Report continued from volume A.

1800

Private Members’ Public Business

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

Mr. Rakocevic moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 113, An Act to address food affordability and price competitiveness / Projet de loi 113, Loi traitant de l’abordabilité des produits alimentaires et de la compétitivité des prix.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Pursuant to standing order 100, the member has 12 minutes for their presentation.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Today, we’re talking about something that affects every single person in this province: the price of groceries, the cost of living and the simple truth that life has never been more expensive in Ontario. And that’s why our bill to take the tax off all groceries and increase competition matters. It’s about fairness, it’s about common sense and it’s about standing up for working people.

People are hurting, and it’s time for this government to act. We can’t set prices at checkout, but we can put money back into people’s pockets. Our Bill 113, the Fair Prices and Tax-Free Groceries Act, 2026, would scrap the tax on all groceries and stop grocery giants—you know, those who do their best to create monopolies—from using lease agreements to block competition. And that’s exactly what we’re talking about today.

Let’s start with the obvious: Groceries should be affordable. For too many people, groceries are becoming so expensive, they’re walking out with only half of their grocery list. They’re unable to afford the basics to stay healthy.

When did putting food on the table become a luxury? Parents are skipping meals so their kids can eat. Food banks are stretched thin. Seniors are stretching cans of soup for days. And all the while, the biggest grocery chains in this country are posting record profits.

After eight years of this government, life has never been more unaffordable. People are stretching every dollar. They’re doing everything right, trying to feed their families, but the system is failing them.

And then there’s the food tax system, a system that makes absolutely no sense. Have you ever actually thought about it? Right now, in Ontario, if you buy a raw chicken, there’s no tax, but if you buy a cooked chicken—the exact same chicken, just cooked—suddenly, it’s taxed. Let’s make it simple: Let’s take the tax off all food in grocery stores.

People aren’t buying prepared meals at the grocery store because they’re living the high life or they’re lazy; they’re just trying to get through the day. It’s the person working two jobs running to the store after a shift to grab a pizza or a cooked chicken to feed their family. They shouldn’t have to pay tax on that meal. It’s the guy grabbing a sandwich for lunch on his break, the mom buying snacks for her kids, even the senior who can’t stand at the stove and cook. They shouldn’t pay extra because they need something ready to eat.

This bill fixes this. It cuts the tax from prepared meals and groceries, and it puts money back in people’s pockets. It treats food like what it is: a necessity and not a luxury.

But our bill goes further than just cutting the tax. Right now, in Ontario, grocery giants have been using secret leasing agreements and clauses to ban competitors from opening up nearby. These clauses are called property controls, and they’re buried in lease agreements.

Think about that: A big chain moves into a plaza, and then they tell the landlord, “Look, we’ll come in and set up shop, but you’re not allowed to rent to anyone who might compete with us.” And say a dollar store wants to open up in the same plaza, right? Well, these giants can put in their leasing agreements that if a store that sells some food like a dollar store—well, if they open up nearby, they can’t sell bread for less than they do. Hmm, where have we heard that before? Oh, right, the bread-fixing scandal.

Anyway, Speaker, these clauses can last 10, 20, even 30 years, and what does that mean for us? It means higher prices because there’s no competition. It means fewer choices because the big chains block everyone else out. And it means neighbourhoods can become essentially food deserts—barely any options at all.

And the best part? All of this is perfectly legal in Ontario under this government. But it doesn’t have to be. Scrap the tax on all food at grocery stores and ban grocery stores from using lease agreements to prevent competitors from opening nearby and selling products for less.

And before you start to think this is fantasy and can’t be done, let me tell you, Speaker: It can be done.

In fact, it has been done in Manitoba under NDP Premier Wab Kinew. Manitoba banned these anti-competitive clauses. They said, “No more secret deals that block competition. No more protecting corporate profits at the expense of families.”

And guess what? The billionaires are still billionaires. Giant grocers didn’t flee the province. The world didn’t end. But do you know what did happen? People got more competition, fairer prices, a break on their grocery bill: “We know it can be done. Wab Kinew’s NDP government in Manitoba has proven we can rein in these wealthy grocery giants and make life more affordable. All it takes is a Premier with the will to act.”

If Manitoba can do it, Ontario can do it. The only thing missing is political will.

Grocery giants are posting record profits every year. Meanwhile, hard-working Ontarians are having to decide between feeding their families, putting gas in the car or paying their rent. That’s the reality. People are doing everything right: They’re working hard, budgeting, even cutting back, and yet they’re still falling behind under this government. That’s not on them. That’s on this government—a consequence of bad decisions.

Our bill is a step in the right direction.

This isn’t the first time we in the NDP have tried to put more money back into people’s pockets. Earlier this month, we put forth a motion to ban surveillance pricing. We asked this government to ban it, to stop companies from using personal data to determine how much they can get away with charging us for things. But no, this government just gave companies the green light to continue using personal data to gouge us online and in store. They said no to banning surveillance pricing.

Well, here’s another chance. This time, do the right thing. Because Conservatives have already voted against banning surveillance pricing, today we’re asking them to vote in favour of making groceries more affordable by scrapping the tax on groceries. This is a moment of truth: Will the government stand with families, or will they stand with billion-dollar giants?

Now, I’m going to say something clearly, because it needs to be said: The Ontario NDP is the only party consistently standing up for people—not the billionaires or the well-connected, but for the working people, the people who keep things running, the people who get up every day and do their part. And to have this government take their taxes and hand their hard-earned dollars out like candy to every insider who comes their way is beyond insult to the taxpayers of this province.

We deserve a government who fights for us, not just the billionaires.

At the end of the day, this isn’t just about putting money back in people’s pockets, which it will, but it’s about dignity—the dignity of being able to do what people have done for hundreds of years, the basic ability to put food on the table, to feed their families without worry; the quiet dignity of walking into a grocery store and not having to think about choosing rent over food or vice versa; the dignity in knowing that food is the most basic human need.

So let’s talk about what this bill would actually accomplish: It removes the tax from groceries and prepared foods. That means immediate savings for families, seniors, students and workers. It bans anti-competitive property controls. That means more competition, more choices and lower prices. That means a fairer, more affordable Ontario.

This is how we help make life affordable again in Ontario: by cutting the tax on all groceries and putting money back into people’s pockets.

This is a chance for the government to do the right thing, to take a moment to stand up for fairness, a moment to stand up for affordability, a moment to stand up for working people. This bill is a statement. It says to the people of Ontario, “We believe in dignity, fairness and that everyone deserves access to affordable food.”

Let’s build a province where people don’t have to choose between groceries and rent, where competition is real and corporations play by the rules, where government works for the many, not just the few. Let’s build a province where everyone can thrive.

Support our bill. Let’s make it happen.

1810

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

Mr. Brian Riddell: Speaker, every day Ontarians expect that when they make a purchase, whether it’s groceries, household services or financial products, they are treated fairly, transparently and honestly. They want clear rules. They want bad actors held accountable, and they want to know their government is helping them keep costs manageable. That’s exactly what our government is delivering. We’re delivering real concrete results to protect consumers and help keep life affordable across Ontario.

We are not starting from scratch. We have built a strong, modern consumer protection system that is working for Ontarians every single day, and we are continuing to strengthen that. Families expect fairness at the checkout, clarity in contracts they sign and confidence the government is on their side.

While the opposition focuses on broad and theoretical ideas, we are focused on action: targeted measures that put money back into people’s pockets. Our approach is simple: practical actions, real protections and measurable results. Under the leadership of Premier Ford, that is exactly what we are delivering with stronger laws, tougher enforcement and targeted steps to address real affordability pressures.

Speaker, Ontario already has a comprehensive system in place to protect consumers. Through Consumer Protection Ontario, we provide education, resolve complaints, conduct inspections and enforce the law when businesses fail to follow the rules. Consumers can raise concerns, access mediation and trigger investigations when needed. When serious violations occur, there are real consequences, including fines, restitution and prosecution.

These are not just tools on paper. They are used every day to hold bad actors accountable and protect Ontarians, and we are not stopping there. We are continuing to strengthen the system. The new Consumer Protection Act, 2024, will further improve fairness and affordability, once it comes into force. It will crack down on unfair and deceptive practices and protect vulnerable consumers, prevent one-sided contract changes and make it easier for people to cancel services they no longer need or want. It will strengthen enforcement powers, including tougher penalties. This is what’s making sure the marketplace works for people, not just against them.

Speaker, this work is especially important at a time when people are more cautious than ever about how they spend their money. Whether it’s signing up for a service, taking out a loan or making a major household purchase, Ontarians need confidence that the system is fair and that they are protected every step of the way. That’s confidence which supports affordability, because when people are protected from unfair practices, they avoid unnecessary costs and make better financial decisions for themselves and their families.

Affordability also depends on fairness. Ontario already has rules in place to protect consumers from price gouging when prices are far higher than they should be. If this happens, consumers have the right to cancel agreements and recover their money. We also require clear and transparent information in contracts, especially for loans and credits so people know exactly what they’re paying for. We have protected consumer rewards by banning the expiry of points simply due to the passage of time. These protections matter. They might not always make the headlines, but they make a real difference in people’s lives by preventing hidden fees, unfair terms and unnecessary costs.

Speaker, our government also recognizes that affordability pressures are complex today, and that’s exactly why our approach is targeted and practical. Instead of relying on a single, oversimplified solution, we are addressing the real source of cost pressures where we have the ability to act. That means cracking down on unfair business practices. It means reducing the high cost of borrowing. It means improving transparency so customers can make informed choices, and it means making sure there are real consequences when businesses break those rules. These are the kind of actions that directly help people keep more of their money.

Affordability is not about one ideal or one policy. It’s about building a system where consumers are informed, businesses follow the rules and people are protected from unfair costs at every step of the way. That’s what our government is delivering. We’re focusing on practical, targeted actions that make a real difference in people’s lives, not approaches that ignore the strong protections already in place or oversimplify complex affordability challenges.

Speaker, Ontarians deserve more than promises; they deserve results. They deserve to know that their government is protecting them, helping them save money and making life more affordable and meaningful in practical ways. Through stronger enforcement, modernization of laws and targeted protections, we are ensuring that consumers are protected and they keep more of their hard-earned money, and we will continue on that work.

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

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I’m proud to rise and debate our NDP Bill 113, entitled the Fair Prices and Tax-Free Groceries Act. It is my honour to co-sponsor this bill with the honourable members from Humber River–Black Creek and University–Rosedale.

Every day, families across Ontario are struggling to make ends meet. I know they certainly are in Toronto Centre, where we have the highest food bank usage and the some of the poorest postal codes in the city.

The cost-of-living crisis is real, and nowhere is this felt more sharply than at the checkout line. Far outpacing inflation, grocery prices have climbed steadily and dramatically, up to 27% over the last five years, and some food items have increased by over 30%, putting tremendous pressure on seniors on fixed incomes, students balancing tuition and rent and working families whose wages have simply not kept up with the pace of inflation.

This government has watched and done very little while working families stretch every dollar further and further. When the Premier used tax dollars to buy himself a $30-million private luxury jet and then was surprised by the intense public anger and backlash, it just proves how out of touch and entitled this government is.

The Premier and his government have been ignoring the warning signs, and Ontarians are hurting deeply, from low wages, high unemployment, and runaway housing and energy costs. Ontarians are lined up at food banks, drowning in debt and taking on another shift just to feed their families. They expect this government to help them, not squander their tax dollars.

So Bill 113 is an opportunity for this government to show that they are finally listening and ready to take action to make things more affordable. Our bill will require the government to table a comprehensive plan to reduce grocery prices as soon as possible.

Such a plan must begin with one simple truth: Competition lowers prices. Ontario’s grocery market is far too concentrated in the hands of a few dominant players. Just five companies control almost 80% of the grocery market share in Canada, with the big three dominating the Ontario landscape: Loblaws, Empire—meaning Sobeys—and Metro. When only just a small number of these large chains control so much of the market, consumers lose every time.

This bill will prohibit these near-monopolies from using lease agreements to stifle competition. This includes outlawing restrictive covenants, exclusivity clauses and property controls, which have the effect of limiting and controlling competition among food retailers. And if they break these laws, government penalties will then be imposed to show Galen Weston and his billionaire peers that this Premier will finally stop choosing private profits over the people.

Speaker, we know that these real estate solutions that promote competition and consumer choice to bring down grocery prices do work, because we already know this based on what we’ve seen in Manitoba and California. Ontario doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel; we simply need to put the political will into action and adopt these solutions as soon as possible. We need to encourage greater competition by making it easier for independent grocers, discount retailers, food co-operatives and new market entrants to establish themselves in communities across the province.

1820

But competition is not enough, Speaker. Our bill will eliminate provincial taxes on food products and non-alcoholic beverages by reducing the tax burden at the checkout in grocery stores. By adopting this NDP bill, the government can immediately bring down grocery prices.

Here are at least three financial benefits to this policy change: Struggling families often rely on prepared grocery items such as deli salads or rotisserie chickens due to time constraints and resource constraints. By removing that tax, that barrier to those ready-to-eat items is significantly reduced and money is saved. Savings accumulated at the checkout can add up to hundreds of dollars, freeing up crucial cash that families can then redirect towards other basic, non-negotiable living expenses such as housing, utilities and children’s clothing. Many everyday staples such as granola bars, fruit juices and single-serve baked goods are subject to provincial sales tax. By removing that tax, the families can now afford to buy a wider variety of options, all without a financial penalty.

This is not about handouts. It’s about smart public policy. It’s about recognizing that access to affordable food is a necessity and not a nice-to-have. It’s about ensuring that no parent has to skip meals to ensure that their child can eat. It’s about making sure that seniors do not have to choose between groceries and prescription medicine. It’s about giving working people a fair chance to keep up with the rising cost of living in this province.

The people of this province deserve relief. They are asking for leadership. Let us all work together to get this done.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): Further debate? I recognize the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: South.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): I said south.

Mr. John Fraser: Did you say south? Okay. I thought you said centre, and I thought—

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: All right. I’m sorry, Speaker. I apologize unreservedly.

I’m glad to be speaking to Bill 113, and I want to thank the member from Humber River–Black Creek for his remarks and for bringing this bill forward with his colleagues.

As some of you may know, I spent the first half of my working life in the grocery business, so I know a little bit about it—enough to be dangerous, as I like to say. I want to talk a bit about that later.

But I listened to the member from Cambridge talking about this government’s consumer protection, and what I wanted to point out was that here is a gigantic loophole in the points protection that you put in before Christmas. You make it possible for people to lose points through regulation. You sort of protected them, but maybe not. I shouldn’t give people confidence—I don’t think, anyway.

And then let’s talk about ticket pricing. It’s not groceries; that’s your other consumer protection. You basically said, “We’re not going to allow this” about two months ago, and it’s still happening. Private markets, Ticketmaster, StubHub—this stuff is still going on. Just because people can’t see it that well doesn’t mean that it’s not happening.

On to this bill: People can’t afford groceries and gas. That’s why they were so upset when the Premier bought himself a private—or a luxury private jet, as I like to say.

Mr. John Vanthof: As opposed to a discount private jet.

Mr. John Fraser: As opposed to a discount jet, yes—that would have been interesting. I still think it might have been a problem.

What it really highlighted for me: The Premier already has access to an OPP jet, but he wanted his own luxury private jet, so he indulged himself with a jet. And people are going, “I can’t afford the price of tomatoes, and you’re out getting a jet?” There’s a total disconnect there, right?

And if people are wondering why the jet is such a big deal—and still is a big deal even though you sold it, lost some money—it’s because people go, “That’s just not right. That’s just not fair. I can’t afford groceries and gas and rent. I’m trying to buy my kids clothes. This guy is living high off the hog.” I said that for my colleague from Timiskaming, although he was a beef farmer.

And the prices of beef these days are through the roof, right? Try to buy ground beef. Ground beef is what, seven, eight, nine bucks a pound? That is incredible.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: Go up north.

M^me France Gélinas: Twelve bucks.

Mr. John Fraser: Oh, north—not like “North York,” just north. Okay. All right.

Mr. Guy Bourgouin: The real north.

Mr. John Fraser: Okay. The real north, right? Which isn’t Sudbury, from what I hear.

I am trying to fill up the 12 minutes here, because we do want to be here longer this evening, right?

Hon. Steve Clark: You’re just warming up for the late show.

Mr. John Fraser: I’m just warming up for the late show.

So here’s the thing. This bill is a good bill, but let’s take a look at what it does.

Prepared foods: I agree. That’s something we put forward in 2022: take the HST off prepared foods under a certain amount, not just in the grocery store but in other places. I can’t remember the amount of the meals, but it was under a certain amount, which would be something that would be commensurate with people who are struggling to pay their bills.

Now, right now, I can’t understand why the Conservatives sound like they’re not going to support this, because when they buy their gourmet meal at the grocery store Pusateri’s they won’t pay HST, right? That’s the only challenge. I figured you would support it because on your way to Pusateri’s, you would go, “I just saved myself 15 bucks on that $100 takeout meal.” So it is a bit shocking.

I think that’s something in the bill that you have to consider: What are we actually doing to help the people who need the help the most, not to make it easier for people who are already well off to pay less tax by virtue of the fact that they can buy something way more expensive? We’re trying to help people with their grocery bills.

I put forward a bill that I got from the NDP in Manitoba about predatory pricing. I was glad to see that we all agreed on that—except on this side—trying to protect consumers. Trying to protect consumers from being taken advantage of: I would have thought that the government could have at least supported that. It’s a private member’s bill. You can get it to second reading, and then the government can do something to say, “We do want to protect people.”

You know, Wab Kinew is an NDPer in Manitoba, but he’s Wab Kinew. So he does some things—he’s buddies with the Premier, right? They’re pretty tight. I thought it was something that you guys could do: Get it forward, everybody can agree on it, and we can protect people.

Here’s the thing: In his remarks, the member from Humber River–Black Creek did mention the consolidation of the grocery industry. There are about four or five stores, corporations, that run the show. That’s not good. That’s not good at all. When you couple that with the fact that those five companies can control the malls that they’re in, that’s not good either. That means no competition. That means no competition on price.

Now, we all remember it took about 10 years to figure out the bread price-fixing scam. All these companies got together and fixed the price of bread. They had to compensate people. It took 10 years for the Competition Bureau to get it done. It happens, guys. It’s not just bread.

If you look at what’s happening in the grocery business right now, they are not in a competitive phase; they’re in a profit-taking phase. It’s like, “I’ve got this part of the city. You’ve got that part of the city. We’re going to take our share, and we’re going to maximize our profits.” Post-pandemic, that’s the position that sort of came out of that, and you can see it.

I can see some prices becoming a little bit more competitive on the front page of the flyer, but when you walk through a grocery store and you see a difference on a grocery item that’s five bucks in one store and seven bucks in another store, you’ve got to know what’s going on, right? It used to be there would be a discrepancy of maybe 5% or 10%, but the gap is huge now. I know. I still like going to grocery stores. Remember, I loved working in grocery stores. I love the smell of grocery stores. But when I go through them now and I look at the prices, I go, “They’re not competing. They’re trying to take more money from the consumer.” And their profits are huge.

So we have to find some way of giving people a bit of a break, and I think what the member has put forward with the HST—I think it has to have more guardrails around it so we’re not rewarding people who don’t need to be rewarded. But that’s not going to fix the price of milk, bread or ground beef, right? It’s not going to. We all know it. We all go into a store. I look at buying ground beef and it’s nine bucks a pound, and I’m like, what? I understand there are some market forces that are driving that right now. This is really hurting people.

1830

And the fact that these big corporations can say, “I’m going here, and nobody can compete with me in this place that you’ve built,” or, if you want to put somebody in there, you’ve got to say “It’s okay for this store,” like the little chocolate store to go in or another store—they get approval on what goes in. That’s not competitiveness.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Capitalism.

Mr. John Fraser: Well, it’s more than capitalism. It is, “We have control. We got our share. We got our part. We got our cut of the pie, and we’re going to take as much as we can in that cut of the pie that we have.”

So when I when I look at the bill, the HST is a good measure for relief. Maybe people won’t see this as much: the anti-competitive nature of exclusivity when it comes to the renting of retail space. In groceries, it’s pretty acute. You can see that; it’s affecting people’s lives greatly. But it happens in other things too.

So I want to thank the member for bringing it forward. I will be supporting the bill, but I just want to reiterate and state that if we think these big corporations are interested in fairness and are interested in ensuring that there’s competition between them, we’re kidding ourselves.

They fixed the price of bread. We should never, ever, ever forget that. Compensating people for doing that—that’s fine. But we should never ever forget that because it’s not just bread, and it won’t only be bread. That’s the way that these organizations, these organisms, these corporations—that’s how they function.

So our job is to put some guardrails around them, and the measures in this bill—in particular, as I said, going against the exclusivity, things that are in retail contracts with developers, in malls, is a really important measure.

I want to thank you for your time.

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

Mr. Dave Smith: I appreciate this. I only have six minutes to talk about it, and there’s a lot to unpack about what’s been talked about today.

I’m going to start with my own personal thoughts on this. Private members’ bills, when I was first elected back in 2018, were an opportunity for each of us as members, non-cabinet ministers, to introduce something. But over the eight years that I’ve been here, I’ve seen it’s been twisted.

It’s now changed so that it’s about an attack. It’s about grabbing a clip for social media. It’s no longer about those things that those private members were trying to accomplish. I see it now with a lot of different PMBs, where it used to be that we talked about the merits of what the PMB was. It used to be that we talked about what the member was trying to accomplish, and it was done on all sides.

Now it’s not. It’s changed, and we heard that today. We’ve heard that from the Liberal member. We’ve heard that from both of the NDP members. And I’m disappointed when I stand to talk about this because I truly do like the member from Humber River–Black Creek.

Interjections.

Mr. Dave Smith: I do truly like him, so it pains me to say some of the things I’m going to say on this, because this bill is 100% about grabbing a social media clip. Here’s the reality: On basic groceries, there is no HST. There’s no HST on ground beef. There’s no HST on milk. There’s no HST on vegetables. There’s no HST on bread, and these are all examples that have been given today as things that we need to reduce the price on by cutting the HST. There is no HST on any of those.

The HST that’s put on what they’re referring to as “groceries”—let’s break that down. If I buy a bag of potato chips, yes, there is HST on it. If I buy a container of jujubes, yes, there is HST on it. If I buy a case of Coke, there is HST on it. If I buy a big jug of apple juice, there’s no HST. If I buy a big container of orange juice, there’s no HST on it.

What the member opposite is doing is playing upon the lack of knowledge of people to grab a social media clip, to get a headline that says they’re fighting for affordability. But the reality is this, Speaker: On basic groceries, there is no HST.

What this is doing is in complete contravention to what we have heard multiple times from different lobby groups. The Heart and Stroke Foundation has come in multiple times. The diabetes association has come in multiple times. They’ve had many lobby days, and I’ve heard NDP opposition members stand there and praise them for it when they talk about adding additional tax to sugary items.

The reality is, if we remove the HST from things like potato chips, jujubes and pop, we’re making the difference in price between things like fruit, vegetables and milk less, and we’re incentivizing people to make poor choices in their health.

This is what this is about. It’s really unfortunate because it’s not about doing what’s right for the people of Ontario; it’s about grabbing a headline. I’m so disappointed in the member opposite for it because I thought better of him.

I’m disappointed in the leader of the third party for bringing up examples that he brought up that there is no HST on. They’re playing on people’s lack of knowledge.

We all understand that when you walk into the grocery store, things have gotten more expensive. When you talk about beef being at $9 a pound for ground beef, effectively what the member is saying is, he doesn’t support the Beef Farmers of Ontario, who are going to be here tomorrow.

The reason that the cost of beef has gone up is because the cost of feed has gone up, because the cost of transportation has gone up. The gas, the fertilizer, all of those things—all of the input costs have gone up. What they’re saying when they say that we need to cut that price is, “We need to starve the farmer. We need to make it unaffordable for the farmer to actually make a living and feed this province.”

I will stand behind our farmers. I will stand behind organizations like the Heart and Stroke organization, like the diabetes association, who are trying to help make better decisions. I truly wish that we could reintroduce Daryl Kramp’s Bill 216 about food security education.

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

MPP Wayne Gates: I listened to my colleagues over there talk about results, talk about their disappointment. I’ll tell you what I’m disappointed about: Kids are going to food banks. Parents that are working 40 hours a week—their first stop isn’t to the bank; it’s to a food bank. That’s what I’m disappointed in.

You’ve been there for eight years, and what have you done about it? Absolutely nothing. But what you did two weeks, three weeks before the unnecessary election that you spent $200 million on that could have went to the homeless people, could have went to people for rent—you know what they did? They gave everybody $200 at a cost just before the election.

Yet in this budget, guess what they do? There’s nothing in the budget to make sure that we can afford our food and our groceries. Talk to the senior that’s coming to my office, tears in their eyes. They’re skipping meals because they can’t afford the food. Talk about the rents you put in. It was your fault that you guys did it—every one of you, because you voted for it. In 2019, you took off the rents on new builds. You know what the rents are in Niagara now? Some $2,500, $2,600, $2,800. It’s wrong, and it was caused by you, everybody over there who votes.

1840

Take a look at a bill like this. Is it going to fix affordability? No. But it’s going to help. It’s going to help one family. It might help two families. It might help four or five families. It’s going to help. And that’s what our job is. It’s to try to help to make sure that people can afford to put food, a basic human right—food for their kids, food for themselves, food for our seniors. So take a good look at yourselves. Look in the mirror. You have to support a bill like this. Is it going to fix everything?

So that’s what I’m disappointed in. I’m disappointed that people are living in encampments today. I’m disappointed that people can’t afford their rent. I’m disappointed that they can’t feed their kids. That’s what I’m disappointed in. And if you start supporting bills like this, maybe it will just help a bit, to help them out.

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

Mr. Stephen Blais: It’s a pleasure to rise tonight.

I heard my friend from across the way talk about input costs as being the reason why so many food products are so high. He might remember that he and his party voted against cutting the HST off of energy costs for farmers when we proposed to do that a few years ago. He might also remember when he and his party voted against providing farmers and all residents of Ontario a tax credit to put their kids into sports and extracurricular activities, as we proposed. He might remember that he and his party voted against a 50% cut to small business taxes that our caucus proposed. Farmers are, of course, often considered small businesses. So his government and he himself have had many, many opportunities to reduce the input costs for farmers, and each and every time one of those opportunities has been presented by Ontario Liberals and the opposition, that member has voted no to helping farmers save money.

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

M. Guy Bourgouin: Je voudrais remercier mon collègue de Humber River–Black Creek de présenter ce projet de loi.

Souvent, on oublie comment les gens du Nord sont impactés, mais je peux vous dire que le coût de la vie est beaucoup plus élevé. On a plus de transport à faire, fait que ça veut dire que tous nos aliments sont beaucoup plus chers que dans le Sud.

On ne devrait pas être pénalisé à cause de notre code postal, et très souvent, c’est le cas. Puis ça, c’est juste si on est sur la 11. Mais si tu vas dans le Grand Nord, imagine-toi les aliments qui viennent par avion, monsieur le Président. C’est extravagant. On paye des prix qu’on ne devrait pas payer.

Fait que, quand mon collègue propose un projet de loi qui va aider les familles, je pense qu’on devrait prendre sérieusement le temps de regarder ce qu’il propose.

Que ça a l’air d’un petit poulet qui est rôti—ça nourrit des familles. Mais ça, les taxes sont dessus, monsieur. Vous avez oublié ça tantôt quand vous en avez parlé. Vous avez parlé juste des cochonneries. Mais il y a du manger sur lequel les familles dépendent qui va nourrir des familles à bas prix, puis ça, ça va les aider.

Je veux remercier mon collègue d’avoir présenté un projet de loi de même qui va faire une vraie différence pour certaines familles. C’est certain que de côté—j’espère que le gouvernement va supporter ce projet de loi-là, parce qu’ils n’ont pas fait grand-chose jusqu’à cette heure.

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

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Life in Ontario has never been more expensive. We have a million people across the province using food banks.

One in four households in Ottawa is food insecure. And across my riding, families are constantly re-evaluating their grocery lists, having to cross things off because they can no longer afford the same level of groceries.

While families are facing this challenge, this government’s priorities have been buying a private luxury jet for the Premier and building him a runway to land it on in downtown Toronto. They tabled a budget that doesn’t even mention groceries, while families are struggling like this.

The Manitoba NDP and their Premier, Wab Kinew, have actually put forward a solution for people: removing tax on all grocery items. We can do that here in Ontario too. This bill, which was moved by my colleague from Humber River–Black Creek, would accomplish just that. It’s very clear that the member for Peterborough is not going to vote for it because he doesn’t want to see people have cheaper groceries in Ontario. But I would urge all government members—you don’t have to line up behind him. You can support affordability for your constituents and for all the people of Ontario and vote for this bill.

M^me France Gélinas: Le prix des aliments à l’épicerie a augmenté de façon exponentielle. Les gens n’en peuvent plus. Ils demandent un petit peu de répit.

Nous, comme législateurs, sommes dans une position où on peut les aider. Le projet de loi de mon collègue de Humber River–Black Creek fait ça. Deux petits pas dans la bonne direction pour aider les gens à payer la facture d’épicerie : c’est simple comme ça.

La première partie du projet de loi, c’est d’enlever la taxe de vente harmonisée sur les produits alimentaires. Oui, il y a beaucoup de produits où il n’y a pas de taxe, mais il y en a quand même beaucoup où il y a de la taxe. Ces produits-là, ce sont des produits que les gens utilisent qui font augmenter le coût de ton épicerie. On aurait la chance de faire diminuer la facture d’épicerie, et ça, c’est quelque chose que les gens veulent.

Le deuxième pas qu’on peut faire, encore, pour aider les gens, c’est d’augmenter la concurrence. Quand tu regardes et que les grosses chaînes—quand on parle de grosses chaînes alimentaires, on connaît tous Loblaws, Sobeys et Metro. Quand ce sont elles qui contrôlent les prix—on se souvient ce qu’elles ont fait avec le pain, le contrôle des prix à travers les grosses chaînes d’épicerie où en ce moment elles doivent donner des crédits à pas mal tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes parce que ce qu’elles ont fait, c’était mal. Bien, elles continuent de le faire.

On peut passer une loi aujourd’hui qui va changer tout ça, qui va s’assurer qu’elles n’auront plus le droit de fixer les prix, et pas seulement pour le pain; c’est pour toutes les denrées alimentaires. Elles le font en ce moment. On peut changer la loi pour qu’il y ait de la concurrence.

Je ne pourrais pas croire qu’une personne qui se dit conservatrice va voter en faveur d’augmenter la taxe et en faveur de diminuer la concurrence.

On vous demande d’augmenter la concurrence et de diminuer les taxes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): At this time, the member has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I want to thank my co-sponsors, the members from Toronto Centre and University–Rosedale, as well as the members from Niagara Falls, Mushkegowuk–James Bay, Ottawa West–Nepean, Nickel Belt, Ottawa South, Orléans, and even the members from the luxury jet party opposite, from Peterborough–Kawartha as well as Cambridge.

You know, after this debate, something has become patently clear to me. It seems that for some government members, the only thing they’ll ever read in this House is a piece of paper thrust into their hands from a staffer—certainly not the bills. Because if they had read the bill, they would understand that rotisserie chicken, something that everyone else in this House, except them, would think is junk food, is actually in the bill—a meal that a mother coming home from a long shift would buy on the way home to feed her family because she’s got little hours of daylight left. And certainly they won’t touch parts of this bill with a 10-foot pole. Because who would think that Conservatives would not believe anymore in competition?

But you know what? I’ve got good news. The members of the government have another day, a night to go home and fitfully toss in their beds before they come into this House tomorrow and vote against taking taxes away from all groceries—vote against introducing much-needed competition in the sale of groceries in the province.

They have a second chance to do the right thing. And I’m calling on every member of this government to stand up for the people of Ontario, the hard-working people struggling to pay their groceries, and to stop standing up for the billionaire supporters of theirs. Because you know what? There are a lot more Ontarians and a lot less billionaires.

Do the right thing. Come into this House tomorrow and support this bill. Make food affordability a reality in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): The time provided for private members’ public business has expired.

Mr. Rakocevic has moved second reading of Bill 113, An Act to address food affordability and price competitiveness. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until the next instance of deferred votes.

Second reading vote deferred.

1850

Adjournment Debate

Government jet

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ric Bresee): It’s time we move on to the late show. Pursuant to standing order 36, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

The member for Ottawa South has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Minister of Finance. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the minister or parliamentary assistant may reply for up to five minutes.

I recognize the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: I would like to say it’s a pleasure to speak about my dissatisfaction and that I was looking forward to another opportunity to talk about the Premier’s luxury private jet, but here we are. I’m dissatisfied because we haven’t been able to get a straight answer with regard to what the actual costs of the private jet were.

Now, we’ve heard that it’s about $200,000—or at least that’s what the government has admitted to—that we’re out from the sale and resale of the luxury private jet. But nobody is talking about any other contracts that we got into—because we didn’t buy a plane and not have pilots, right? I mean, it would be silly to buy a plane and not engage some pilots in advance of the plane being delivered. I didn’t see that cost there.

You have to contract for maintenance, right? And you have to have some place to store it, so you’ve got to contract to do that, and you have to pay those things out. You can’t sign a contract and then not honour it. We don’t know those costs. What we do know is essentially what’s $200,000 in brokerage, which seems a bit low for a $28-million purchase, so I don’t think we’re getting a straight answer. I think that’s fair to say.

But here’s the kicker with the Premier’s luxury private jet: that at a time when families can’t afford groceries and gas, their rent, kids’ clothes, the Premier is buying himself a luxury private jet, at a time when people can’t afford the basics, and that’s what’s got people so upset.

Now, the other kicker is, the Premier already had a private jet: the OPP jet. If you look at the Trillium reporting, the Premier has been flying on that jet or charter for more than a year. He’s been living the good life. He’s been using it, but what he said is, “This jet is not good enough for me. I want something more in keeping with my stature as Premier, more in keeping with my friends, my billionaire buddies. They all have nice jets—they don’t have some police plane—and I’d like to have it so that I can walk out of this jet and feel proud of it. I’m not worried about families. It doesn’t matter.”

That’s the problem, and that’s why people aren’t going to—like, the jet is not going away. I know, on other side—and I’ll probably get in response tonight, “The jet is done. We sold it. It’s gone.” It’s not gone; it’s there. It’s a symbol of a government and a Premier that have been around for eight years, tired, out of touch, and it’s a sign of a Premier who’s lost his way—because to actually spend that much money on indulging yourself while people can’t afford to live, that sticks in people’s brains.

I know that because when we talk about this, and even right now when we talk about this, people are looking down at their desk. They’re looking down at their phone. They don’t want to hear about it. They know it’s not going away. You can’t fix it. It’s cooked; stick a fork in it. The jet is with you forever.

Speaker, there’s not much that can be done to solve this problem. I’m still dissatisfied. The Premier still hasn’t answered the questions about how much did it really cost for the fantasy of having your own luxury private jet.

I look forward to the response from my colleague on the other side.

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

Mr. Dave Smith: The member opposite, I do have to give him some credit here. He recognizes that when we come to these late shows, there are not very many people in here. There’s very little chatter. So it gives him a clean cut on what he wants to put on social media about it, and I understand that.

I understand he’s trying to continue belabouring a point, talking about something that the province has already sold, the province has released the receipts on. He wants to continue talking about it; I get that. That’s part of his narrative on things. He does like the late shows like this because, as you can hear, I’m the only one speaking at the moment. There is no chatter coming back and forth, so he’s able to clip very clean conversation, very clean language when he talks about it.

He talked about being out of touch with affordability. Perhaps the member needs a little bit of a history lesson because when we introduced Bill 97, the budget bill, there was $12 billion in savings for people across Ontario. When we want to talk about affordability, and we want to talk about measures to make things more affordable for people, to cut costs, to reduce the expenses to people, he stood up and he’s played a very good game in talking about that. But when push came to shove, he voted against it, voted against $12 billion in savings in the budget.

We reduced the gas tax. We did it temporarily, and then we made it permanent. The interim leader of the third party actually said at one point that this was a relief measure, and then he voted against it. So he has these great talking points where he stands up and he says things—that he’s fighting for people’s affordability—and at every opportunity, he votes against it.

We have heard from the people of Ontario multiple times, consistently, about what they’re focused on, what their needs are. Consistently, what I hear: the cost of housing. So we reduced the cost of a new build by 13%, taking the HST off of it. That is real savings for people.

We’ve looked at transportation costs, and we’ve reduced those through things like One Fare that the member opposite doesn’t like to talk about, knowing that it’s a more than $1,000 savings for people in the GTA who would be commuting, who have that opportunity. We removed the tolls on the 412 and the 418 that the former Liberal Party put on. We removed those tolls to make it more affordable for people.

We’ve never raised a tax in the eight years that we’ve been in government. In fact, we’ve reduced taxes, and these are all measures that the member opposite has voted against. So I do find it very rich that he stands up and he talks about being out of touch, that we’re not listening to people, we’re not focused on affordability. Yet every affordability measure that we put forward, he chooses to say no to it.

We do have a plan to protect Ontario. One of the things that will protect the people of this province is finding more ways to have better-paying jobs, to attract industry into Ontario. We’ve seen more growth in Ontario in jobs than the entire United States combined. We’ve had more new jobs created in this province—in fact, just last month, 42,000. Canada saw a reduction as a country in the number of jobs, yet Ontario had an increase of 42,000.

That’s because we’ve taken the steps to make it affordable, not just for business, but also for individuals. We’ve taken the steps to attract those high-paying jobs to give people a better life, and we’ll continue focusing on ways that we can reduce expenses and increase good-paying available jobs.

1900

Government accountability

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Next, the member for Ottawa South has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Minister of Transportation. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and a minister or parliamentary assistant may reply for up to five minutes.

I recognize the member from Ottawa South.

Mr. John Fraser: Just like Steve Earle, I ain’t ever satisfied.

I do want to thank the members for being here for the late show—and everybody at the table and you, Speaker. I know it’s a bit late in the evening, and it’s not always fun to listen to some of us, myself included, drone on, but I’m going to anyway.

We’re going to move from airplanes and jets to something called air rights. Air rights are what you can do to build over something. In order to build over something, you either have to be able to anchor it below you or beside you. That’s what we’re talking about tonight.

There are these air rights that were purchased by a close personal friend of the Premier—also the chair of the LCBO, also an appointee to Invest Ontario, also the chair of Ontario Place, also a VP of the of the Ontario PC fund, and also a fundraiser for the Premier. He purchased these things called air rights. He purchased these air rights—he didn’t actually purchase them; I got that wrong. He set up a deal to purchase those air rights, held onto them and failed to close that deal twice.

This is an important point to remember: On both sides of that air, he doesn’t own the land. You can’t build on air; you can’t suspend something in space.

Anyway, he buys it in November of 2018. How did he know to buy this land that Metrolinx would want to expropriate? That’s a question. Who told him? Did he figure it out? How did he figure he could buy something and not have the land beside it and build on it? That’s probably why he didn’t close the deal twice.

Then Metrolinx expropriates. Mr. Carmine Nigro and his company take the government and Metrolinx to court, and they sue for $500 million for loss of income for air that he never actually owned and couldn’t build on. They negotiated and, last year, gave Mr. Nigro’s company a settlement. He was offered $75 million for this air that he didn’t own and he couldn’t build on, and he said no. You’ve got to think, when they settled, they gave him more money than $75 million, because it’s bad business if you settle for less than what somebody offered you, right? There’s a reason he’s a billionaire, and there’s a reason he can sue people for $500 million.

But the government didn’t tell us, and they won’t tell us. They won’t tell us how much money they gave Mr. Nigro’s company for air that they didn’t own, that they never paid for, that they can’t build on—go figure. I think most Ontarians are going, “What? What? What are you talking about? You can’t build on just air.” Anyway, all that money has apparently vanished into thin air.

So just to recap: A close personal friend of the Premier, at the family table at the wedding, the Premier’s appointed chair of the LCBO, appointed chair of Ontario Place, appointed to Invest Ontario, also got an MZO in the Kawarthas as well, sues the government for $500 million, gets an undisclosed settlement—the government won’t tell us—for air that he didn’t actually own because he never closed a deal—twice—and that he can’t actually build on. Is it any wonder the government doesn’t want to tell us how much money they gave him? If they gave him a nickel, that’s bad business. It’s frustrating—if somebody wants to defend this, if someone wants to say over there, “This is why we’re doing it, because, you know, he deserved that, those tens of millions of dollars that we gave him for that air that he could do absolutely nothing with—except maybe breathe.”

With this government, it’s okay for tens of millions of dollars to vanish into thin air next to one of their friends, while people can’t afford groceries, gas—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): I recognize the member from Hastings–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Ric Bresee: Speaker, I’m very pleased to rise today to speak about this important issue, but I want to bring the discussion back to what the people at home actually care about.

They care about whether their train comes more often. They care about whether their commute gets shorter. They care about whether the roads and the transit systems that previous governments talked about for decades, that member’s government talked about for decades, but never delivered on—they care about whether that is finally built.

That is exactly what this government is doing. Across Ontario, our government is building the transportation infrastructure our growing province needs, and it’s a long list. We are building highways. We are building transit. We are expanding GO service. We’re advancing electrification. We’re restoring passenger rail to northeastern Ontario. And we’re making the long-term decisions needed to keep people, goods and our economy moving.

Speaker, the opposition—that member—had years to build transit, and they failed. Now that we’re getting it done, their only plan is to attack the people actually building it. So we will take no lessons from parties that delayed, cancelled and voted against the very infrastructure that they now pretend to support. The opposition can keep imagining conspiracies all day long. Ontarians can judge this government on its record of getting shovels in the ground and planning for the future.

It’s my honour to speak to that record. Under Premier Ford, Ontario is investing nearly $70 billion in public transit, including the largest subway expansion ever in Canadian history. We opened the Finch West LRT, bringing fast, reliable and affordable transit to Toronto’s northwest and putting hundreds of thousands more people within walking distance of rapid transit. We opened the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, which is now moving more than 123,000 riders each weekday, cutting travel times from Kennedy to Mount Dennis by nearly an hour.

We’re also building for the future. Tunnelling is under way on the Ontario Line, and construction is advancing across the full length of the line. Once complete, it will help cut travel times for commuters across Toronto by 40 minutes.

We broke ground on GO Transit’s Bowmanville extension, which will transform travel across the Durham region and bring fast and reliable GO train service to residents from Oshawa to Bowmanville.

We’re delivering on the Hamilton LRT, a 14-kilometre line that will support 50,000 daily riders and connect people to thousands of jobs.

We’re also extending the GO train service to Stratford this July, connecting more people to jobs, education, and one of Ontario’s most important and wonderful tourist destinations.

While we’re doing that, we’re investing nearly $380 million through the gas tax program to support public transit in 107 municipalities all across Ontario.

And after 14 years, we’re bringing back the Northlander, the passenger rail service, restoring a vital 740-kilometre connection between Timmins and Toronto. That member was a part of the government that killed it. We’re improving access to jobs, schools, medical appointments and opportunity for the people across northeastern Ontario.

Speaker, that is what building looks like: fighting gridlock, keeping workers on the job and delivering the largest transit expansion in North America.

But it doesn’t just stop with transit. We’re investing more than $31 billion to build, repair and expand highways, roads and bridges all across the province, because no serious transportation plan can ignore the millions of people who drive for work every day.

1910

We’ve started major construction on the Bradford Bypass, a new four-lane highway that will connect the 400 and the 404, cut travel times by up to 35 minutes and support 2,200 jobs each year during construction. We’re advancing the 413, a critical new corridor that will connect Halton, Peel and York, cutting travel times by 30 minutes. There’s more, but my time is running out.

Speaker, this is our record: transit lines opening, subways under construction, roads and bridges being built and repaired, passenger rail returning to the north. And every step of the way, we’re focused on the same goal: cutting gridlock and improving lives for people in Ontario.

Transportation infrastructure

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Finally, the member for Orléans has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Minister of Transportation. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and a minister or parliamentary assistant may reply for up to five minutes.

The member for Orléans.

Mr. Stephen Blais: Madam Speaker, what Ottawa residents are seeing right now is a tale of two cities. If you live in Toronto, the government finds billions of dollars for subways; if you live in the GTA, the government brings in One Fare and saves commuters up to $1,600 a year in fare relief; but if you live in Ottawa, you pay more, you wait longer and you get less. This is the reality after eight years of Conservative rule.

Ottawa taxpayers help fund transit relief in the GTA through their income tax and through their sales tax, and this lowers fares for GTA commuters, but in Ottawa, OC Transpo fares have increased by 13% in just the last four years. An Ottawa commuter buying a monthly bus pass over that period has paid roughly $450 more for worse service: more delays, more route cuts, more overcrowding, more frustration. Despite all of that, Madam Speaker, the Premier and his buddy the mayor continue to pressure the public service to return full-time to work downtown, as if everything is functioning normally. News flash: It’s not.

Anyone who lives in Orléans, Cumberland or Rockland knows exactly what the morning commute looks like today. Highway 174 is backed up for kilometres, OC Transpo remains unreliable, the LRT continues to experience disruptions and shutdowns, and thousands of workers are expected to somehow absorb longer commutes on a transit system that no one continues to trust, or riding in their car on a highway that continues to take lives each and every year.

This government cannot demand more from commuters and demand more commuters downtown while refusing to invest in the infrastructure required to move them there reliably and safely. That’s what you call negligence, and nowhere is that neglect more obvious than on Highways 174 and 17. Residents in Ottawa’s east end have a name for it: the “highway of death,” the two-lane, undivided portion of Highway 174 that connects Orléans and Rockland through Cumberland. People have been seriously injured. People have lost their lives. This happens each and every year. Families have been changed forever.

Ontario Liberals funded an environmental assessment and initial design for a safer Highway 174, a divided highway with transit and HOV lanes connecting Rockland through Cumberland to stage 2 LRT at Trim Road. Yet two years after promising to upload Highway 174—that’s 789 days—there has been no upload, there has been no progress and nothing to show for the Premier’s promise. The money spent on that environmental assessment will soon be wasted, as it expires after 10 years of inaction. There have been no shovels. There’s no construction. There are no new lanes. There is no new timeline. There is nothing.

Madam Speaker, the government wants the economic benefits of a fully functioning capital city. It wants the office towers downtown to be full. It wants workers back in the core. It wants economic activity restored. It sounds good. But it doesn’t want to make the investments necessary to support any of it.

Toronto gets billions for subway expansion and the GTA gets billions for highways; Ottawa gets gridlock. Toronto gets fare integration and commuter savings; Ottawa gets fare hikes. Toronto gets provincial urgency; Ottawa gets excuses. That’s what’s frustrating the people of Ottawa the most.

Ottawa residents are not asking for special treatment. They’re asking for equal treatment. They’re asking for safe roads, reliable transit, fair investment. Ottawa residents deserve better. Ottawa residents deserve their fair share.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): I recognize the member from Hastings–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Ric Bresee: As I was just speaking about in my previous late show statement, no other government has put commuters first like this government under the leadership of Premier Ford. When it comes to the city of Ottawa, our government has stepped up with real support for the city, for Ottawa transit riders and for drivers all across the region.

Again, let’s talk about the record. In 2025-26 alone, our government provided more than $33 million in gas tax funding to the city of Ottawa to support public transit. That is funding that Ottawa can use to improve service and make transit more accessible for the people who rely on it every day.

Speaking of stage 2 LRT, we invested $4.6 billion in Ottawa’s stage 2 LRT, adding more than 40 kilometres of track, 24 new stations, bringing rail transit closer to communities in the east, in the west and the south ends of the city. Once complete, that stage 2 will put 77% of Ottawa residents within five kilometres of rail transit. Speaker, that’s a serious investment in Ottawa’s transit future.

We know that Ottawa faces unique pressures as Canada’s capital. It’s also eastern Ontario’s economic hub. It’s also a large city, with a very large suburban and rural footprint. That’s why our government reached the new deal with Ottawa. Through that agreement, Ontario is providing up to $543 million in operating and capital supports, specifically tailored to Ottawa’s needs. That includes up to $197 million over three years in operating support and $346 million over 10 years in capital support.

Yes, Speaker, that agreement includes Ottawa Road 174. It includes a phased plan to guide the upload of Ottawa Road 174 to the province. It includes provincial support for the repairs and upgrades to major connecting routes. It includes work to design and build the new interchange at the 416 and Barnsdale Road. While that detailed work is under way, our province is providing up to $9 million to support the current Ottawa road 174 operating costs.

So when the member says there’s nothing to show, he’s clearly ignoring the facts. He’s ignoring the funding, he’s ignoring the agreement and he’s ignoring the work under way between the province and the city. It makes me think he’s reflecting back on the previous Liberal government’s time, because they ignored all the roads and transit.

Speaker, road safety is serious, congestion is serious, and no one in this House should pretend otherwise. But the answer is not the political theatre of the late show. The answer is building. The answer is investing. The answer is working with our municipal partners to deliver the roads, bridges and transit systems that people actually use.

That’s what our government is doing in the City of Ottawa. That’s what we’re doing across the entire province. We’re investing nearly $70 billion in public transit, including the largest subway expansion in Canadian history, and investing more than $31 billion to build, repair and expand highways, roads and bridges all over the province. We’re expanding GO service. We’re restoring passenger rail to northeastern Ontario. We’re widening highways, repairing bridges, supporting municipal roads and building the infrastructure that people need to get where they need to go.

Speaker, the people of Ottawa do not need more lectures from the opposition. They need transit that works, they need safer roads and they need relief from gridlock. They need a government that’s willing to work with the city and actually get projects done. And that is exactly what Premier Ford, our government and the Minister of Transportation are doing and will continue to do. We will continue working with the city of Ottawa to support commuters, strengthen the local economy, improve safety and keep people moving across the region.

I truly hope the member from Orléans will come along with that and start to support this government in all of its efforts supporting the city of Ottawa.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): There being no further matters to debate, pursuant to standing order 36(c), I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried.

The House stands adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1921.