## Summary - Bill 27 (Resource Management and Safety Act, 2025) updates Ontario laws on wildfires, geologic carbon storage (storing CO2 underground), hazardous oil and gas works, and surveying. - Its goals are to modernize wildfire response, enable safe carbon storage to cut emissions, reduce risks from problem wells, and streamline surveying rules. - Key changes: - Renames and updates the Forest Fires Prevention Act as the Wildland Fire Management Act with stronger powers, new permits, and higher penalties. - Requires municipalities in fire regions to have yearly wildland fire management plans. - Creates the Geologic Carbon Storage Act, 2025, setting rules for testing, building, running, and closing CO2 storage sites, including permits, safety, monitoring, and enforcement. - Clarifies who owns underground “pore space” (the tiny voids that can store CO2) and allows the province to take and manage some pore space rights with set compensation rules. - Sets up a Carbon Storage Stewardship Fund paid into by project operators to cover long‑term costs after a site closes. - Lets the Minister act to fix hazards at oil and gas works and recover costs. - Updates the Surveyors Act to add limited and temporary licences, move requirements into by‑laws, and allow electronic service. ## What it means for you - Residents and campers - During fire season, you may need a fire permit even outside a restricted fire zone. The Minister can extend fire season dates or declare restricted fire zones by order. - Officers can order you to put out a fire and may close areas for fire investigations. - If asked in a wildland area, you must share basic trip details (name, contact, routes, overnight spots) for safety. - Fines for breaking wildfire rules can be high, and officers have more powers to inspect, stop vehicles or boats, and enforce orders. - Homeowners and landowners - Underground pore space is tied to surface ownership unless already reserved. In some mixed Crown/private areas, the province can take pore space rights for carbon storage and vest them in the Crown; compensation will be set by regulation. - The Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) can let approved project holders enter land (with limits and compensation) to monitor or reduce hazards tied to a carbon storage site. - In wildfire emergencies, officers may use private equipment and summon able adults (with set pay rates) to help put out fires. - Municipalities (in fire regions) - Must create, review yearly, and provide on request a wildland fire management plan that meets provincial standards. The Minister can order updates if a plan falls short. - May be asked to endorse carbon storage projects in your area before permits are issued. - Workers and businesses (emitters, energy, construction) - Carbon storage projects need permits and licences, must meet safety, monitoring, financial assurance, and insurance rules, and may need Ontario Energy Board input if near gas storage areas. - The OLT can issue “unitization” orders to join pore space rights across many owners if a majority agree and non‑consenting owners are fairly compensated. - After proper closure and monitoring, the Crown can assume long‑term obligations for a storage site; operators pay into a Stewardship Fund to cover future costs. - Oil, gas, and well operators - The Minister can order actions to fix hazards at works if operators fail to comply or are insolvent; costs can be recovered from the operator or their posted security. - Surveyors and surveying firms - New limited and temporary licences are available. Entry, academic, and experience requirements will be set in by‑laws. - Some member confirmations are removed; appeals routes are updated; documents can be served by email or fax. - Insurance and reinstatement rules are clarified and may be set by by‑laws. - Timing - Most wildfire changes start January 1, 2026 (some parts later by order). The Geologic Carbon Storage Act starts on a day named by the government. ## Expenses **No publicly available information.** ## Proponents' View - Modern wildfire tools will help keep people and communities safer, with clearer powers to prevent, control, and investigate fires. - Requiring municipal fire plans should improve local preparedness and reduce risks and costs from severe fire seasons. - Carbon storage gives industry a practical way to cut emissions while keeping strong rules on safety, monitoring, and site closure. - Clear pore space rules and unitization help projects proceed while compensating owners and involving independent tribunals and boards. - The Stewardship Fund and Crown assumption of post‑closure duties provide long‑term oversight and financial backstops. - Surveying updates add licensing flexibility and modernize administration (e.g., electronic notices), supporting faster infrastructure and housing delivery. ## Opponents' View - Allowing the province to take pore space rights by regulation, with compensation set later, may be seen as unfair to property owners. - Shifting long‑term storage liabilities to the Crown after closure could expose taxpayers to environmental and financial risks if problems arise. - Expanded wildfire enforcement powers (entry, stops, orders, administrative penalties) may raise privacy and civil‑liberty concerns. - New municipal planning duties could strain local budgets and staff, especially in smaller communities. - Carbon storage safety remains debated (leak risks, induced impacts), and project siting near farms, water sources, or gas storage areas could face local opposition. - Surveyors’ governance changes reduce member voting on some rules, and removing the Fees Mediation Committee may limit recourse on billing disputes.
Votes • Sam Oosterhoff
Division 205746991 · Result unavailable · December 2, 2025
## Summary - Bill 25 updates Ontario’s emergency laws and gives the province clearer tools to prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies. It also lets the Minister of Community and Social Services issue binding directions to certain publicly funded social service providers during extraordinary situations. - The bill’s main goals are to clarify who is in charge, improve coordination across governments and sectors, and make emergency plans more consistent and transparent. - Key changes: - Sets a clear purpose for emergency management and defines “emergency management” in law; renames “emergency plans” to “emergency management plans.” - Puts the Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Response in charge of provincial coordination, with a public, regularly updated strategy and annual reports. - Keeps and strengthens the Commissioner of Emergency Management, creates a provincial emergency management organization, and formalizes a cabinet advisory committee. - Creates “Ontario Corps,” a coordinated pool of people, services, equipment, and facilities the Commissioner can deploy to support emergencies. - Requires a provincial planning framework that all emergency management plans must follow, covering coordination, continuity of government, and who does what during emergencies (including nuclear and radiological). - Tightens municipal emergency rules: consult the plan before declaring, give regular public updates, report to council every 30 days, and send a report to the Minister after it ends. - Lets the Minister require changes to municipal and provincial plans and issue public guidelines. Plans must be filed with the Minister. - Allows the Province to require operators of critical infrastructure (like power, water, transportation, communications) to have programs and plans. - Lets a municipality or the Crown recover costs from a person who caused an emergency. - Authorizes binding directives to certain funded community and social services during extraordinary matters, with compliance orders, possible funding cuts, and fines for knowingly ignoring an order. ## What it means for you - Residents - During a declared local emergency, you should get regular public updates until it ends. - The province aims for faster, better-coordinated response, which can mean quicker support and clearer communication. - If someone causes an emergency (for example, a spill), the municipality or Province can try to recover its costs from them. - Municipalities - Must adopt an emergency management program and plan by by-law, following provincial rules and the new provincial planning framework. Neighboring municipalities can choose joint programs or plans if allowed by regulation. - Must consult the plan before declaring an emergency and report publicly during the emergency and to council every 30 days. A written report to the Minister is required after the emergency ends. - Must file plans with the Minister and make changes if directed. You can still request provincial help without declaring an emergency. - Provincial ministries and designated government entities - Must keep emergency management programs and plans that match the provincial planning framework and meet new requirements set in regulation. - At least one ministry or designated entity must be assigned nuclear and radiological emergency planning. - Must provide information and updates to the Commissioner if requested. - Critical infrastructure operators - If prescribed by regulation, you will need an emergency management program and/or plan, meet set content and training requirements, and align plans with the provincial planning framework. - Community and social service providers funded by the Province - If prescribed by regulation, you may receive binding directives from the Minister in extraordinary situations about how services should be provided. - If you do not comply with a compliance order, your funding may be reduced or ended, and knowingly ignoring an order can result in fines. - Directives and summaries of compliance orders will be made public. - Indigenous communities and other partners - Named as partners in coordination. The bill does not add specific new duties, but aims to improve inclusion in planning and response. ## Expenses - No publicly available information. ## Proponents' View - Clarifies who is in charge and improves coordination across municipalities, ministries, Indigenous communities, and private operators. - Sets a consistent provincial planning framework so plans work together and roles are clear, including for nuclear and radiological events. - Increases transparency: public strategy and reports, public guidelines, regular public updates during municipal emergencies, and post-emergency reporting. - Builds a ready pool of people and resources (“Ontario Corps”) to support faster, more organized responses. - Protects critical infrastructure by requiring plans and training where needed. - Keeps essential community and social services running in extraordinary situations through enforceable directives. - Helps taxpayers by allowing recovery of costs from those who cause emergencies. ## Opponents' View - Centralizes power with the Minister and Cabinet, which could reduce local flexibility and agency autonomy, especially for community and social services. - “Extraordinary matters” and which entities are “prescribed” will be set by regulation, which some say is too broad or vague until details are published. - The provincial strategy and planning framework are not regulations, so they may face less formal legislative scrutiny. - New filing, planning, and training rules could add administrative workload and costs for municipalities, ministries, and infrastructure operators. - Making plans or summaries public may raise security or privacy concerns if sensitive details are exposed (even with exclusions). - Funding cuts and fines for social service providers that fail to comply could disrupt services or punish organizations acting in good faith during complex events.
Votes • Sam Oosterhoff
Division 479199170 · Result unavailable · December 2, 2025
## Summary Bill 70 changes two Ontario laws to improve transportation and add affordable housing on some public lands. It directs Metrolinx to help link city bike-share systems with transit, requires a share of affordable homes on housing built on Metrolinx land sales, and sets stricter rules for winter road care and upgrades on key northern highways. - Metrolinx must promote and help integrate routes, fares, and schedules of municipal bike-share systems with the regional transit network. - When Metrolinx sells land for housing, at least 20% of the homes built must meet Ontario’s definition of “affordable residential units.” - Sets clear standards for Highways 11, 17, and 69: bare pavement within 4 hours after snow stops; ice cleared within 3 hours of awareness; large potholes fixed within 4 days of awareness. - The Minister must publish a plan within 12 months to convert these highways to a “2+1” design (three lanes with a center passing lane that switches direction every 2–5 km), start construction within 1 year of the plan, and finish within 5 years. - Requires an annual public report on progress, costs, delays, and procurement (contract) details. ## What it means for you - Transit riders and cyclists - Bike-share and transit could be easier to use together, with better aligned routes, schedules, and possibly simpler fares or passes. - First-and-last-mile trips (the short trip to or from a station) may become smoother. - People looking for housing near transit - On housing projects built on land that Metrolinx sells for that purpose, at least 20% of units must be “affordable” under the province’s definition. This could create more lower-cost homes near transit. - Drivers and communities along Highways 11, 17, and 69 - Faster snow and ice clearing and quicker fixes for big potholes aim to make winter driving safer and more reliable. - A 2+1 highway design should add regular safe passing lanes, which can ease congestion and reduce risky passing. - Expect road work over several years once the plan starts, which could mean temporary delays and detours. - Local governments along the routes - The province must consult local communities when designing the 2+1 plan, so municipalities and residents can give input on safety, access, and timing. - Road workers and construction companies - New, time-bound projects and stricter maintenance standards could mean more contract opportunities and more precise performance requirements. ## Expenses No publicly available information. - Stricter winter maintenance standards and faster pothole repairs would likely increase provincial operating costs for Highways 11, 17, and 69 (e.g., more crews, equipment, materials). - Converting long stretches to a 2+1 design would require multi-year capital spending on planning, design, construction, and safety features. - Annual public reporting and consultations add small administrative costs. - Requiring at least 20% affordable units on housing built on Metrolinx land sales could affect sale proceeds or project financing, depending on each site and market conditions. ## Proponents' View - Safety and reliability: Faster snow and ice clearing and structured passing lanes reduce collisions and winter closures, especially on major northern routes. - Better connections: Linking bike-share with transit makes it easier to leave the car at home for short trips to stations. - More affordable homes near transit: Reserving 20% of units on these public land projects supports mixed-income communities and helps people live closer to work and school. - Clear timelines and accountability: A public plan, firm deadlines, and annual progress reports make the highway upgrades more transparent. - Efficient passing without full twinning: A 2+1 design can deliver safety gains at lower cost than building full four-lane highways. ## Opponents' View - Cost and deliverability: Meeting strict winter standards in heavy storms may be expensive and difficult, especially over long rural distances. - Tight timelines: Starting within a year and finishing in five may be unrealistic, leading to rushed work, higher costs, or fewer bidders. - Construction disruptions: Multi-year upgrades could bring frequent lane closures and delays for residents and freight. - Housing trade-offs: A 20% affordability requirement on Metrolinx land sales may complicate financing, reduce sale proceeds, or limit overall housing built on those sites. - Limited reach of bike-share: Outside larger cities, few areas have bike-share systems, so benefits may be uneven and coordination could be complex.
Votes • Sam Oosterhoff
Division 1716309670 · Result unavailable · December 3, 2025
No other votes are available.