charter plane. He knows it. He flew on those planes endless and endless times, as I was trying to save the taxpayers money.

I sold the two planes which I—by the way, I have no problem with the previous Premiers flying around because it’s part of the job. But unfortunately, when they were flying around, they were losing jobs. When I fly around, we’re creating jobs. That is the difference.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Premier, you own the plane. You bought the plane. I know you think you sold it, but you own the decision, and I’m glad you’re owning it right now, because you’re not actually apologizing.

Speaker, this is how bad it is. We are gutting freedom-of-information laws, and we are doing it under the cover of darkness. They’re going to cover up the cover-up, and it’s being done at lightning speed. By lunchtime today, the Premier will think that he got away scot-free, just like those 150 criminals that he couldn’t keep behind bars. But he should know he’ll get apprehended—maybe not instantaneously, but we’ll get him.

So why doesn’t the Premier just surrender his cellphone records?

Hon. Doug Ford: When we’re talking about criminals that administratively got out—do you know what I did, Madam Speaker? I looked before 2018, and there were hundreds and hundreds of people that got out under your watch. We looked at the numbers. But we’re correcting the problem; they never corrected the problem.

By the way, Madam Speaker, with him and his buddy Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne, who spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on travel, as they spent millions and millions of dollars on meals and travelling around the world, guess what I spent? I spent nothing, zero. Let me see your expenses under Dalton McGuinty, your buddy, and Kathleen Wynne. I’ll show you mine because I have spent nothing.

Freedom of information

Ms. Marit Stiles: When this Premier flies too close to the sun on his private jet, he changes the rules so he can do whatever he wants.

Thanks to FOIs—the freedom-of-information requests—we were able to learn how many taxpayer dollars this government spent—wasted—for example, on advertising for this harebrained Ontario Place scheme. Thanks to FOIs, we, the people, were able to find out what members of this government were doing when they were using code words to hide their greenbelt dealings. Thanks to FOIs, this Premier is under an RCMP criminal investigation for selling out the people of Ontario.

So I want to know, from the Premier: What are you hiding with these freedom-of-information changes?

Hon. Doug Ford: Madam Speaker, I can tell you one thing: I give my phone number out to everyone, and everyone calls me. Now, I wouldn’t go as low as the leader of the opposition, because she gave out my number to everyone—all her cronies, all the radical, left-wing loonies out there. She posted it—“Call him, call him.” I wouldn’t give her number out because she wouldn’t answer a phone call. I encourage her to give my number out because I will deal with the issues at hand. That’s the difference.

Again, no Premier in the history of this country has given his cell number out to actually help people, to talk to them about confidential information. I am sure if I told these people, “I’m going to post everything that you gave me,” I’d have more lawsuits than you can shake a stick at because it’s confidential. We swore an oath to protect any information coming from our constituents, unlike the leader of the—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: No Premier in the history of this country or this province has been under RCMP criminal investigation for selling out the people of the province, and that is why this Premier is changing the law. The Premier is changing the law to hide the details of his dealings with the greenbelt developers. And who knows what other schemes he’s come up with.

I know that the Premier says he likes to hand out his cellphone number. He says, “Call me any time.” Speaker, it was decided in a court of law—a court of law—that this Premier is using his personal cellphone to do government business. He has admitted it. He has admitted it, right now, just again, a million times. But now you’re going through every possible hoop to avoid it.

I want to ask the Premier: Does he understand that when the RCMP comes—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Premier of Ontario.

Hon. Doug Ford: Madam Speaker, we’re going to focus on driving the economy. We’re going to focus on fighting Donald Trump and the tariffs.

I’m down in the US, actually. I’m going to Utah to build relationships with governors. I’m going down to South Carolina to build relationships with governors to bring more businesses back, as they put blockades and barriers for businesses. And they want to increase taxes—all of them do. We’ve never increased taxes. Do you know something? We’ve actually put money back into peoples’ pockets, until they can go out and maybe afford to go for dinner or even put a renovation on their home.

That’s what we’re doing. As all you do is sit there and chirp like a canary, all we do is keep saving taxpayers money.

Freedom of information

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Before coming to this House, I spent 30 years as a journalist. I know how critical freedom of information is, and those laws—how important they are to holding governments to account. They are how people get to the truth.

But now—and I know the Premier is tired of all the questions, but the time is limited on how much more we can ask, Premier. You’re about to pass this legislation that limits access, that avoids public committee review, that makes it harder for Ontarians to see what’s actually happening behind closed doors. The time is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: This is coming from a Premier who recently went on live television, boasting about giving out his number, claiming to be open and accessible. Speaker, with a government that has a new scandal every week, Ontarians don’t need a new number; they need transparency.

Speaker, to the Premier: Why does this Premier, who claims to be accountable, make it so very hard—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Premier of Ontario.

Hon. Doug Ford: Do you know something, Madam Speaker? Do you know why the member is down here? It’s because CP24 didn’t want her anymore—bottom line, simple. That’s why she’s down here. She was just a promoter for a Liberal agenda, an NDP agenda when she was doing interviews. Do you think there could be anything else? That is the facts. That is the truth.

Interjections.

Hon. Doug Ford: It hurts, doesn’t it? It hurts when you aren’t wanted. There’s a reason why you’re—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order.

The member for Don Valley North has been warned. The member for Toronto Centre has been warned. I’m cautioning people on the language and personal attacks.

Back to the member for Toronto–St. Paul’s.

So again, I’m going to ask the Premier: If he has nothing to hide, why is he working so hard to hide?

Hon. Doug Ford: Madam Speaker, do you know why I get more phone calls than anyone in the world? In the world—not North America, not Canada, in the world. Because I get phone calls from their ridings because they can’t get a phone call back from the MPPs. I get it from their ridings. And guess what, Madam Speaker? I take care of every single person that calls me. Their issues—I take care of it. So again, that’s the reason I give out my cellphone number.

What they want to do is take that weapon away from me because they know it hurts them. When I return every call—guess what? Do you know who they’re voting for next time? They aren’t voting for them; they’re voting for us.

Because it’s about customer service excellence. That’s what we’re focused on: returning phone calls, putting money back into peoples’ pockets, creating more jobs, supporting our front-line health care workers, supporting our front-line educators with a $750 purchasing card. That’s what we focus on, but they’re going to vote against it all today—watch.

Public transit

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: My question is to the Minister of Transportation.

For years, commuters across Ontario were stuck in gridlock while the previous Liberal government made promises it did not deliver on.

When our government took office, we brought forward a concrete plan to build the transit infrastructure our province needs. At the centre of that plan is the Ontario Line, a new rapid transit line, running through one of the fastest-growing regions in North America. This project will not only improve mobility but also support job creation and drive economic growth across this great province of ours. Today, that plan is becoming a reality: construction is under way and meaningful progress is being made each and every single day.

Speaker, can the minister update this House on how our government is advancing the Ontario Line and reducing commute times across the greater Toronto area?

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

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Thank you to the member from Newmarket–Aurora for that great question, her leadership and her hard work with this government, Speaker. The Liberals promised better transit but delivered years of delays. Our government is taking a different approach. We’re focused on getting results and delivering for the people of Ontario.

Today we’re seeing real progress with the construction actively moving forward at every station along the Ontario Line. This 15.6-kilometre line will include 15 new stations connecting riders to GO transit services at East Harbour on the Lakeshore East and Stouffville corridors, TTC lines 1 and 2 at Queen, Osgoode and Pape stations, and the Eglinton Crosstown LRT at Don Valley.

Speaker, our government is delivering on its commitments under the leadership of this Premier. We’re moving forward with one of the largest transit expansions in North America and building a stronger and more connected Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Newmarket–Aurora.

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Thank you to the parliamentary assistant for this important update.

The scale of what’s being achieved with the Ontario Line is significant by any standard. Crews are tunnelling beneath one of North America’s most densely populated urban areas and constructing highly complex, state-of-the-art stations. But this effort goes beyond a single project. It reflects a long-term commitment to building the transit network our province needs to support growth and remain competitive.

Speaker, can the parliamentary assistant explain how the Ontario Line fits into our government’s broader transit strategy and what it means for Ontario’s future?

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Thank you again to the member from Newmarket–Aurora. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct: The work being carried out by our engineers beneath our streets is truly impressive. Tunnelling through a dense, active city, constructing 15 highly complex stations and integrating a brand new rapid transit backbone onto the existing network is an achievement Ontarians can take pride in. With the Ontario Line expected to serve 390,000 riders each day and remove 28,000 cars from our roads, it will transform how people move across the greater Toronto area.

But this project is part of a much broader effort. Our government is investing $70 billion in infrastructure across Ontario and building a system that’s designed to serve not just today’s needs, but the next generation as well.

GO Transit

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Premier: People in Oshawa want to get where they’re going, but it is getting harder and it is taking longer. Metrolinx isn’t delivering what Durham needs and has cut our Lakeshore East express train service. This Premier’s priority has been to take over an airport and extend the runway so he could land a $29-million private luxury jet, while in Oshawa people are hoping just to land a parking spot and a seat on the train.

Speaker, the Lakeshore East express service is gone and my question to this government is: Will it be restored? And if so, when?

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

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Since we’ve been elected, we’ve made historic investments into the Lakeshore East line. Actually, since 2018, we’ve increased weekly rides by over 225 trips. That member knows that there’s construction along the entire line to improve service for the future. We continue to work with the community there to deliver the best GO rail transit service that we can for her members and for her community.

The investments that we are making today will ensure that continues for the future and for future generations. Last year, we hit a record: over 76 million people on GO transit; UP express, up over 10% year over year. That’s because we’re making investments. People are believing in public transit and we’re getting them where they need to go quicker and faster. And we’ll continue to do that, especially on the Lakeshore East line.

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Investing in a jet doesn’t count as investment in transit—side note.

Last night, this government rushed through legislation to change FOI laws to hide the Premier’s phone records under the cover of darkness—rushed it through during a late-night sitting. They have no problem with express when it suits them, but real people just have to wait, eh? The Premier gets his jet plane, but real people can’t have their fast train.

This Premier said every single one of his cabinet ministers approved his celebrity jet. Three of those cabinet ministers live in Durham region. And so, my question is, since all these ministers were all too happy to support the gravy plane, would they be willing to support our Lakeshore East express train?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Madam Speaker, the irony—every one of those 225 additional trips that we put in since 2018, that member has voted against those increases in investments.

In fact, for the residents of Durham, when they were able to participate in the One Fare program, thanks to this government’s investment that is saving her commuters over $1,600 a year—back into their pockets—the NDP, the Liberals opposed those investments into public transit. In fact, I can’t find a single project that those members have supported when it comes to public transit.

Madam Speaker, $70 billion of investments, with a significant amount of those investments going to the Lakeshore East line, with over 225 net new train rides per week on that line—that member has voted against that increase in service every single time.

We will continue to make the historic investments into public transit, into the Lakeshore East line, despite that member’s opposition when she has the opportunity to vote in support of that in this House.

Freedom of information

Mr. Adil Shamji: Has anyone ever watched Con Air? It’s a 1990s film in which a bunch of criminals take over an airplane and use it to try and escape from prison. Con Air could have been the title of last week’s multiple scandals in politics after we learned from a freedom-of-information request that the Premier lost 150 convicts, with six still on the loose, and at the same time tried to buy a $29-million private jet for his personal use. It’s the Con Air affair, folks.

Now, the captain of Con Air has said he’s not sorry for losing the convicts. He hasn’t really even said he’s sorry for buying the airplane. What he has said sorry for is merely failing to communicate the purchase to Ontarians.

What else has he failed to communicate? And is he rushing to change freedom-of-information laws so that we don’t learn more about his Con Air affair?

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

Interjections.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you, colleagues.

Madam Speaker, I think the Premier, who answered, I think, 15 questions in the House—there’s a common theme there. Do you know what the common theme is? That we’re building Ontario: a $1.2-trillion economy, a million more jobs, cutting taxes, making infrastructure investments, making investments in social infrastructure and making sure that this province prospers. Because you know what pays for all the infrastructure, the health care, the education, the social services and the colleges and the universities? It’s the economy. It’s the economy, stupid.

You have an opportunity on that side of the House. You have an opportunity to support Ontario, support this budget, vote for this budget. That’s what you should be focusing on.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I’ll ask the finance minister to withdraw.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I withdraw—second time only.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Don Valley East.

Mr. Adil Shamji: Madam Speaker, the Premier bought a $29-million private jet without telling Ontarians, without putting it in the budget and without a plan.

The CBC is reporting that all Premiers in Confederation use commercial flights for their travel, with only infrequent use of chartered aircraft. Only one Premier bought his own plush, personal, private luxury jet so he could look down on Ontarians while he burns through their cash. That Premier got caught. So now, he’s sorry—not for the purchase, but for his messaging.

Well, Ontarians have a message. They overwhelmingly oppose his changes to freedom-of-information laws, but the Premier is not listening. He skipped public hearings and he rushed through the debate last night under the cover of darkness. If the Premier is truly sorry, why is he ignoring Ontarians when they call on him to reverse his proposed changes to freedom-of-information laws?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Madam Speaker, it’s the economy. It’s the economy. I’ll leave that other word out—that wasn’t for the member. That was just general, that we’ve heard that before, and you forget that at your peril, Madam Speaker.

You know what? We did 35 consultations right across the province. We talked to the people of Ontario and debated this budget bill for months, putting everything out there, including in the House. And you know what? We had one message from the people of Ontario, and that is, people want us to get things done. They don’t want us to just talk, talk, talk, which is what that member opposite is doing: talk, talk, talk.

This side of the House is act, act, act. That’s what the people of Ontario want us to do. That’s why we’re going to vote for this budget.

Small business

Mr. Deepak Anand: Speaker, my question is to the Associate Minister of Small Business. Small businesses and self-employment account for more than 3.5 million jobs in our province, leading innovation and bringing critical goods and resources to the economy.

Since the budget was released, I’ve heard from job creators about how thankful they are that we are supporting small businesses as a cornerstone of our government’s plan to protect Ontario. From our local coffee shops to independent pharmacists to manufacturers, small businesses are essential to our neighbourhoods to build a stronger, more competitive Ontario.

Speaker, through you to the associate minister, elaborate on the measures proposed in this year’s budget and how our government is ensuring that businesses can create jobs and grow Ontario for years to come.

Hon. Nina Tangri: Thank you to the great member from Mississauga–Malton for the question but also for being a fierce advocate for his small businesses in his community.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, we have never raised a single tax, and we have amazing, hard-working people and businesses in our province. In fact, we’re lowering our taxes. Through the 2026 budget, we’re cutting the small business corporate income tax rate by 31.25%, putting $1.1 billion back into the pockets of mom-and-pop shops right across our province. That’s money they’re going to reinvest right back into their businesses.

Speaker, our government is proud to stand up for Ontario’s hard-working small businesses by cutting taxes, keeping costs down and making our province the best place to start and grow a business.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member from Mississauga–Malton.

Mr. Deepak Anand: Thank you to the associate minister for sharing how our government is helping small businesses weather economic uncertainty through $1.1 billion in tax relief. These savings carry significant weight for our small businesses during this period of economic uncertainty. I know that main street shops and local businesses in our community are happy to see that our government is continuing to reduce taxes, keeping costs down. Rather than stalling their growth, we’re here supporting them.

Speaker, we know that a more competitive economy rests on the shoulders of our hard-working, innovative and dedicated entrepreneurs today, as we vote in favour of supporting job creators. Through you, Speaker, can the associate minister further highlight the impact of these tax reductions on Ontario’s local entrepreneurs?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The associate minister.

Hon. Nina Tangri: Thank you, Speaker, and again to the member for the question. This tax cut to just 2.2%, the second one to the small business tax rate alone since we formed government in 2018, will save about 375,000 businesses up to $5,000 a year. It builds on our government’s other actions to reduce the cost of doing business, altogether saving businesses $10 billion this year alone. We’re also proposing to lower the cost of capital investments by providing $3.5 billion in tax relief through accelerated write-off measures to encourage businesses to invest in their operations and grow.

Unlike the Liberals, this Premier and th