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

November 26, 2025

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 2025-Nov-26 vol. A (PDF)

L042A - Wed 26 Nov 2025 / Mer 26 nov 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 26 November 2025 Mercredi 26 novembre 2025

Orders of the Day

Buy Ontario Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à encourager à acheter ontarien

House sittings

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Members’ Statements

Mara Technologies

Services for persons with developmental disabilities

Kids’ online safety and privacy month

Government investments

Tenant protection

Scottish Heritage Day

Women’s services

Tragedy in Brampton West

Senior citizens

Police record checks

House sittings

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Child care

Government accountability

Agriculture industry

Employment

Government accountability

Agriculture and food processing industries

Red tape reduction

Cost of living

Services for persons with developmental disabilities

Member’s birthday

Notices of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Remembrance Day Observance Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur l’observation du jour du Souvenir

Introduction of Visitors

Introduction of Bills

Chad’s Law (Enforcing Safer Passing), 2025 / Loi Chad de 2025 (pour des dépassements plus sécuritaires)

Gender Affirming Health Care Advisory Committee Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur le Comité consultatif des soins de santé axés sur l’affirmation de genre

Petitions

Long-term care

Social assistance

Municipal restructuring

Consumer protection

Homelessness

University funding

Consumer protection

Endangered species

Government accountability

Social assistance

Tuition

Orders of the Day

Barrie — Oro-Medonte — Springwater Boundary Adjustment Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la modification des limites territoriales entre Barrie, Oro-Medonte et Springwater

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Buy Ontario Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à encourager à acheter ontarien

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 25, 2025, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 72,

An Act to enact the Buy Ontario Act (Public Sector Procurement), 2025, to repeal the Building Ontario Businesses Initiative Act, 2022, to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the installation of certain signs and to amend

section 10.1 of the Legislation Act, 2006 with respect to certain provisions of the Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 / Projet de loi 72, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 2025 visant à encourager à acheter ontarien (approvisionnement du secteur public), à abroger la Loi de 2022 sur l’initiative favorisant l’essor des entreprises ontariennes, à modifier le Code de la route à l’égard de certains panneaux et à modifier l’article 10.1 de la Loi de 2006 sur la législation en ce qui concerne certaines dispositions de la Loi de 2015 sur la protection des propriétaires de condominiums.

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

Ms. Jessica Bell: I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor West today.

We are starting with second reading of the bill Buy Ontario Act, 2025. What took you so long? The trade war has been going along for how long now? Since November—and only now are we starting to see the government move ahead with legislation that strengthens Ontario’s procurement priorities to prioritize Ontario businesses and Canadian businesses. But if you think I’m going to spend the next hour praising the government, you’re sorely mistaken, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

I want to start off by just summarizing the bill, then I’m going to talk a little bit about the previous government’s approach. I’m not going talk about

schedule 2, but I am going to talk a bit about

schedule 3, which is the changes—or more accurately, the inaction on improving condo governance in Ontario, which is really important.

Let’s start with

schedule 1 of the bill.

Schedule 1 is focusing on changing the government’s approach to procurement. This is really important. It is important because the Ontario government spends upwards of $30 billion a year on buying services, products and investing in infrastructure like constructing transit, hospitals and schools, and it’s our belief here that as much as possible, given that we’re in a trade war and our goal is to come out of this trade war more resilient and sustainable, that Ontario companies and Canadian companies are prioritized when they provide competitive bids to provide these services, products and infrastructure investments.

When I look at the act, this is what I see: I see that the government is looking at giving the cabinet the power to “issue directives requiring public sector entities to comply with ... procurement policies....”

You’re looking at mandating the prioritization of first Ontario and then Canadian goods and services for all public sector organizations.

The government is expanding the scope on who needs to abide by public sector procurement. In the government’s previous bill, the BOBIA act, municipalities were exempt. In this bill, the government is giving themselves the power to essentially write regulation that would include the broader public service. That would include hospitals, universities, as well as municipalities. If the government actually moves ahead with doing this, that is a closure of a loophole that we were concerned about.

The government is also looking at strengthening the enforcement and compliance components of their procurement policies. In BOBIA, it was essentially—there was very little compliance, or very little enforcement, so it was basically companies self-reporting. On this side of the House, we didn’t think that that was a very effective enforcement mechanism. It seems like the government could potentially be agreeing with this, because they are, including in this bill, looking at giving themselves the power to strengthen compliance and enforcement measures: “establish reporting requirements”—good—and “procedures”—good.

They’re also looking at bringing in penalties and consequences, including withholding funds for non-compliance, fines and barring from future procurement.

If the government goes actually goes ahead with changing the rules—because at this point, all you’re doing is giving the power to change the rules. If you go ahead with that, then we see that as a positive step.

Looking at the legislation, we also see that the procurement policies could also apply to third-party supply chain managers. As well, companies that get contracts, P3s, would also be required to abide by the buy-Ontario procurement policy.

That’s our read of it. I would love to get some clarity. I believe that we’ve got a meeting with the ministry today at 3. These bills are getting rushed through incredibly quickly in the Legislature. It’s difficult to get all the information that you need to deliberate properly, but from our initial read, that is what we see this bill as doing.

I do want to be clear, though, and I’m going to say this again: What

schedule 1 essentially does at this point is it gives the cabinet the power to write regulations to move ahead with these strengthened procurement rules. Will the government do it? I don’t know. I’ve seen legislation pass through this House many times, and the government has done tons of press releases and press conferences on it, and then the rules aren’t written or they’re written but they’re not enacted and they’re not put into force. So we’re going to wait and see if the government is all bark when it comes to buy Ontario or if they are looking at getting serious about this. So we’ll wait and see about that.

We have been pushing for a strong buy-Ontario, buy-Canada policy since shortly after the trade war began, and we actually introduced this as a motion fairly recently. I believe we did this about a month ago. The reason why we did this is because we looked at what other provinces were doing—Manitoba, Quebec—and we thought to ourselves, if they can do it, why can’t we? So we’ve been pushing for this for some time.

The reason why we were pushing for a stronger buy Ontario, buy Canada policy is because when we look at what the government has been doing over the last seven years, including in the last eight months, we have consistently seen this government choose to give very large contracts to foreign companies when there are companies—Ontario companies, Canadian companies—who are putting forward competitive bids, who are qualified to do the job and who are being passed over.

And when that happens, it means that we lose the opportunity to make our sector, our industry more resilient, give them contracts, create more job opportunities, make Ontario more prosperous and keep government taxpayer dollars here in Ontario. It all makes a lot of sense.

I want to give you some examples of what we have seen over the last—gosh—long time. We have the example of the Ontario Line subway cars. Remember that? They are being produced in the United States after the Conservative government reduced Canadian content requirements for transit projects from 25% to 10%. It could have gone to a Canadian company. We could have given more contracts to Thunder Bay. It only took a lot of pressure for this government to eventually turn around and say, “Hey, this is a good idea.”

We’ve got the situation in June 2025—so this is well after the trade war had begun—when we learned that the Garden City Skyway contracts were awarded to a consortium of foreign-owned companies.

We have got July 2025—and this is when this issue really became front and centre. In July 2025, we were contacted by an industry association who told us that a $140-million contract was being awarded to a US-owned firm to build the facade of a Mississauga hospital. What was so frustrating to this industry association is that they knew there were companies that were qualified to do that work who had put in a competitive bid who had been passed over. I thought, “How could this be happening in July 2025 when we have a trade war? How could this be happening?” It didn’t make sense. This is government money to build a public hospital.

Then we’ve also got the example—this is July 2025, so well into the trade war here. We’ve got an example of the Conservative government eliminating jobs within the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, the WSIB, and handing that contract over to Iron Mountain, a private company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts—July 2025.

I’ve heard the minister opposite, and I’ve also heard the Premier talk about how they are showing leadership on this, that they’ve acted decisively, that they’re moving quicker than other provinces. Well, these examples tell us very clearly you have not. This government has not moved quickly. They’ve not moved quickly.

Then we’ve got October 2025, so just last month: Korean-made steel is being used in the E.C. Row Expressway and Banwell Road overpass project in Windsor while steel jobs are leaving the province. You’d think we’d be doing everything we can to leverage government dollars to buy forestry products, steel, aluminum, everything we can, given the situation that we’re in and the fact that over 700,000 people in Ontario are unemployed right now and looking for work—and we’re seeing job losses most significantly within the manufacturing sector, the construction sector, the forest industry sector. It’s very concerning.

So it’s good you’re moving forward, hopefully, with doing the right thing on this procurement policy.

I want to talk about some of the loopholes that we have identified in the government’s current procurement policy, with the hope that you are going to close them or look at them moving forward with this new policy that, hopefully, you’ll be writing. One is that municipalities previously weren’t covered. We see in this law that you’re looking at covering them. Let’s make sure that you do it.

We also see that US firms with 250 or more Canadian employees can apply for contracts. It would be good to know the consequences of this.

We see that companies with existing supply contracts are exempt from these new rules, meaning that if a US-controlled company already has an agreement in place to provide goods and services, it can continue doing so. I’ll be very curious to see if that loophole is closed in the regulation, which any day now could be forthcoming.

Then the issue around the enforcement piece: Another reason why this is so important is that many stakeholders have been calling for this for some time. We’ve had the Ontario Federation of Agriculture explicitly ask for clear procurement guidelines for Ontario to purchase Ontario-grown food. It makes a lot of sense for our hospitals, our schools, correctional facilities to be prioritizing fruit, vegetables, meat, processed products from Ontario farmers. I’ve seen this government give lip service to the wine industry on this issue.

But when the OFA has called for a more comprehensive policy, we haven’t seen this government take action on that. I’d like to see some changes on this, and I believe the agriculture industry would as well.

The Council of Canadian Innovators has also urged the province to modernize procurement to better support domestic companies.

The Canadian Labour Congress, CLC, has called for local and domestic public procurement to drive innovation and sustain good jobs following the shutdown of the Stellantis Windsor assembly plant, which I believe my colleague will be talking about later.

Unifor for a long time now has been calling on governments to expand investment in public transit so municipalities and the province are buying Canadian-made trains, streetcars and buses from Canadian companies or, at the very least, just increase the Canadian content requirement so jobs in Thunder Bay and Kingston, towns and cities that have the capacity to make transit vehicles, are given these jobs.

We are also hearing from Unifor that more needs to be done from this government when we’re talking about procurement to prioritize using forestry products from Ontario to build modular housing and housing in areas that are really suffering from a housing shortage. It makes a lot of sense. And we’re already hearing about innovative modular housing projects that are going up in Ontario. Well, I think this government should be doing everything possible to make sure Ontario wood is prioritized, with setting up factories where there are good unionized jobs to build modular housing that is in dire need in Ontario.

And in fact, that’s part of our Homes Ontario plan to build non-market housing and affordable housing on public land to deal with the really serious housing shortages we’re seeing, especially when it comes to affordable housing. When we’re talking about the housing crisis we need to be talking about affordability first.

So that’s who is calling for it. There are some pretty heavy hitters.

Another reason why this is incredibly important is because our economy, under this government’s watch, isn’t doing very well. Every month, the numbers come out from Statistics Canada showing that unemployment continues to rise, and right now we are at unemployment levels that we have not seen in a generation. We have over 700,000 people unemployed, and it’s particularly acute among youth. So youth unemployment is close to 22%, which is terrifying.

And we have found this too when we’ve done round tables. We’ve heard from young people who have told us that they cannot find a job, and they’re looking. When we did an unemployment round table—I believe it was about a month ago—we had high school students, we had undergraduates, we had graduates from engineering degrees, from degrees in the health sector, from tech, and they all spoke about how their difficulty in finding a job is unique and that it has gotten worse.

They’re very concerned about it, and they want to see this government do more to create job opportunities and to protect the jobs that we have so that they can have a career in this province and they can see hope and a future here in the province. That’s what they are asking for. Some of the things they talked about included job creation opportunities within the public sector, which would apply to this procurement policy that we have here, and also job guarantees so that there are more options for people who are willing, able and ready to work.

Another issue that we also see with the economy right now is the issue of affordability, and I’m sure you’re hearing this as well. It’s a huge issue. When I go door-to-door or people stop me in the street, as I’m sure they stop you in the street as well, the big issue that comes up is the high cost of everything.

There are 1.7 million Ontarians who rent, and many of them get to the end of the month and they’re wondering how they’re going to be able to afford the rent and pay their bills and afford food at the supermarket. Every Ontarian I speak to is having difficulty going to the supermarket and stomaching the high cost of everything from butter to milk. We all know that food prices are going up much faster than the rate of inflation.

One of the busiest food banks in the country is in my riding. It’s the Fort York Food Bank. When you go by there, most mornings, you’ll see a line that’s easily 80 metres long, sometimes 100 metres long in the morning, because there are so many people who just simply cannot afford food. We recently went to the food bank and spoke to the executive director there, and we asked her, “Who’s coming into the food bank right now?” She told us that it’s people who are on social assistance. It is newcomers. It is refugee claimants.

It’s also workers, people aged 18 to 49 who cannot afford, on the salaries that they get, to buy food that they need to feed their family. She said that’s new, and it’s getting worse. When we’re talking about fixing the affordability issues that we see, it speaks to the need to provide support and care to people. It also speaks to the need to deal with wages and employment because wages are too low, and a lot of people don’t have jobs. They just don’t have jobs.

There is this undercurrent within Ontario right now of fear and anxiety because things have gotten too expensive for people, and they don’t know how they’re going to continue to afford to live here. I’m sure you hear that as well. This is why it is especially important when we’re talking about this procurement policy that it is as strong as it possibly can be, given the situations that we face today. It’s very concerning.

What I think a lot of people talk about—so we’ve got this situation; we’ve got this procurement policy. The government has had a long time to fix it. Maybe they will; maybe they won’t. Let’s see. They’re certainly giving them themselves the power to do it. And then we also have this issue where the government has basically got a jobs disaster on their hands, and the economy is really struggling. One thing that I find very frustrating, and I think a lot of people find very frustrating, is that the government is simply not doing enough to address the many issues that they see. Instead, they’re using a lot of their resources to help their friends.

One thing that we’ve been hearing a lot about right now is the Skills Development Fund. The Skills Development Fund is a $2.5-billion program that should be going to helping people, workers, get the training they need to find a new job. It is meant to focus on unemployed people. That’s the whole purpose of the program.

The program in itself could be a good thing. It is concerning that at the same time as you’ve allocated $2.5 billion to this program, you’ve let the public college system and the university system struggle and be chronically underfunded to the point where departments are closing, classes are closing, entire campuses are closing, and people are having difficulty getting into the program that suits them so that they can build a career here in Ontario. You’re underfunding that, and then you’re funding this.

But people’s greatest concern—certainly our greatest concern—is that the funding doesn’t seem to be going to the right companies who are most qualified to provide training to unemployed workers. We have $17 million going to Scale Hospitality, a client of the Premier’s favourite former staff person, Amin Massoudi. We had $10 million go to the government’s favourite nightclub owner. We had $7.5 million go to Keel Digital Solutions, even though this company was subjected to an audit and then, after that audit, that company was referred to the OPP.

Shortly after, this very company got $7.5 million from the Ministry of Labour to provide training. I don’t know. It’s very concerning. One million dollars went to a baker, FGF foods, that was originally rejected and then got funding after it gave $32,000 in funding to Conservatives—no coincidence—and $17 million to Bayshore, a home care supplier; this company was called out for failing to deliver medical supplies to their patients just a year before.

What’s so concerning about these examples is that many of these companies were given a low ranking by impartial public servants, whose job it was to assess these applications to see if they were best qualified to provide training to unemployed workers. They received a low ranking. And then many of these companies gave a ton of money to PC Party candidates, including the Minister of Labour’s own riding. Now, what we’re hearing is that many of these low-scoring companies that gave money to these Conservatives actually got more money—more money—than high-scoring applications. If it looks like corruption and it smells like corruption, it probably is corruption.

I have a lot of questions about that. What I find very frustrating, and I think a lot of people find very frustrating, is that we expect government to do the right thing and do everything it can—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I ask the member to withdraw.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Withdraw—to do everything it can to fix the economy, get people a job and train them. That’s what people expect the government to do.

I want to talk a little bit about what some stakeholders have said about this bill. The one stakeholder that’s given comment within the extremely short period of time we have had to digest this bill and analyze it before we were asked to vote on it and speak to it is the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Their assessment is pretty similar to ours. Like us, the CCPA agrees that buying local makes a lot of sense—makes a lot of sense for job creation, makes a lot of sense for our economy. It’s a strategic thing to do. It also argues that the buy-Ontario changes are a little too little and a little too cautious. That’s their assessment.

They also have some questions about the measure of origin, what company is identified as Canadian and what company is not. Some places have a very open-minded attitude, so you can have foreign companies come in, say they’re Canadian if they have employed a certain percentage of people in Ontario, and then they can get government contracts. They’ve got some questions about that. They also want to make sure that there is proper enforcement with the legislation, which is something that we also agree with.

For the last chunk of my time, I’m going to miss

schedule 2, because it’s been debated in other bills, and I’m going to go to the final schedule, which is

schedule 3.

Schedule 3 hasn’t gotten a lot of attention, but I also think it’s pretty important. What

schedule 3 is about is that it essentially delays and kills legislation that would give condo owners greater protections.

I’m just going to give you a lay of the land here. Right now in Ontario, we have about 1.3 million condo residents. There’s a lot in my riding because we’ve got a lot of condos. That number is growing, and the reason why it’s growing is because about 1,000 people a day are moving into Ontario. We are increasing density, so we’re building more condos in towns and cities to house people. It makes a lot of sense. It’s a good option for people. These buildings—some of them are the size of small towns, housing upwards of 2,000 people.

In my view, and in a condo resident’s view, every single condo resident deserves to live in a safe and well-maintained condo home. And they deserve to have recourse if they’ve got issues with the developer that built the building or the condo board or a neighbour. Because when you put 1,000 people or 2,000 people in a building, you want to make sure everyone gets along and you want to make sure the building is properly maintained and you want to have recourse and rules. That makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, what we are finding is that it’s a little bit of a Wild West out there when it comes to condo rules. We regularly get calls from condo residents who have issues that are causing stress and havoc in their lives, and I want to give you some examples.

We once got a call where we worked with someone called Rani Pooran. She’s a condo owner. She had to take her property manager and her board of directors to court because a flood that started in another part of the condo damaged her home. You can see that happening. It happens. Pipes break. We need to have rules in place so that condo owners can get recourse in situation like this.

We also have a situation—this is a really egregious one. We had an individual called Michael Cohen who is living with his male partner in Toronto Centre, and he was told by the condo’s management that they need to get married—him and his partner need to get married—or have one of them move out of the unit because the condo had rules restricting occupants of one unit to people who were married. That’s a clear human rights violation right there, but that’s currently allowed. It’s currently allowed, which is very concerning.

We had a situation where we were dealing with Kerri Fulton and Daniel Werther, living at 1 Yorkville Avenue. They bought their property, and what they found is that amenities that were promised to them when they bought their property were not there when they moved in. There was a promise of a pool, of a common room, a party room of a certain size, and they were not delivered. And they were like, “Where do we go? What recourse do we have? How can we challenge this? We were promised one thing and didn’t get it.”

These are just examples of the whole litany of issues that condo residents face, and, unfortunately, the rules around condo governance are just not strong enough. They’re just, quite frankly, not strong enough.

We’ve been advocating for improvements to these rules. We’ve been pushing for strengthening of the condo tribunal, which is a cheap and fast tribunal that people can go to to get their disputes resolved. I’ll give the government credit here. They have made some steps towards expanding the jurisdiction of the condo tribunal so that more complaints can be heard, but so much more needs to be done. For some of the biggest issues that residents face, they cannot go to the tribunal to have those cases heard.

A lot of issues they might have with the board—maybe the board is imposing dodgy rules or running fraudulent elections or allowing 24/7 short-term party rentals in the building. There is very little that condo residents can do, and they should be able to go to that tribunal and have their issues or concerns addressed.

What I see here, unfortunately, with this act is that it kills and delays some of the most important amendments that members from this House, from all parties, have decided make a lot of sense. This was done in 2015. Some condo rules were approved, passed, but were not put in force. And it was also done recently in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts when there was a report written to strengthen condo rules in Ontario. Members opposite supported these rules, including the member who is the lead on this bill, the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery and Procurement, the member for Oakville.

So I know the minister opposite knows about these issues because he sat in committee with me and other colleagues to review condo rules with the eye of strengthening them, but, unfortunately, what we’re seeing here is we’re seeing some of these rules are going to be repealed, and I want to explain them to you so that people understand what’s going on.

To be clear, this bill—when was it introduced? Was it introduced Monday, Tuesday? Very recently. It took our researchers dozens of calls and hours of going through this legislation as quickly as we could so that we could explain it in a practical way to people. This isn’t how legislation should be debated. It just shouldn’t be. We should be given ample time to do outreach to constituents to explain these issues to them so that they can be informed and give us feedback. That’s just not what’s happening right now, so I do want to explain this in more detail so people understand what’s being repealed.

There are five big ones that we see, and I’m going to summarize them. One law that is essentially being killed is a law that would—how do I explain this? Essentially, developers have the discretion to decide how much each individual in a condo pays in maintenance fees. They have that discretion. We had instances—some of them went to court—that showed that some developers were not being fair with deciding who gets to pay what maintenance fee amount. In some cases, owners of a smaller unit were paying more than an owner of a bigger unit in the same building. You’ve got to wonder why.

So the amendment that is being killed in this bill would have required the developer to provide fee information so condo owners know they’re being charged a fair amount and that they’re not being taken advantage of. Why would you not want to allow that to be a law? Who is calling you up and asking you, “Hey, we don’t want maintenance fees to be fairly allocated within a condo building”? Which developer, honestly, is calling you up and asking you not to do that? It boggles my mind.

The other

schedule that’s being repealed is one that bans developers from unfairly imposing fines on owners that breach governing documents—okay, an owner has done something wrong; I get that. A fine should be imposed. This bans developers from unfairly imposing fees on owners that breach governing documents over and above what is needed to compensate the corporation for the expenses due to the breach. What that means is that a developer can impose a massive fine on a condo owner that has nothing to do with how much it actually costs the condo board or the developer to impose the change. It just doesn’t make sense.

Another one—and this is a big one—is that we passed a piece of law here that would stop developers from using methods to keep maintenance fees artificially low for the first year to sell homes. This is a common practice. What developers do is they’ll do some magical tricks of creative accounting so that when first-time homebuyers or investors are coming in, they look at the maintenance fees for a new building and they go, “Oh, they’re really cheap. That’s great.” Unfortunately, those maintenance fees aren’t actually that cheap. The developer is not being honest about it.

What it means is that people are buying a home and the maintenance fees go up pretty quickly in years three, four and five to cover the cost of maintaining the building, and that homeowner realizes that they can’t actually afford the home they built. So the amendment that was going to be passed—should have been passed—was going to stop that creative accounting practice and require developers to be honest about how much the homeowner was going to pay in maintenance fees. Why on earth would you not approve that? Once again, who is calling you? It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

This is also related. This is another one. This would require developers to set aside an accurate amount of money for maintenance in a reserve fund. When a condo is built, the developer, once it’s built, has to put aside a chunk of money in a reserve fund that’s used to pay for maintenance like HVAC, windows. Buildings are expensive to maintain, and there is a certain amount that needs to go in a reserve fund to cover that. Unfortunately, what developers routinely do—this is what the Auditor General has said—is that they underfund this reserve fund.

What that means is that when homeowners come in, a few years pass, they get a very nasty surprise bill to pay for maintenance that they assumed was going to be covered with a reserve fund, and it puts people in financial shock. They’re like, “Oh my gosh. I was not expecting this. I thought my maintenance fees would be this much. And now they’ve gone up.”

Given that you want to build 1.5 million homes in Ontario—you know a lot of them are going to be condos. We need to make condo living attractive, safe and affordable. Wouldn’t you want to make sure that condo owners are not getting ripped off by developers? And wouldn’t you want to make sure that condo owners are buying a home that they can afford, which means the cost of maintenance is transparent and they know it before they buy? Wouldn’t you want that?

Well, with the decision by this government to kill these schedules in this act, it means that condo residents are going to continue to be taken advantage of, and some of them are going to be ripped off. Some of them are going to be in a situation where they’re going to have to sell their property. Maybe they’re underwater because they took on more than they can afford—and part of it is not their fault, because they were not being given the true facts of how much things were going to cost.

So I urge this government to look seriously at

schedule 3—I really do—and do everything you can to strengthen these rules and bring in stronger protections for condo residents. I think that’s really important. The Auditor General already has some recommendations. Legislation has already been debated and went to committee and approved it. We don’t need to wait any longer. I’m going to hand this over to the minister opposite after this speech so that he is fully aware of the sensible recommendations that have already been debated so that condo residents can have the protections that they need.

That’s essentially the

summary of this bill: We have a Buy Ontario Act which could be good in theory, but we don’t know if it’s going to be good in practice. And then we also have this government’s move to, I’d say, essentially take the side of developers over consumer protections for condo residents, and it’s going to make condo living just not as good as it should be.

That’s my

summary for today. I look forward to hearing the member for Windsor West speak about this bill as well.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member for Windsor West.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: It’s always a pleasure to get up and speak on behalf of my constituents in Windsor West. Right now, we are debating Bill 72, the Buy Ontario Act, 2025, that the government has tabled.

I just want to start by pointing out that on November 3, 2025, we tabled a motion, New Democrats tabled a motion, for basically the same thing that this government is saying will happen with this bill—on November 3, which was three weeks ago, but with the constituency week in there for Remembrance Day, it was actually 10 sitting days ago that we debated the NDP motion around using Ontario and Canadian products and procurement. I want to read that motion out, because the government side actually voted against it just 10 days ago—voted against the very thing they are now saying that they are championing.

The motion read, “Whereas Ontario’s unemployment is at its highest level in a decade; and

“Whereas there is an ongoing trade war with the United States that continues to escalate; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario does not require the consideration of local job creation and local training opportunities when awarding public contracts; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario awarded a $140-million contract for supply and installation of glass and aluminum at the Trillium Health Partners hospital project in Mississauga to a United States-owned company; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow funding and contracts to go to foreign-owned companies for major publicly funded projects, including the Ottawa Hospital-Civic Campus redevelopment, the E.C. Row Expressway” in Windsor “and the Garden City Skyway” in the Niagara area;

“Therefore, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario must implement Ontario-first procurement criteria that prioritizes contracts for Ontario and Canadian businesses that can offer local jobs for all public spending contracts issued by the Ontario government, ministries, agencies, municipalities, and other provincially funded institutions, as well as ban US companies from receiving public contracts until the trade war is over.”

We brought forward that motion on November 3, and the government voted against it. Here we are, 10 sitting days later, with a government bill before us, the Buy Ontario Act, which is talking about public procurement, prioritizing Ontario- and Canadian-made products. One has to ask, Speaker, what game is this government playing that 10 days ago they would vote down this very idea, and here we are today debating their bill that does basically the same thing?

Speaker, I want to talk about the government’s record and why those of us on this side of the House and why the public is always—I’m going to say cautious, or suspicious, about what the government is really doing, because oftentimes the government members will get up, and they say something that sounds fantastic. For the Premier to stand there and say, “That’s it. I’m Captain Canada. We’re going to buy Ontario; we’re going to buy Canada. We’re going to build Ontario; we’re going to build Canada”—but then we look at their record. I just raised a few examples, but I’m going to mention a few more.

It was this government, not too long ago, that took independently owned ServiceOntario—so these are small businesses owned by individuals in our communities. For no apparent reason—not a transparent reason, anyway—they decided that they were moving ServiceOntario locations into Staples.

Now, Staples is an American company. They have a Canadian subsidiary, but they’re an American company that is owned by an American equity firm. This government just arbitrarily decided to hand over government contracts and taxpayer money to an American corporation—an American equity firm—and put small business owners in my community and communities all over this province out of business.

They also did the same thing by moving them into Walmart.

Interjection.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: That member across can shake his head all he wants.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: Same owner.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: Pull it up. You can see there are communities where they’ve been moved into Walmart—an American company traded on the stock market.

They put Ontario small business owners out of business. Some of them lost everything. They were losing their homes. They didn’t just lose their business; they lost their homes. Any investments that they put into renovating the space to make it more accessible to our constituents, to the public—gone. They lost the money, with very little notice from the government.

Employment services for social assistance recipients: This government has given big contracts to foreign companies, one of whom has a terrible track record and was actually sued by New York for failing to meet their obligations and properly support people that were accessing those employment programs.

That’s this government’s track record, while they’re talking about supporting Ontario business, Ontario procurement, Canadian businesses, Canadian procurement.

In February 2022, under this government, the Ontario Line subway cars were being produced—are being produced—in the United States, after this government reduced Canadian content requirements for transit projects from 25% to 10%. That was this government.

June 2025: The Garden City Skyway contracts were awarded to a consortium of foreign-owned companies. That’s this government.

July 2025: $140 million went to a Mississauga hospital façade contract being awarded to a US-owned firm. That’s this Conservative government.

July 2025: The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board—the Ford government confirmed that 26 jobs will be eliminated and handed to Iron Mountain, which is a private company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.

The Premier always talks about how much he loves the United States; it’s very clear, because they’re taking taxpayer money and constantly shovelling it to American companies—very wealthy companies, many publicly traded, with the largest shares owned by very, very wealthy billionaires in the United States with no real ties to Canada.

September 2025: Two American contractors are among the pre-qualified bidders for the Ottawa Civic hospital project. That’s the province. That’s this government.

October 2025: Korean-made steel is being used in the E.C. Row Expressway and Banwell Road overpass project in Windsor. And steelworkers were out protesting that project.

That brings me to some of the nuances of the bill that’s before us—because we don’t really know the government’s true intention through this bill; we don’t really know how they’re going to enforce it.

When you’re talking about requiring municipalities to procure Ontario-made-or-produced or Canadian-made-or-produced—we know that this government has downloaded a ton of financial responsibility to municipalities. On that side of the House, they are constantly saying, “Yay, us, we haven’t raised taxes,” which is nonsense, because what they’ve done is downloaded the responsibility to municipalities that are now increasing property taxes in order to be able to fund projects that should be the province’s responsibility.

We in Windsor have long called for the provincial government to re-upload the E.C. Row Expressway, just like they did with the Gardiner Expressway here, rather than putting all the cost onto the municipality. And now we’re finding out that they’re giving money to a project and not ensuring that that project is using Canadian steel and Canadian workers. And those workers came out and protested.

If municipalities or other public entities that are receiving government funding without it being clear what the responsibility is—what if they think that they are actually supporting Ontario products or Canadian products because they’re using a Canadian company?

Some would consider Staples a Canadian company. It’s American-owned, but they have Canadian subsidiaries here.

Some might think Walmart is a Canadian company. They’re an American company with Canadian subsidiaries here. They’re an American company, American-owned.

What if, in the process of trying to follow this legislation—which is not entirely clear about the expectations—they go to a Canadian company to procure product, only to find out that that product is actually not made in Canada, not made in Ontario, but is made in another country? Are they now in contradiction of the laws? And what’s the recourse for that?

When you have legislation, which this government does, frequently, where they pack in a whole bunch of stuff and then they time allocate, they don’t take it to committee, they don’t travel it across the province—and “just trust us; we will do the right thing,” which we hear from this government a lot—we get into situations where maybe municipalities or other publicly funded institutions think that they’re following the law, only to find out that they’re in contravention of the law. That’s the government’s problem. That’s the government’s mistake, for not being clear.

Speaker, I want to talk about

schedule 2, which is the Highway Traffic Act, and the government’s recent decision to arbitrarily eliminate speed cameras—no consultation with municipalities; no consultation with the public. I want to point out that it was this government that brought in speed cameras. It was their legislation that brought in speed cameras. They touted it and said, “We need to crack down on people breaking the law and speeding. We need to crack down on the number of accidents caused by people speeding. We’re going to be tough on crime,” which we’re hearing again.

Then they turn around and say—because they’ve got people whispering in their ear, their donors and their insiders—“We don’t like this.” So without consultation, and by vilifying the municipalities by saying it’s just a cash grab, they arbitrarily did away with speed cameras. And now they’re talking about road safety in this bill. It is absolutely mind-boggling.

Every member on the government side of the House must regularly go to a chiropractor or to physiotherapy for the pretzel that they twist themselves into, bringing in legislation that they say is fantastic, and then all of a sudden, because someone is whispering in their ear, they’re twisting themselves into knots and spinning it out saying, “We’re getting rid of it because we are the good guys. Everybody forget that we’re the ones that brought it in in the first place.”

The amount of backtracking this government does because it doesn’t consult and it doesn’t think things through before it brings legislation forward: What I listed were just a few instances of this government being contradictory—because the other word I would use, you would call me out for being unparliamentary—to their own actions. These are just a few examples where they say one thing and they do another. There are far too many instances with this government where that happens.

I talked about the cost of this legislation, and look, I fully support supporting Ontario businesses; having Ontario procurement, Canadian procurement; using Canadian- and Ontario-made products and resources; using Canadian and Ontario workers to do those jobs—100%. But there are a lot of questions and ambiguity in this bill, and, frankly, loopholes for the government so that they don’t even have to follow their own law. They can impose it on others. but they don’t have to follow it themselves.

I want to go back to the social assistance piece because the contracting out to foreign-owned companies with proven bad track records, being sued by other countries they were operating in—we are seeing increasing numbers of people who are accessing the employment services through those companies that the government has chosen, taking them out of the hands of local people who know the communities that they work in the best. They’ve moved them into these foreign-owned companies to run.

And we are seeing worse and worse outcomes, with people being placed in jobs that they are not qualified to do, that they are not physically able to do. We are seeing a constant cycling through that program, and it’s costing a heck of a lot of money—not very fiscally responsible when it comes to this government. It’s certainly not supporting buying and building local. It’s contradictory to what is in this bill.

With the little bit of time that I have left, I just want to talk about something—maybe it’s a little bit of inside baseball, and I am certainly not defending the Liberals. But prior to the last election, before the Liberals had official party status, before they had enough members to qualify for official party status, we heard the Premier on numerous occasions—ad nauseam, I would say—and the government members, point fingers at the Liberal side and dismiss them by saying, “You’re the minivan party. You’re the minivan party.” It was true: They had enough members they could fit in a minivan.

But as someone who represents a community, who represents the auto sector and Windsor Assembly Plant, where they build award-winning minivans in Canada—award-winning—and employ thousands and thousands of people in our community—for the Premier to get up and make jokes like that and the government to make jokes like that shows, really, what they think of people that work in the auto sector. Every single job at Windsor Assembly Plant not only feeds a family; it supports community.

And while we watch manufacturing jobs leave under this government—I know they like to point at the previous government; I’m not going to argue that didn’t happen. But we are seeing hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs leave under this government. And then they want to take credit for what the workers do and for the investments that the union has bargained for and secured. So instead of making fun of Ontario-made products, I would suggest that the Premier find perhaps a more mature way to voice his displeasure, we’ll say, for lack of a better word, with other parties in this House.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Ms. Laura Smith: I listened to the member intently and she, I think like everybody in this room, agrees that now more than ever we need to buy Ontario. One of the things that this policy does is track and publish data on how much procurement goes to Ontario-based suppliers and the value of those contracts. It has been carefully crafted with threshold rules and safeguards so Ontario can act now in favour of local businesses.

Through you, Speaker, I’m asking, will the member opposite support this bill, support Ontario and come on board?

MPP Lisa Gretzky: To the member opposite: I do appreciate the question. I just want to remind the member opposite that in February 2022, your government dropped the Canadian content requirements for transit projects from 25% to 10%—from 25% to 10%. So yes, we fully support transparency. We’d like transparency when it comes to the Skills Development Fund, frankly. The government is not offering that. But it’s one thing get up and say, “Do you support this?” when, in fact, your government has been doing everything possible not to be transparent.

And what we do know is that when they have the opportunity, they award contracts and Ontario taxpayer money to foreign corporations rather than local businesses and Ontario workers.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

MPP Wayne Gates: It’s always a pleasure to rise because I’ve been fighting to buy local my entire adult life, when I was president of a local union, because we had a thing, “Buy the car your neighbour used to build.”

But today I’m looking at these young people up here, where we have 20% unemployment in the province of Ontario; 800,000 people don’t have a job today.

We should be buying local. We should have been buying local for years. This isn’t something new. When the NDP brought this forward three weeks ago, they turned it down. That’s the reality.

We shouldn’t have to bring a bill to this House. We should be out there buying, supporting our farmers, our agriculture, auto industry, buying local products, because if we don’t, the same thing that’s going on in the province of Ontario today is going to continue. Young people aren’t going to have an opportunity. Young people aren’t going to get a job. Young people aren’t going to buy a house. Young people aren’t pay for their rent. That’s why we should buy local. That’s why we should always be supporting local businesses, local companies, not making sure that it’s shipped off to foreign products. Thank you very much.

Interjection.

MPP Wayne Gates: Oh, I need a question [i naudible ]. Do you agree with me that we need jobs for young people?

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member from Windsor West.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: Absolutely, we need jobs for Ontario’s youth. We are seeing a record high number of youth, 18% unemployed in this province. Windsor has the highest unemployment rate in the province and in the country, a shameful statistic. We have more and more youth that are putting in—and for the Premier’s response to be, “Just get off your ass and try harder” is insulting to the young people in this province because it is this government that is making it impossible for people to find jobs in this province.

Their policies are the ones that are making it impossible for the young folks up in the gallery to even dream about owning a home or rent an apartment or start a family or go to post-secondary school without starting out their lives with a huge amount of debt. So yes, we should be investing in local procurement, but this province should also be investing in the people of this province like the young folks sitting up there in the gallery today.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I do think there are good things in this bill, and I think there were good things in the motion put forward by the NDP. I want to ask about energy.

This government is expanding gas power, and we rely on American natural gas for that, so we’re dependent on Americans for our energy, and our new nuclear is an American company, GE, with American-enriched uranium, which makes us dependent on American-enriched uranium for decades to come. Can you comment on how we should include our energy planning in buy Ontario so we can have more dependence on Canadian and Ontario resources and Ontario companies?

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Response? I recognize the member from University–Rosedale.

Ms. Jessica Bell: That is an excellent question. We’ve got a lot of concerns about the government’s move to double down on gas expansion when all the signs are telling us very clearly that that is not the way to go.

I also recall the member for Sudbury recently talking about how the contract this government is looking at moving forward on with a US company is four times more expensive than what a Canadian company bid. That makes no sense, no sense at all.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I want to thank both members across for their comments. The member from Windsor West mentioned the United Steelworkers and Barry Zekelman and the protest of the Banwell interchange. I was happy to join steelworkers, show my support for their cause. I know the member opposite wasn’t able to go. I’m wondering if the member will be joining for the next one.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: As you know, there are various things that go on in MPP’s lives: meetings with constituents, events, personal—medical things, that kind of thing. So that’s an interesting question coming from the member from Windsor–Tecumseh.

When I’m able to join the steelworkers on that picket line to protest the fact that the government is allowing Korean steel to be used in a local project, you bet your ass I’ll be there.

But what I ask the member from Windsor–Tecumseh is: Where have you been on the Titan Tool and Die picket line? Where have you been for those—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): The member will withdraw.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: Withdraw, Speaker.

It’s easy for the member to throw things like that out there, but there have been numerous occasions for government members to join workers all over this province when they’re locked out, when they’re on strike, and yet we don’t see them show up. I think that maybe the government members, before asking questions like that, should think of their own record before asking a question like that.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Mr. Matthew Rae: My question is to either member of the opposition who spoke this morning.

I heard about how they want to see buy Ontario, which we agree with, and we brought forward this legislation. But in what we passed just yesterday, the fall economic statement, there was a provision to expand the manufacturing tax credit to businesses that are American owned and operated but employ Canadians.

Many of those operations are in my riding. I’m talking about Viking, which makes all the snowplows—I know it’s going to snow in some parts of the province this week—in the entire country. They make them all in my riding. It’s an American-owned company.

Do they not support those good-paying jobs? That’s my question.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Just to be clear, you mentioned the manufacturing tax credit, right? On this side of the House, we’ve been calling for an expansion of the manufacturing tax credit for some time, and we’re pleased to see that the government has finally listened to us.

When we’re talking about the Ontario government’s procurement policy, when we look at how it’s currently written, what we also see is that companies like Walmart and Staples can get contracts to provide Ontario government services when we’ve got Canadian and Ontario-owned companies—like ServiceOntario—companies that are being turned aside. So we’ve got a lot of concerns about that too.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank my colleagues for an excellent presentation.

In the past, there were agreements such as the auto pact, whereby multinational corporations who wanted to sell here and wanted access to our economy had to build here. Yet this government has had no strings attached with any agreements that they’ve had. We’ve seen the closure of CAMI in Ingersoll.

Would you like to see a government that prioritizes workers over multinational corporations when it comes to dispensing corporate welfare?

Ms. Jessica Bell: I think what the member is referring to is the government’s Building Ontario Fund. It’s a big $5-billion fund. It’s very opaque. We don’t know who’s getting the money. We don’t know what the criteria are. When we go online, all we see is a survey that someone can fill out. It makes me wonder if this is going to go down the track of the scandalous Skills Development Fund.

And we’ve got a lot of questions about this fund. If a company is going to be getting a loan or a grant, where is the ironclad agreement that they’re not just going to take that money and go down south? Where is the agreement that they won’t just channel that into executive bonuses like they did with the Skills Development—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

House sittings

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 9(g), the Clerk has received written notice from the government House leader indicating that a temporary change in the weekly meeting

schedule of the House is required, and therefore, the afternoon routine on Wednesday, December 3, 2025, shall commence at 1 p.m.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I beg to inform the House that the following document was tabled: a report entitled Ontario Economic Monitor: April to September 2025, from the office of the Financial Accountability Officer of Ontario.

Members’ Statements

Mara Technologies

Mr. Logan Kanapathi: I’m proud to rise today to share this great investment for our community in Markham–Thornhill.

Last week, I was honoured to visit a very impressive company with a long history and vision: Mara Technologies. They are expanding their production capacity with a $12.5-million investment at their Markham facility.

Our government is happy to support thriving technology with $2.2 million through the Ontario Together Trade Fund. Through this fund, Mara will strengthen its high-precision electronic assembly operation that directly addresses the unprecedented challenges we face due to US tariffs.

Most importantly, this project will create 95 new jobs and protect 191 existing positions in Markham. This investment will strengthen our domestic supply chain and support long-term competitiveness.

This announcement is especially meaningful and very memorable to me. I had the privilege of attending the groundbreaking ceremony of Mara Technologies in 2007, when I served as a Markham city councillor.

Thank you to the Mara leadership team: Peter Schmied, Kerry Mannella, Scott Tordoff, Matthew Ruscica and all the team members.

Thank you to Premier Doug Ford and our government for remaining committed to Ontario workers and the economy.

Services for persons with developmental disabilities

Mr. Jeff Burch: I rise today to share a message on behalf of developmental service agencies I’ve been meeting with in the Niagara region, a dedicated group of organizations serving collectively over 7,000 individuals with developmental disabilities and their families and employing collectively over 1,600 people in Niagara.

Across Ontario, over 52,000 people are currently on wait-lists for developmental services. In Niagara alone, approximately 9,000 individuals are waiting—many for years—for the supports they need to live safely with dignity and in community.

These statistics are similar in all regions of Ontario. More people wait for service than who are currently being served.

These wait-lists are not just numbers. They represent real people: children, youth and adults who, without timely support, often end up in crisis. Some are hospitalized unnecessarily. Others tragically find themselves in the judicial system. These outcomes are avoidable and unacceptable.

The developmental services sector sees first-hand the consequences of underfunding. We also see the transformative impact of adequate, responsive services. When people are met where they are, whether through supportive living, respite or family supports, they thrive, families stabilize and communities grow stronger.

We call for adequate, sustained funding to ensure that people on wait-lists are not left behind. Every person deserves the opportunity to live a full life, supported and included.

Kids’ online safety and privacy month

Mr. Stephen Blais: Every parent in Ontario knows the worry that comes with handing a child a device. The Internet is now embedded in every part of their lives—in learning, in gaming, in connecting with friends. But alongside those opportunities come real dangers that too many families only learn about after it’s too late.

Madam Speaker, this isn’t theoretical. Police forces across Ontario are sounding the alarm. Educators are overwhelmed. Parents are terrified that, despite doing everything right, someone can reach your child through a game or an app or even a school-based device.

That’s why my colleagues and I have introduced legislation to proclaim October as Kids’ Online Safety and Privacy Month, a dedicated, province-wide effort to educate families, strengthen awareness and empower parents with the tools they need to keep their children safe. This month will highlight the importance of digital supervision, responsible online habits and honest conversations in our schools. It will remind all of us—parents, teachers, tech companies and legislators—that protecting kids online is a shared responsibility.

Government investments

Mr. Matthew Rae: It’s great today to rise and speak a little bit about some of the investments that our government is making in the great riding of Perth–Wellington.

Recently, I had the opportunity to highlight an additional $700,000 through the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund, a very important fund for our rural municipalities and northern municipalities. That $700,000 extra next year will help our municipalities build more roads, bridges, and invest in critical infrastructure.

Perth–Wellington, this year, is receiving over $10 million through the OMPF fund from the Ministry of Finance. And it was great to see, in a previous provincial budget, we increased that amount—the first time in many years.

Our provincial government, listening to rural Ontario—increasing the amount in the OMPF funding by $50 million, ensuring that we’re there to support our rural municipalities and ensuring that that fund keeps up with the demands that our municipalities are facing.

We’re working together to build a stronger Ontario, to build stronger communities, to ensure that we have a strong Ontario that leads to a strong Canada.

I was really pleased to see the Minister of Finance present a fall economic statement—one of many we do in this place—really outlining our investments and the continued investments we will make in rural Ontario and all communities across Ontario.

Tenant protection

Ms. Jennifer K. French: This government’s terrible Bill 60 and attack on tenants’ protections is not the way to solve our housing crisis. This government has not listened to me or to the official opposition. But please listen to the people of Oshawa.

Jacob says, “Our country is in a housing crisis, many people are already stretched to pay rent, and Ford appears to want to see even more people go homeless.”

Megan says, “As someone whose partner works in a GM parts facility, it’s deeply concerning to me that Premier Ford would propose these changes while being aware of the struggles people are facing in the current political and economic climate.”

Amanda says, “I’m terrified for the 99% of Ontario children who are set up for complete failure in this province.”

Moira wonders, “After the inevitable mass evictions occur, how many will become homeless? How many of those homeless will die? I am terrified for my future.”

Randy writes, “My wife and I are renters in Oshawa and would love to start a family, but we cannot even consider that if we don’t have security in our housing costs.”

From Lianna: “I spend $1,800 per month renting a one-bedroom apartment with no parking, and although I benefit from a competitive rent, it still costs me 43% of my take-home pay per month, not including hydro and Internet. Think of Ontario’s young people; many of us are barely making it work.”

Madelyne suggests, “We need real solutions. Ontario should be investing in affordable housing, strengthening rent control, and protecting the rental units we already have.”

Premier, Bill 60 is a terrible mistake, and real lives will be turned upside down. Repeal Bill 60. Forcing people out of apartments does not create supply. Quit wrecking things, and start building housing.

Scottish Heritage Day

Mr. Dave Smith: You’ll notice that today I’m wearing one of my kilts. Today is the last day for me to rise with a statement before November 30, so I’m wearing my kilt for Scottish Heritage Day. This kilt is actually one of my family tartans. I’m part of Clan Macpherson. This kilt, specifically, is Macpherson hunt; my tie is Macpherson dress. There are actually a number of Macpherson tartans, and you’ll often see me wearing one of those tartan ties here in the Legislature.

People have asked my daughter, who works here at Queen’s Park, “Why does your dad wear a kilt so much?” Usually, she says “I think he thinks it’s cool.” Well, I can confirm that it is cool—but that’s only in January, when there’s an updraft.

My former colleague and MPP for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, Jim McDonell, introduced Bill 208 in the last government. The bill passed and received royal assent in early November 2021, and that’s when we first celebrated Scottish Heritage Day. November 30 was chosen because it’s St. Andrew’s Day, a national holiday in Scotland.

In Ontario, we have roughly two million people of Scottish heritage—including former Premier Oliver Mowat.

On November 30, I want everyone in Ontario to have a very happy Scottish Heritage Day.

Women’s services

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Today, as we bring forward my women in the workforce motion, I am so honoured to speak about the remarkable women in Parkdale–High Park who are leading life-saving, community-building work every single day.

In my riding, the Redwood, led by the strength and compassion of Abi Ajibolade, offers safety and sanctuary to women and children fleeing violence. It is life-saving work.

At Evangeline Residence, Stephanie Corringham and her team walk with women as they rebuild their lives after homelessness, providing stability, connection and dignity.

At Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre, under the leadership of Angela Robertson, they deliver essential women’s health care, counselling and, until last week, harm reduction services.

At Working for Change, under the leadership of Anita Prasad, they transform lived experience into leadership through a trauma-informed employment and training program, opening up real pathways for women.

At Sistering, guided by Volleta Peters, they remain a 24/7 lifeline to women navigating violence, deep poverty and homelessness, while at West Neighbourhood House, Maureen Fair leads innovative programs to support newcomers and families. At PARC, with Barbara Domenech, they step into the long-standing tradition of supporting low-income women.

Speaker, these organizations are doing incredible work, and I am so honoured to stand by them in this moment today.

Tragedy in Brampton West

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu: I rise today with profound sadness following the tragic house fire on November 20 that has shaken the community of Brampton West. This heartbreaking incident has now tragically taken five lives, leaving families grieving unimaginable loss, while others continue to pray for the recovery of loved ones who were injured and for the safe return of those still unaccounted for. My deepest condolences go out to everyone affected, and I join our entire community in keeping the victims in our thoughts and prayers.

I also want to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of Brampton fire, Peel paramedics, Peel Regional Police and the Office of the Fire Marshal. These first responders faced extremely difficult and dangerous conditions, yet they worked tirelessly to protect lives and support families during this devastating event.

Madam Speaker, as our community grieves, I urge all residents to follow fire safety protocols, ensure alarms and detectors are functioning, and take every precaution to keep their homes safe.

Together we stand in solidarity, compassion and support for all those impacted.

Senior citizens

MPP Bill Rosenberg: My home, Thessalon, is a small town with a big heart, and I’m proud to share one of the ways we honour the seniors in our community. Each Christmas season, our local pharmacy partners with long-term-care homes to ensure every resident feels remembered and cherished. Together, the caring staff have created a simple yet beautiful tradition that allows the public to brighten a senior’s holiday.

A Christmas tree is set up at the pharmacy decorated with tags listing each senior’s simple wishes. Anyone can choose a tag, purchase the items and return the gift with a tag attached so it reaches the right person. The gifts are placed under a tree until the staff gather them and deliver them to the home in time for Christmas morning. This special tradition has been happening for several years, and the community eagerly awaits the moment the tree goes up. The tags disappear quickly, and many gift-givers include cards filled with warm wishes, something the residents treasure deeply.

Small towns truly are a special place, but this act of kindness isn’t limited to small communities. I encourage others to adopt this model where they live. We must remember our seniors, the people who built our communities through decades of hard work, volunteering and generosity. The comforts and connections we enjoy today exist because of them. This story is a testament to the power of remembering, honouring and giving back—a good reminder that a simple gesture can make a meaningful impact on many very special people.

Police record checks

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: Since the change to centralized and provincially standardized police checks, there have been an increasing number of negative effects for Ontarians. I have been contacted by nurses, teachers, coaches and social workers who are facing significant delays in receiving vulnerable sector checks. Some are waiting over three months. These delays have led to rescinded job offers because individuals cannot start work without the required clearance. Long-term-care homes are even struggling to hire staff because no one can obtain their vulnerable sector clearance in time.

Speaker, imagine being offered the job of your dreams or maybe even a job just to make ends meet. The initial relief of being told the job is yours—you think, “No problem. I’m good to go.” You’re told, “One last step.” That step turns into a protracted delay, and your almost-employer has to pass you over. Hope turns into heartbreak.

We must find a better way forward. Previously, when municipal governments handled these checks, the average wait time was two to three weeks. What’s going wrong? Triton Canada is the vendor of record for OPP background checks and handles the intake. Is this middleman necessary? Is this red tape?

The CBC reported a social worker left Ontario because she couldn’t afford to live here. She moved to Labrador for a job contingent on a background check. At publication time, she had waited 45 days and figured she’d be without income for three months.

Speaker, the negative consequences of this centralized system far outweigh the benefits. I urge immediate action to address this issue.

House sittings

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Steve Clark: I just want to advise the House that the night sitting scheduled for this evening has been cancelled.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: Not that they need an introduction again because they’re here so often, but welcome to the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, and specifically the president, Mr. Greg Horton, and Jason Corazza, the president of the Oakville Professional Firefighters Association local. Welcome to the Legislative—

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I’ll add a few seconds to the clock.

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: I’d like to welcome the Medical Laboratory Professionals’ Association of Ontario and their CEO, Michelle Hoad; the Eastern Ontario Regional Laboratory Association; and representatives from medical laboratories across the province. As well, I would like to introduce the representatives from Home Care Ontario on their annual awareness day. Welcome to Sandra Ketchen and Josephine DesLauriers.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: It is my pleasure to introduce Martha Hradowy, who is the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation and a Windsor gal, as well as Shay Currie and Mike Merry from Windsor with the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Waterloo Fire is in the House. Welcome to your House, Adam Overgaard and Kevin Collins from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’d like to welcome a large contingent of Rotarians from the Rotary Club of Guelph. Thank you for putting service above self. And speaking of that, I’d like to acknowledge Colin Hunter, the outgoing president of the Guelph fire fighters association, who will be retiring in two months. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I’d like to welcome marvelous Michelle Hoad from the Medical Laboratory Professionals’ Association of Ontario and her whole team. Thank you for keeping us healthy and safe in Ontario.

MPP George Darouze: It’s my pleasure to welcome my friend Kent Smith with PwC. Kent is a great friend and community volunteer in so many organizations, and also he sits in different capacity. Welcome, Kent, to your House.

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: I’m honoured to welcome to the Legislature the Consul General of the Philippines, Kristine Leilani R. Salle, and the Consul of the Philippines, Rodney Jonas Sumague. We are grateful for your presence at Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: I’d like to welcome Steve Morgan and Curtis Clarke from the Belleville Professional Fire Fighters Association. Welcome to your House.

Hon. Rob Flack: I’d like to recognize Daryl Smith in the House, president of the St. Thomas Professional Firefighter’s Association. Welcome, Daryl.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I’d like to welcome the Salvation Army for their lobby day—Rick Zelinsky, Dan Millar, Brian Armstrong and Lynn Armstrong—and remind all members there’s a reception in 228/230 at lunch, and to also record a video statement in support of their annual kettle campaign.

Hon. Stan Cho: The GTHA is here, the Greater Toronto Hotel Association. I want to welcome all its members, as well as president and CEO, Sara Anghel, and VP of government and public affairs, Jim Wielgosz. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning. We have a number of student groups joining us today. I really want to welcome members of the College Student Alliance, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, and Ontario Student Voices. I promised I’d give them a shout-out today. Welcome to—

Applause.

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: I’d like to welcome a former colleague of mine, Jeff Maharaj, president of the Ontario Principals’ Council, to the Legislature today. Welcome to your House.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: I’d like to welcome some Niagara College students here today: Hish Clifford, Peter Almounauar—sorry for the mispronunciation—and Colton Hess.

The Student Union of Confederation College Inc.: I promised to give a shout out, as well to Balkaran Singh Dhanesar and to Gaurav Baghla. Thank you, and welcome to your House.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: I’d like to welcome people from the Ontario Principals’ Council: Alisa Cashore, chair of the Toronto School Administrators’ Association and a principal with the TDSB; Nadine Trépanier-Bisson, executive director of the principals’ council; and from the association of professional firefighters, Alexander Dzuba, Kyle Solomon and Tyler Reinelt.

Mr. Anthony Leardi: I welcome Jason Durocher and Andrew Challens from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, and also welcome to Jeff Maharaj, Jen Lendrum, Nadine Trépanier-Bisson, Alisa Cashore, Amy Johnson and Colleen Golightly from the Ontario Principals’ Council.

Mr. Ric Bresee: From Tyendinaga township council, I’d like to welcome Mayor Claire Kennelly and his wife, Cathy Kennelly; Deputy Mayor Heather Lang; Councillor Dave Ogden; Councillor Don McFarlane; and Councillor Jen Phillips, and her father, a good friend, former Hastings county warden Rick Phillips.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Yesterday, in what could only be called a very Trumpian-style outburst, the Premier threatened to audit non-profits and community organizations because they dared to speak out against his government. Meanwhile, the Premier stands here every single day defending his Minister of Labour’s $2.5-billion grift, handing out taxpayer dollars to insiders and lobbyists while regular people just keep losing out.

My question to the Premier is, why won’t the Premier show some respect to the taxpayers who pay his salary and hold the Minister of Labour accountable for this mess?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Steve Clark: Madam Speaker, I want to talk about what happened in this place earlier this week. Let’s face it: What happened in this place was supported 100% by the Leader of the Opposition and, actually, members of her party, which is shameful. It was shameful that that situation was enabled by members of the opposition.

This is a place—Speaker, through you—for debating ideas. We were all sent here to do a job, and we should do it without stunts, tricks and enabling radicals—and let’s face it, it was an enabling of radicals in this chamber. Shame on the Leader of the Opposition, and shame on your caucus.

Let’s get back to debating the issues that are before us.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, Speaker, I won’t take a lecture like that from that member whose own work as a minister is under criminal investigation by the OPP. So please, come on.

Look, the Premier and his ministers want to distract, but I want to bring the Premier’s attention back to where we are at today, because the Financial Accountability Office just reported that Ontario’s manufacturing jobs have hit the lowest point since 1976. I was putting Shaun Cassidy posters on my wall in 1976. I was a little young, but I was doing that. Donna Summer was teaching us how to disco in 1976.

This Premier is a jobs disaster. Instead of investing in training people for good jobs, the Premier continues to stand there every day and make excuses for his Minister of Labour who turned that fund into a pay-to-play scheme. When will the Premier clean up this mess and fire his minister?

Hon. Steve Clark: No, I’m not going to let the leader shift off her original narrative.

The Leader of the Opposition very clearly this week sided with professional protesters, and to take a word from my Premier and my leader, “yahoos,” rather than debating the issues in this House.

Again, we’re going to make sure that we talk about what’s important to Ontarians.

I know that the Minister of Labour, both today and every day, is committed to ensuring that young people have an opportunity to have a skilled trade; that we continue to put forward policies that ensure that we are the leading jurisdiction in the G7.

The Leader of the Opposition and her crew can continue to stand up with these protesters and yahoos; they can continue to collaborate with them.

It’s this party and our government that’s continuing to stand up for young people; that will continue to stand up for unions. That’s where—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, with this government, it’s always the same thing. We see it over and over again. We saw it with the greenbelt scheme, and now we see it with pay-to-play: It is one set of rules for them, and then it’s a whole other set of rules for everybody else, regular people, the rest of us.

Construction workers that I have met just in the last couple of weeks are asking me how money went to strip clubs instead of apprenticeships, because they don’t have enough of them.

Health care workers are fighting for higher wages while their tax dollars—not your piggy bank, not your money; the people’s money—are going to the Premier’s campaign manager.

Shame on you—

Interjection.

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

I will ask the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound to withdraw. Stand up and withdraw.

MPP Paul Vickers: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I will go back to the Leader of the Opposition for 10 seconds.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Just this morning, I was speaking to farmers, here from all across Ontario, who said to me—over and over again, they thanked me for shining a light on the shadows of this government and this cabinet because people have a right to know that their taxpayer dollars are going to programs that are going to benefit them, not this member’s family and friends.

When will the Premier put an end to this scheme and finally fire his Minister of Labour?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, it’s important that we don’t mislead the public.

That member—if she has visited unions and union training centres, I would ask her to name where she has visited. For weeks—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I will ask the minister to withdraw.

Hon. David Piccini: Withdraw.

Speaker, every member of this caucus shows up in union training halls to support funding. We know they’re subject to robust accountability metrics—just visit them at one of their membership meetings. They’re subject to accountability metrics through our fund.

We’re investing in training centres. We’re providing funding to support training in every corner of this province. We’ve seen an increase in the number of apprentices registering, thanks to the work of this Premier. We’re actually building.

They’re a professional protest party who don’t want to build highways, don’t want to build roads, don’t want to build bridges.

Again, I would ask her, which union did you visit?

Those unions have abandoned her party in favour of a Premier who’s going to put their members to—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’m not even going to go there because I’ve got to tell you, I’ve been to so many training facilities—and not only that; I have sat on the side of workers for unions bargaining against the big corporate bosses that they represent. So give me a break. Honestly, give me a break.

The bare minimum that Ontarians should be able to expect from their government is the truth. They want to see honesty. They want to see integrity, the kind of integrity that workers in this province show every single day when they wake up in the morning and they go to work to earn a decent living.

But this government? They are only concerned about their friends and their insiders, while the rest of us fall behind.

There are 200,000 more people unemployed today than there were when this government took office. That is a fact. People are looking for work and are unable to find it because of this government’s jobs disaster.

To the Premier: Can he tell us exactly how many jobs—full-time jobs—this pay-to-play scheme created?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the Minister of Labour.

Hon. David Piccini: Last month, we saw over 56,000 jobs added to the Ontario economy. When juxtaposed with the United States, that’s almost half of what the entire United States generated in the same time period. This Premier is creating meaningful opportunities. Through the Skills Development Fund, 100,000 workers have received employment within 60 days or less.

What have we seen through investing in training halls in every corner of this province? We’ve seen a 33% increase in cement finishers. The Leader of the Opposition doesn’t even know what a cement finisher is, Speaker. We’ve seen a 25% increase in heat and frost insulators, a 64% increase in pressure system welders.

What do you need these professions for, Speaker? You need them to build a stronger Ontario, to build new nuclear plants, to build new homes, to build new hospitals. Each and every measure, they vote against.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: It’s pretty low, right? It’s really sexist, and it’s beneath the minister. I will say that.

But look, the numbers tell us a very different story, because while the Premier stands here and he holds the line for his Minister of Labour, handing out millions to his buddies like the Paris groom and the strip club owner, workers are the ones that are falling through the cracks. People out there are finding life more expensive every single day under your government. We now have 20,600 fewer jobs in the manufacturing sector alone, according to the Financial Accountability Office, Speaker—manufacturing, a sector that used to be at the very heart of our economy.

Fewer opportunities, more uncertainty: That is all that this government has to offer to workers in this province. Does the Premier honestly think that his pay-to-play scheme is going to fix his jobs disaster?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Bay of Quinte.

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. Let’s get this straight: When our government came into office in 2018, there were 100,000 auto jobs that were hanging in the balance, after the 300,000 manufacturing jobs that left under the previous government. We now have 800,000 jobs in this province in manufacturing, up 24,000 in the last four months alone. We have more manufacturing jobs than Florida and New York, and are third in all of North America only to California and Texas.

We continue to be a manufacturing powerhouse, and we will continue to create good jobs and great opportunities for all the people in Ontario. And we will take no lessons from the NDP.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: There they go again, Speaker, patting themselves on the back while—

Interjections.

Ms. Marit Stiles: “Patting themselves on the back”—you like that? Yes, they really like it. They really like to applaud themselves while people are seeing their hard-earned dollars flowing out of this government and into the pockets of the strip club owners of your friends and your campaign managers, and it’s disgusting.

This year we are seeing—again, I want to remind the member: Go read the reports. We are seeing the first back-to-back quarterly job losses since 2009. Just in the past six months, we’ve lost almost 40,000 jobs. I talked to the workers in Brampton, in Ingersoll, in Windsor, in Oshawa, all across this province, in Sault Ste Marie. This government is a jobs disaster.

When will the Premier stand up for workers and fire his Minister of Labour?

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. This government has worked tirelessly to create the conditions for businesses to thrive. We’ve cut the cost of doing business in Ontario by over $12 billion a year. Through our red tape reduction measures, we’ve saved businesses over 1.8 million hours and $1.2 billion a year.

That has led to the top foreign direct investment in the entire country, creating over 90,000 jobs through FDI between 2018 and 2023. That’s to say nothing about the $40 billion that we brought in just last year for 409 international companies, creating 23,711 jobs. We are continuing to drive innovation, growth and job creation across this province, and, once again, we will do that without the help of the opposition.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. I’ve asked maybe a dozen times now about why Keel Digital Solutions continued to receive tens of millions of dollars while they were under a forensic audit that’s now been forwarded to the OPP for investigation. We still haven’t gotten a response, but it’s bigger than Keel. There’s a bigger, broader question about the Skills Development Fund.

Through you, Speaker, to the President of the Treasury Board: What is the reason that the President of the Treasury Board refuses to take broader action in investigating the rot that is the Skills Development Fund?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Government House leader.

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, through you to the honourable member: I just want to take the member back. He has asked these questions over and over again.

We’ve been very, very clear in this House about the path forward. The government outlined that in 2023 we had a routine audit that raised concerns about this external service provider. The process that the government went forward with identified irregularities that ultimately led to a very comprehensive forensic audit on the organization that’s in question.

The results of the audit, which the government received on November 5, recommended that the matter be referred to the Ontario Provincial Police. My colleague the Minister of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security has said repeatedly in this House that within 24 hours of receiving that forensic report, the referral was made.

So the member can continue to grandstand. I know he’s the perennial leader of the opposition, and they’re going through a bit of a thing with their—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: The government House leader missed the point. The clock started when that routine audit ended and it was identified, and you continued to send millions and millions of dollars. Why did that happen? You can’t run a business that way; you would go bankrupt.

We know that the Auditor General’s report on the Skills Development Fund said it wasn’t fair, transparent or accountable and that there was a perception of bias, and that it was hard to get any information about the fund. We also know that the lowest-scoring proposals got the most amount of money. That just doesn’t make any sense. How does that happen?

It doesn’t make any sense, right? There’s a process: There’s a problem; you identify it; you stop sending money; you stop doing business with somebody that you don’t trust—unless someone else is interfering.

So my question is, why has the President of the Treasury Board not undertaken further audits into Keel Digital Solutions or all the other low-scoring proposals—

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, you can’t, on one hand, say there’s no process and then, on the other hand, point to actual forensic audits done and acting promptly on those forensic audits. We have those processes in place for a reason.

When that member talks about investing in programs, be clear to the members of OPFFA who are here today—we invest in their training, ground survival training, Speaker. I visited them yesterday, and many members will have a chance to speak to them today. These are the government priorities we’re advancing.

Let’s be very clear when we’re referencing these funds. All dollars go to training: to training our professional firefighters and to training our men and women in the construction sectors. These are the priorities of government that we are advancing, and we’re proud to stand with those workers and invest in the incredible training that they do.

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

Mr. John Fraser: The minister conveniently forgot to mention that the company that was under forensic audit is the company that he intervened on behalf of, a low-scoring proposal, because he was friends with the lobbyist. So I don’t think I’d be crowing about accounting and auditing if I were you. That’s a big mistake, Minister. I’m not sure if it was a mistake.

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

Mr. John Fraser: So $27 million to bars and nightclubs in downtown Toronto; $10 million to the owner of a strip club. Low-scoring proposals—all went to an insider, a lobbyist friend, a donor, an endorser. It doesn’t make any sense.

No one is protecting the taxpayer dollar over there. I can see in their faces, all of them. I can see it in their faces. How do you go and explain this to someone back in your constituency?

Why won’t the President of the Treasury Board take responsibility and get to the bottom of the rot that’s the Skills Development Fund?

Hon. David Piccini: Again, Speaker, we’re talking about programs that are investing in the people of Ontario—investing in those plans.

When the pandemic hit and we needed a plan to support workers, it’s this government that stepped up. After every successive round, we’ve made improvements to the program. We’ve had independent officers analyze this program. We’ve accepted those recommendations and are moving forward to strengthen that program.

But when he stands up against these programs—I support the independent audits; they’re not done by us but by independent officers—he’s standing against the men and women of our fire services who are getting trained, thanks to the Skills Development Fund, and the men and women in our construction sector in every corner of the province.

Last night they passed Bill 30 on voice vote. So on one hand they stand here and complain; on the other hand they quietly actually support this, because they can’t even name a single union they visited that doesn’t support the Skills Development Fund and the incredible work we’re doing to train the next generation of workers.

Government accountability

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

Mr. John Fraser: Maybe the minister didn’t hear the first time around. The company in the forensic audit is the one that he intervened on behalf of while they were under a forensic audit because his friend was the lobbyist. Also, he was hanging around with the director of the company at a hockey game. So I’m not sure he should be standing up here and crowing about his record, because how do you explain to people who are trying to put food on the table, who are trying to get clothes for their kids, pay the rent—how do you go back home and explain to them, “I intervened to give $7 million to a company because my friend was the lobbyist and I overrode the low-scoring proposals”?

How do you explain that to people? And how does the President of the Treasury Board not get to the bottom of the rot, the absolute, total rot the Skills Development Fund is?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Government House leader.

Hon. Steve Clark: Again, Speaker, over and over and over again the member asks the same question. The path was crystal clear by the government on this file. You have the routine audit that took place two years ago, which led to the ultimate forensic audit.

I’m speaking today on behalf of the Minister of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security: Within 24 hours of getting that forensic audit, the audit is passed along to the OPP under the investigation. The minister has said over and over and over again that all payments associated with this provider are currently under review and further actions will be taken by our government based on the outcome.

We’re not going to comment any further on the OPP investigation. But let’s face facts: The member is going to continue to ask the questions. The path forward has been brought to you many, many times.

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

Mr. John Fraser: The House leader’s answer is a day late and a dollar short—well actually, millions of dollars short.

There are 200,000 young people looking for work in this province, looking for a start, and this government has let the college system wither—their college system, their opportunity—and fired 10,000 workers, at the same time shovelling tens of millions of dollars out the door to donors, insiders, friends, lobbyists, whoever has got a connection.

How does the President of the Treasury Board explain that to the young people that are in the gallery right now, why their colleges are being allowed to wither while friends, insiders, lobbyists are all being taken care of? How does the President of the Treasury Board explain that?

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: Funding for Ontario’s publicly assisted colleges and universities has never been higher in our province’s history. Under the leadership of Premier Ford, this government is making the strategic investments to ensure Ontario’s institutions get students into rewarding careers that address the province’s current and future labour market needs.

Through budget 2025, we announced nearly $1 billion in targeted investment to expand enrolment and critical labour market programs. This is all new funding, on top of the $1.3-billion investment in Ontario’s post-secondary last year and in addition to over $5 billion in operating funding we contribute annually so that Ontario institutions can continue to deliver for our students.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Some $10 million to a strip club owner: Can you explain that to the students, somebody over there? President of the Treasury Board? Some $27 million to bars and nightclubs: Can you explain that? Millions of dollars to a law firm—the principal is a Conservative appointee. Millions and millions of dollars shoveled out the door to friends and donors and insiders—it’s just gross. While the college system withers and people lose opportunity, these guys are feathering their friends’ nests. It’s wrong. The President of the Treasury Board has a responsibility to look after the people’s money, and she’s not.

Why is the President of the Treasury Board refusing to get to the bottom of the Skills Development Fund and the stinking, rotting mass that it is?

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

Mr. Lorne Coe: We know our colleges and universities build Ontario’s workforce for generations to come. That is why in the last 19 months we provided $2 billion in new funding to support our colleges and universities. We’re taking a comprehensive approach with the sector to strategically invest in critical areas that will benefit Ontario students and our economy.

The people of Ontario elected us because they know it is this government who will make fiscally responsible decisions, and it is this government that will maintain Ontario’s reputation of having a world-class post-secondary system while building the workforce our province needs to succeed.

Child care

MPP Alexa Gilmour: Speaker, women make up 75% of Ontario’s community public service workforce, the very workers who hold up the care economy. But instead of investing in the jobs, in the services that women count on, after eight years of Conservative government, funding for social services has fallen 16%, and the FOA says that the government is going to be short, get this, $7 billion just to maintain—just to maintain—the basic services. Meanwhile, workers, mostly women, are paid so little that they are struggling to feed their own families, even as they care for ours.

How can the Premier claim to support women’s economic opportunity when his own cuts have pushed the care economy to the brink?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: I was elected in 2022. That’s when we changed the name of the ministry from “women’s issues” to “women’s social and economic opportunity,” because we know the driving factor that contributes to violence against women is economic instability. It only took four years for the members opposite to realize this, so thank you, I guess.

This is why we contributed $1.4 billion to Ontario-STANDS, which is our strategy to address and end violence against women. The last pillar that anchors the strategy is “promote economic security.” This is why we’ve invested over $41 million in 58 organizations across the province to ensure that women have training and wraparound supports so that they can complete their training and get jobs in the trades, in high-growth sectors, in any sector that they want to.

Madam Speaker, we will do everything that we can—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Parkdale–High Park.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: It seems that the FAO is telling this minister that she has been failing at her job.

Women make up 96% of the child care workforce, and child care is that lifeline that allows mothers to work, to study, to rebuild their lives, especially those fleeing violence, yet the fees are still $19 a day, the spaces are scarce and the sector is short 10,000 RECEs because wages are so low that the workers cannot stay.

Will this government finally deliver affordable, accessible child care with a real workforce strategy, or will it continue to hold back the very women our economy depends on?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the associate minister.

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: Madam Speaker, you know it was our government that made sure that women, or any worker who is in child care, can ladder up to make sure they become registered ECEs so they can earn higher paycheques and contribute even more to our society that we need. We know that women are important to our economy, which is why we are working hard to ensure our economy is strong. You cannot have a strong economy when you don’t have healthy workers.

That’s why we invest heavily to get women into the trades, women I met, like Sarah, who came from doing nothing to getting into our Women’s Economic Security Program and is now a carpenter. That was through a program in Burlington.

It is programs like these that are making sure that women have opportunities, which is why we call our ministry women’s social and economic opportunities. We will always work hard to ensure that Ontario is the best place for women to be able to get a job, earn an income—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Government accountability

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: The Ontario internal audit division within the Treasury Board Secretariat has the mandate to provide independence, assurance, advisory and forensic audit services aimed at evaluating and improving, among other things, whether the internal government controls over taxpayer money are working as intended.

We’ve seen example after example in the Skills Development Fund of millions and millions of dollars given to low-scoring applicants, insiders, donors, strip club owners, and now, a company undergoing a forensic audit.

How does the President of the Treasury Board think the people of Ontario will interpret her refusal to stand in this House and explain the action—or inaction—of her department? How is it she is not worried that people will assume that her government—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the government House leader.

Hon. Steve Clark: You know, Speaker, I just can’t understand. This is a very open and transparent process that has been outlined many, many times in this House. The minister has talked about the audits that take place routinely on government programs. He has also indicated in this House that, based on the Auditor General’s recommendations, we’ll be implementing those recommendations.

Again, to continue to target one of the ministers that—we’ve outlined very clearly in this House how this happened: A routine audit in 2023 led to a forensic audit, and 24 hours after that audit was received on November 5, it was forwarded to the Ontario Provincial Police.

I don’t know whether I’ve got to do instant Hansard and send it over to the members, but the process has been very, very clear. We’ll continue to stand up and move those processes forward. The member can continue to try—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Member for Kanata–Carleton.

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: Speaker, of course the question has to go to the President of the Treasury Board. It is the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board, and I’m puzzled why, over the past few days, she has specifically chosen not to answer these questions.

We’ve seen the Minister of Labour try to defend his actions through misdirection, wild excuses and, I would say, a certain pride in taking care of his friends with taxpayer money.

Now, back to the President of the Treasury Board: How is it that she doesn’t seem to care that people will either think that she is incompetent or that her government has something to hide?

Hon. Steve Clark: Come on, Speaker. Come on. The President of the Treasury Board is one of the most accomplished ministers in our government, and I take great offence, through you, Speaker, to that member that you even question her competency as a minister. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order. Order. The member for Ajax will come to order. I’m going to start warning people.

Continue.

Hon. Steve Clark: Do you know what’s important for our government? The fact that we’re facing unprecedented economic times. We need Ontario skilled workers to deliver on our $200-billion infrastructure program. We need skilled workers for our unprecedented energy program. Again, to highlight a process that we’ve answered numerous times and then to defame one of our most competent members? Shame on the Liberal Party—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

Agriculture industry

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness. Ontario farmers feed our province and drive our economy. They put fresh food on our tables. They support towns and families across Ontario. They work long hours, face high costs and deal with risks that most people never see.

Two weeks ago, at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, our government heard one message again and again: Farmers are worried about what is coming next. They see rising global pressure. They hear the threats Donald Trump keeps making. They know new tariffs or trade fights could hit their crops, their herds, their income and their future.

Can the minister explain how our government is protecting Ontario’s agriculture sector from these growing economic threats?

Hon. Trevor Jones: Good morning, Speaker, and thank you to the hard-working member from Wellington–Halton Hills. This gentleman knows where his food comes from.

And he’s right, Madam Speaker. Against the backdrop of our beautiful Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, I had the privilege of hosting thought leaders from academia, agriculture, farms, commodity groups, to distill and find ways to invest better and do more with innovation and research to benefit our farmers and food producers.

Farmers do feed cities. But with farmers being concerned about tariffs, what I’ve heard from those thought leaders was potential—limitless potential and massive upsides. Just last month, I had the privilege of announcing $41 million in agricultural research and innovation for our farmers and food producers. Our government will continue to listen to and learn from our food producers to protect Ontario and protect Ontario’s food supply.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Joseph Racinsky: Thank you to the minister for his answer and his strong leadership.

Speaker, our farmers are clear. They want stability, they want safe markets and they want our government to continue to stand with them when outside forces put their work at risk. At the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, our government spoke with growers, ranchers and young farmers. They told us they were worried about economic threats from Donald Trump. They know one tariff can wipe out a season. They know how trade fights can hurt small farmers the most. They want to see continued strong support and strong action by our government.

Can the minister share how our government is helping farmers remain economically strong and competitive as these threats grow?

Hon. Trevor Jones: Thank you again for the question. Our two-way trade in food and agri-products between Canada and the US is $45 billion, so US tariffs threaten our farmers and American farmers. They threaten our consumers and American consumers—both sides of the border. This is precisely why my colleague and former Minister of Agriculture announced $100 million to shore up our business risk management programs to $250 million annually. Whether it’s through research, innovation or shoring up our insurance programs, our government has the backs of farmers, even in turbulent times.

We’ll always protect Ontario farmers. We’ll always protect Ontario. And we know where our food comes from. Thank a farmer if you ate today.

Employment

Mr. Chris Glover: Last week I was at a food bank, and the lineup was around the block. One in 10 Ontarians is now reliant on a food bank; one in three are there because they lost their jobs. Bell Canada recently laid off 700 employees. This Conservative government cut 10,000 jobs from our public colleges, and Ontario’s manufacturing jobs are at the lowest level since 1976.

But instead of helping workers get jobs, this government has spent 2.3 billion taxpayer dollars on the Skills Development Fund, and they aren’t even tracking whether there are any jobs being created at all. While Ontario workers are getting pink slips and lining up at food banks, why is this government spending 2.3 billion taxpayer dollars with no evidence that it’s helping anyone but their donors?

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

Hon. David Piccini: That’s simply incorrect. As I’ve said before, over 100,000 people find employment within 60 days or less. We’ve also integrated our centralized employment management service tracking outcome six, nine, 12 months out, tracking SIN numbers so that we could track long-term employment.

It’s also not just employment; it’s about retention as well. For example, there’s the incredible training we’re doing with firefighters to support health and safety, also driving our retention for first responders, who are running into danger while we run from it.

It’s also about breaking down barriers, as you heard from my caucus colleague earlier, for women entering employment. The construction sector—this is a party that doesn’t support construction, doesn’t support the men and women in our union training halls who are landing better jobs working on things like Highway 413 and the Bradford Bypass. These are tangible projects that are putting men and women to work.

The 18,000 jobs for SMRs alone—again, they don’t support those things. These are putting men and women to work in our community—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Spadina–Fort York.

Mr. Chris Glover: The government uses words like “creating opportunities” and “retention,” but if you don’t have any data, then you have no evidence that you’ve gotten anything or Ontarians have benefited at all from the 2.3 billion taxpayer dollars in this slush fund.

Ontario has now the second-highest unemployment rate of any province in Canada, and instead of creating jobs, this Premier gave 100 million taxpayer dollars to clients of the Premier’s campaign manager. If this government is so confident that giving 100 million taxpayer dollars to the Premier’s campaign manager creates real, permanent jobs, will they stop hiding the data and publish today the list of every funded project, every employer and the number of actual full-time jobs created?

Hon. David Piccini: Let’s talk about real stats that this training is supporting—again, a 33% increase in registered training agreements among cement workers. That member doesn’t know what a registered training agreement is, so I’ll explain it to him. That’s when an employer signs on an apprentice. They’re getting paid while they are learning. Those are real jobs, real training opportunities—a 25% increase in heat and frost insulators; a 64% increase in pressure system welders.

A 14% increase in registered training agreements for network cabling specialists: In my community, we’ve delivered a $40-million project that’s supporting driving fibre, connecting it to homes so that rural Ontario businesses can connect and drive sales for their business. Guess what? It’s men and women—network cabling specialists, among others—who helped get that job done. They’re signing registered training agreements, thanks to training this government is investing in. That’s leading to real jobs. Those are real stats, real jobs.

Government accountability

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: The internal audit department for the government is in Treasury Board. Treasury Board is supposed to provide “services that support ... prudent financial and risk management, transparency, accountability ... and helps to ensure value for money in government spending.”

We know a routine audit of Keel Digital Solutions done by Treasury Board’s internal audit function found irregularities in 2023. In any well-run organization, the executive committee—here, the cabinet—would be informed the minute irregularities were found. Every minister, including the labour minister, should have been alerted. If they weren’t, the Treasury Board failed in its duty.

Through you, Speaker, to the President of the Treasury Board: When did she inform cabinet of the irregularities uncovered during the Keel Digital Solutions routine audit?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Government House leader.

Hon. Steve Clark: Speaker, I don’t know how many times the government has to outline the process for the opposition. Obviously, they’ve got some track that they’re on that no one understands but them. Let’s talk about what’s important—I outlined it a previous question to one of the third party members—the importance of skills training.

There’s no better way to show that the Liberals have lost their way than to talk about the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association—Speaker, through you to the members that are here today. The minister earlier today talked about the great partnership that our government has in skills development with our firefighters. I can remember a time when I was in this House in the early days, when it was that party that worked closely with them. That just shows you how far Liberals have lost their way, when they vilify skills training contracts that we’ve done, when they vilify the President of the Treasury Board and they—

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

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Speaker, it’s clear: The Treasury Board president does not want to talk about the Skills Development Fund. Why? Because she cannot defend the indefensible. The Skills Development Fund house of cards is about to come crashing down, and she doesn’t want to be anywhere near it.

Any experienced auditor would have done two things when irregularities showed up: They would make sure all taxpayer money to Keel Digital Solutions stopped flowing—that didn’t happen—and they would audit every program the government has with Keel, including the $7.5 million they got from the Skills Development Fund. That’s the only acceptable course of action.

My question to the President of the Treasury Board: Will she commit to auditing every dollar of taxpayer money that this government gave to Keel Digital Solutions and telling the people of Ontario if they really got value for money?

Hon. Steve Clark: Through you, Speaker: The third party is fixated on the President of the Treasury Board, and do you know why? It’s because the Minister of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security has consistently answered their questions. The minister has stood in his place and answered when the audit took place, when the forensic audit was returned, and when he referred the audit to the Ontario Provincial Police. Both ministers have indicated in this House what has happened with the applicants’ funds since then. It has been crystal clear to everyone in this House but the third party, on the path forward.

I just find it very interesting, on a day when I’m accepting questions for the Minister of Colleges and Universities, that all of a sudden every question is dealing with the President of the Treasury Board.

We’ve answered the questions—asked and answered.

Agriculture and food processing industries

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: My question is for the Premier. We have witnessed this government condone the expropriation and development of farmland over the past few years. If this is a government best practice, then I suggest we keep it in the ag family and begin investing in ag food processing.

Speaker, $670 million to a Norwegian company, $424 million to Umicore—the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates total provincial contributions for EV projects in Canada to be about $21.1 billion, most of that coming right here from Ontario.

Yesterday, Stellantis, a company this government upholds with immense amounts of taxpayer dollars, couldn’t even be bothered to show up and meet with MPs. Do you know who always shows up? Our farmers and ag organizations.

And talking about a $100-million boost to our RMP two days before this provincial election in 2025 is absolutely rich, when