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

June 4, 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-Jun-04 vol. A (PDF)

L022A - Wed 4 Jun 2025 / Mer 4 jun 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 June 2025 Mercredi 4 juin 2025

Estimates

Members’ expenditures

Orders of the Day

Resource Management and Safety Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la gestion des ressources et la sécurité

Members’ Statements

Events in Algoma–Manitoulin

Labour dispute

Filipino community

George Leslie Mackay

Youth employment

Seniors’ Month

Dalai Lama

Events in Perth–Wellington

Eddie Chan

Hagersville 150

Introduction of Visitors

Steve Paikin

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Steel industry

Government accountability

Public safety

Labour dispute

Government accountability

Tobacco control

Economic development

Highway safety / Sécurité routière

Municipal development

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Protect Ontario Through Safer Streets and Stronger Communities Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 pour protéger l’Ontario en rendant les rues plus sûres et les collectivités plus fortes

Pension plans

House sittings

Introduction of Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on the Interior

Introduction of Government Bills

Peel Transition Implementation Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la mise en oeuvre de la transition de Peel

Protect Ontario by Cutting Red Tape Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 pour protéger l’Ontario en réduisant les formalités administratives

Introduction of Bills

2512681 Ontario Inc. Act, 2025

Fairness for Road Users Act (Contraventions Causing Death or Serious Bodily Harm), 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur l’équité envers les usagers de la route (contraventions causant un décès ou des blessures corporelles graves)

Uploading Highways 174 and 17 Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur le transfert de compétences relatives aux voies publiques 174 et 17

Northern Highway 11 and 17 Safety Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la sécurité des routes 11 et 17 du Nord

No Free Ride for Fossil Fuels Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 visant à empêcher les combustibles fossiles de bénéficier d’un passe-droit

Rent Stabilization Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la stabilisation des loyers

EV-Ready Homes Act (Electric Vehicle Charging), 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur les maisons prêtes pour les VE (recharge des véhicules électriques)

Social Asset Measurements Inc. Act, 2025

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Affaires francophones

Orders of the Day

Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 pour protéger l’Ontario en libérant son économie

1976998 Ontario Inc. Act, 2025

1976998 Ontario Inc. Act, 2025

MFIS Holdings and Investments Inc. Act, 2025

MFIS Holdings and Investments Inc. Act, 2025

Resource Management and Safety Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la gestion des ressources et la sécurité

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Estimates

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Treasury Board president.

Hon. Caroline Mulroney: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a message from the Honourable Edith Dumont, the Lieutenant Governor, signed by her own hand.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 2026, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

Please be seated.

Members’ expenditures

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table the individual members’ expenditures for the fiscal year 2024-25.

Orders of the Day

Resource Management and Safety Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la gestion des ressources et la sécurité

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 3, 2025, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to enact the Geologic Carbon Storage Act, 2025 and to amend various Acts with respect to wildfires, resource safety and surveyors / Projet de loi 27, Loi édictant la Loi de 2025 sur le stockage géologique de carbone et modifiant diverses lois concernant les incendies de végétation, la sécurité des ressources et les arpenteurs-géomètres.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Further debate? I recognize the member for Toronto–Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you, Speaker. It’s—

Interjections.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate that.

It’s my honour—not always my pleasure—to rise in this House to debate this bill. There are a few things I want to address. I’m focused primarily on the carbon storage, the geologic storage. My colleague the MPP from Mushkegowuk yesterday dealt with the other aspects of the bill—although I will speak a bit about the fire services.

There is a lot wrong with the geologic storage portion of this bill. I think the first part has to do with potential risk that comes from going ahead with pumping large amounts of carbon dioxide into fractured rock in southern Ontario without having done a study in advance as to the potential risks.

Speaker, if you get a chance—if you google “abandoned oil and gas wells in Ontario,” CBC has a really detailed map showing, roughly, the 27,000 abandoned oil and gas wells in Ontario. Many people may not know that Ontario was one of the leading pioneers in developing the oil and gas industry in the 19th century. Petrolia, Ontario, got its name not by accident. In fact, we were ahead of the United States in terms of developing oil and gas. We were pioneers. The oil and gas industry in the 19th century took full advantage of the geology of this area and continued on into the 20th century.

Even today, we still produce oil and gas in Ontario. About 1% of our total supply comes from Ontario itself. What this means, though, is that we have literally tens of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells across Ontario, heavily concentrated in a band that runs from the south end of the Niagara Peninsula, along Lake Erie, all the way to Windsor-Essex.

People may be familiar with the explosions that happened in Wheatley, Ontario, a number of years ago, covered extensively by the Globe and Mail—a failure on the part of the Ontario government to actually monitor, take action on, cap and make safe those abandoned oil and gas wells. So we have literally tens of thousands that are still seeping gas, seeping oil, with the risk that comes from that.

This bill allows those who are interested to pump carbon dioxide into abandoned wells to flush out the remaining oil and gas. I have problems with that. I think we need to be making a move away from fossil fuels. We have a climate crisis, and if I have the time, I’ll get into greater detail on that. But unfortunately, in the course of developing this bill, what we in the official opposition found was that the government had not actually done a study of the potential harms that come from pumping that carbon dioxide into those abandoned and old wells. We don’t know if pumping in one place will cause oil and gas to bubble up in another place.

So you’ve got a farmer’s field. You’ve got an old oil and gas well. You may not have thought about it; you may not have seen it. It may be covered in dirt and just seeping some natural gas, but once someone starts pressurizing that pool underground, then, one could assume, there’s a risk you’ll start seeing oil bubble up in farmers’ fields where farmers, for the last few decades, have seen no oil activity whatsoever. You may not see it, you may not smell it, but natural gas may come up as well, in or near buildings.

So you’re setting yourselves up, and we are being set up, potentially, because no study has been done and we can’t say with any certainty whether what’s going to be done is safe or harmful—potentially setting up situations where we’re getting oil leakage into agricultural fields, into what are now developed areas, gas into buildings or into fields. That is a huge issue and, frankly, this shouldn’t be going forward until the study has been done to establish that this can be done without precipitating those oil and gas leaks from wells that have been long abandoned and not properly capped, not properly sealed.

That’s a big issue.

The second issue that I think is very important is this sense of why we’re going to be pumping carbon dioxide into subterranean spaces. If you look through the number of documents that have been put out by the government on this particular project, obviously the one thing to do is stimulate oil and gas production. I’ve already talked about the risk there, setting aside even the climate implications. But part of what’s being done here is to provide a place to put the carbon dioxide when you make hydrogen.

Hydrogen, overwhelmingly, is made not by electrolysis, not by putting a current through water to separate hydrogen and oxygen. No, it’s made by taking natural gas or methane and, with a very expensive and very energy-intensive process, breaking that natural gas into its component parts, freeing the hydrogen so that it can be pumped and sold, and taking apart the carbon dioxide. Now, currently, the carbon dioxide is just simply vented to the atmosphere. What’s suggested here in the process that we’ve been given is that that carbon dioxide will be captured and pumped underground.

When you actually start to go through the studies on this so-called blue hydrogen—green hydrogen being the one that emits no carbon dioxide, but blue hydrogen emits a lot of carbon dioxide—you’ll find that, in fact, the carbon dioxide emissions are very, very substantial, that the geologic capture of carbon dioxide is far less effective than is claimed. When you look at fields or industrial processes in Europe, they report an extraordinarily expensive process getting that carbon dioxide underground, but a very leaky process.

In general, the assessment of the environmental community is that making this blue hydrogen can be as damaging, or more damaging, than just simply burning natural gas in the first place. If you say you’re trying to make things better for the environment and in fact what you’re doing is, at a minimum, continuing the level of damage that you’re seeing now, or, as is entirely likely, making things worse—I don’t understand why on earth we would be doing this.

The other element in this, or reason that’s given, is that we need to take carbon dioxide from industries that are hard to clean up, industries like cement that, at the heart of the process, are releasing carbon dioxide. Again, I go back to the European experience, which is of geologic storage, of taking the carbon dioxide and pumping it underground into rock formations, being extremely expensive and, frankly, very faulty, so that you continue to get substantial leakage.

It would make lots more sense for us as a society, if we’re going to do this, to invest in those industries to help them make the transition away from burning oil, gas or coal in order to make their product. That would economically make a lot more sense than what’s being proposed here.

So for me, it seems that the process that we’re engaged in is far more driven by the need to give a cover story to the natural gas industry to make their blue hydrogen, and say that what they’re doing is environmentally defensible, and giving an opportunity for the oil and gas industry to squeeze a few last drops out of the lemon to get the remaining oil and gas out of the rocks underlying southern Ontario. That is not a credible approach.

But I think on top of all this is the government’s argument that this is somehow going to help with fighting climate change. I don’t think this government has any commitment to doing that, frankly, so I don’t think it’s credible when they make that argument. But beyond that, I think the government fails to recognize the scale and scope of risk that we’re facing as a society.

Now, today, you can look up and you can see the smoke from fires burning in northern Ontario, western Canada, and get a sense that here, at the beginning of June, we are facing a crisis in wildfires that is driving people from their homes—and that will only get worse as the world gets hotter. Yet at the same time, this government has no credible plan to take on that issue.

In 2018, this government was elected. That year and the year after, emissions went up. COVID came along. Provinces right across this country saw a big drop in emissions. As the pandemic eased, we saw a growth in emissions, most notably in Ontario and Alberta. But Alberta actually had, this year—I think they levelled out,

whereas Ontario grew. So this government is not, in fact, taking on this issue.

And it isn’t just the wildfire smoke that we see. If you look a little bit into the future—and you can look a bit into the future by looking at 6 o’clock news broadcasts from Louisiana and Florida. I know that’s sort of an odd source, but the reality in those jurisdictions is that as extreme weather ramps up, and as it is ramping up more slowly here—but we’ll get there—insurance companies are pulling out. They are saying these places are not insurable. So, increasingly, homeowners are either finding they can’t renew their insurance or the price for renewal is beyond their means.

In some cases, that means that people are moving; in some cases, it means that people, as they say on the 6 o’clock news in Fort Lauderdale, are “going bare”: They are going forward without any house insurance. That puts them at tremendous risk of either crushing debt or homelessness in the years to come.

We need to recognize that reality, and because those insurance losses are mounting in Louisiana, in Florida, in California, the North American insurance industry is spreading those costs around, so you will see upward pressure on insurance costs in Ontario from the losses insurance companies are taking down in the States. I’ve been told by one insurance executive in Toronto that their company pulled out of the southern United States a number of years ago because they could see where damage claims were heading, they could see what the trends were in terms of climate impact.

This government is not taking seriously the impact that is coming at us in terms of our homes, not taking seriously the impact that’s coming at us in terms of higher insurance prices. It has a weak, a failing—well, “weak” is too generous. It does not have climate plan that is of any consequence whatsoever. It is more a document that can be pointed to when someone says, “Do you have a climate plan?” They say, “Yep. That’s it right there. It’s failing, it’s not defensible in a court of law, but we call it a climate plan; we suggest you do the same.” Those are substantial problems. Those are very substantial problems.

The government is not facing up to the fact that Ontario, which is a financial services sector hub in North America, depends on a stable finance system. The US Senate had hearings last year about the risk of climate change to the insurance industry, and they published a report in late December 2024 talking about how climate change was going to destabilize the insurance industry. Recently, a major insurance executive in Europe talked about the threat to the insurance industry from climate change and, with a threat to the insurance industry, a threat to the financial services sector in its entirety.

This government is not, in fact, acting as one would rationally to protect our economy and our livelihoods. Going forward with geologic storage and saying, “Well, this is one of our big answers to the climate crisis”—it is not a big answer; it is driven by oil and gas interests that want to squeeze more out of the ground; it’s driven by natural gas interests that want to say, “We’re making an environmentally defensible product” when, in fact, that is not the case.

I want to speak very briefly about the wildfire section. I didn’t see reference to urban wildfire as an issue that needed to be dealt with, not to be highlighted. I raise this because—I’ll will just go through some of the places that have been hit by urban wildfire: Fort McMurray—if you get a chance to read John Vaillant’s Fire Weather, you can get a sense of how scary it is when a city starts going up—Lytton, BC; Lahaina, Hawaii; Los Angeles—no one would have thought that Los Angeles would have a big chunk of that city wiped out by wildfire.

In 2021, London, UK: very lucky that grass fires in the suburbs of London did not result in a much bigger fire. In fact, one senior fire official said, if the wind had been different, we would have been looking at a second Great Fire of London.

Alberta has now got six urban wildfire crews set up. Ontario needs to consider the potential risk of urban wildfire—and that’s house-to-house burning. I’m not just talking about trees catching fire in a park. In any event, Speaker, there are fundamental problems with this bill.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Ms. Laura Smith: Thank you to the member opposite. We’re all concerned about the environment, but this is the reason why it’s now more than ever necessary to make these regulations. There are a number of benefits to regulating this technology, including contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in this province. Ensuring timely establishments and commercial frameworks is critical to enable industries to take advantage of federal funding incentives, such as the environmental and climate change—Canada’s carbon capture.

We’re at a moment in time where we have to move now and I think that utilizing the storage investment tax credit, which will decline in value over 2030, is essential to moving positively in this fashion.

Will the member opposite support this bill so that we can not only preserve our communities and our industries but also our infrastructures?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the question from the member. I have to say, yes, we are all concerned. But if you’re in at a house and the back room has caught fire and your response is to not get people out of the house, then I actually have to ask questions about how concerned you are. We are facing very profound threats and risks from climate change and a government that is not acting. What’s in this bill will at best be inconsequential.

I have to say, the federal government does not have a good record on climate. We’re not meeting our climate targets. The Liberals, who have been in power since 2015, have been appalling on the climate issue—appalling. And so to say we’re going to take advantage of these tax credits doesn’t mean you’re actually going to take on the climate issue, it just means you’re going to take advantage of tax credits.

We’re considering supporting this on second reading to see if there can be amendments made in committee that make the bill useful, but to say—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

MPP Wayne Gates: I just want to say about my colleague and everybody in the House, the biggest concern that we have in the world today is climate change. If we don’t have clean air and we don’t have clean water, what future are we going to leave for our kids and our grandkids? I know my colleague has fought his entire adult life for environmental justice.

I’m going to ask you: This legislation basically sets up a new industry, quite frankly. Do you believe that we need extensive consultation before this bill gets passed?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the question. Yes, I think extensive consultation makes a lot of sense, and I particularly think that those communities along the north shore of Lake Erie deserve to be heard, deserve to have potential risks set out to them. They deserve to see the studies that have been done showing that that risk can be dealt with. Frankly, as far as we can tell, the consultation with First Nations—informed, prior consent—that, to my knowledge, has not been done, and this will affect First Nations communities.

The member from Niagara: His riding has an awful lot of abandoned oil and gas wells in it. All along the south side of the Niagara Peninsula and in and around Sarnia, lots of abandoned oil and gas wells. If I had that riding, I would be very, very concerned of the potential risk here that has not been explored and properly defined.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

Hon. Michael S. Kerzner: I appreciate hearing from the member opposite.

If we’re not bold, if we don’t have a vision, if we can’t see the forest through the trees, if we can’t understand that one way we combat climate change here in our Ontario is—look at our energy grid, look at our power generation. And we take it further; this whole concept of carbon storage is reminding all of Ontario that our government under Premier Ford is bold.

My question to the member opposite is, when we look to move forward in a way that is innovative, we can’t go back to the days of the candle and the stagecoach. Our economy is not going to go back; we are going forward.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the question from the member, and I have a lot of respect for him. I don’t know if you’ve seen Ontario’s climate plan, but bold and visionary are not the terms that come to mind. Ludicrous, weak, inadequate: Those are the words that first come to mind. We don’t even meet the targets that were set by the federal government, and the federal government is a slacker on climate issues. We’re below the targets necessary to protect our future.

When you talk about bold and visionary, hey, show some bold and visionary. Geologic storage is not bold and visionary. Moving away from natural gas for home heating would be bold and would actually make a big difference. We moved away from coal home heating back in the 1960s. Last year, Bill 165, this government undermined the Ontario Energy Board, which was trying to protect consumers, protect them from higher bills.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I very much appreciate the remarks from my colleague the member for Toronto–Danforth. I wanted to point out that very soon, in July, we will be marking four years since the horrific explosion in Wheatley that rocked that community as a result of an explosion in an abandoned underground mine. I wanted to hear the member’s perspective on whether any of the lessons from that tragedy have been reflected and incorporated into this bill.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the question. There are in this bill changes to the relevant act, oil, gas and salt, which I gather increase the powers of the province to take action around abandoned oil and gas wells. What’s not clear to me, and I haven’t seen it, is whether or not funds are going to be set aside to actually deal with these abandoned oil and gas wells. You may have increased enforcement powers, but if you don’t have enforcers—officers trained and deployed to take on this issue—having a statute on the books will be irrelevant.

At the same time, because the bill is setting things up to pressurize the underground oil and gas storage so that abandoned wells that may not now be visibly problematic could become problematic, that says that we’re going backwards and forwards at the same time. In fact, we may be going a lot faster backwards if we find that pressurizing one well activates five or 10 or 15 others. We don’t know; I’m speculating. But I don’t like to speculate about safety and risk. I don’t like to speculate about the idea that you may be pumping natural gas into a school or home, into a downtown

section of a place like Wheatley. If, in fact, you really cared about this issue and learned from the Wheatley explosions, you would not be allowing the oil and gas industry to pump up those old reserves.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Question?

M me Lucille Collard: To the member for Toronto–Danforth: I have to say, I was a bit surprised to hear you bash down the record of the Liberals on the environmental aspect.

Hon. Graham McGregor: Yes, what’s up with that?

M me Lucille Collard: Well, I don’t know. What about the phasing out of coal power, which brought down carbon emissions by 24%? What about the introduction of the cap-and-trade system? What about the expansion of the greenbelt and all the investment that we did in renewable energy? Like, I know it wasn’t perfect, but I don’t think that we deserve what you qualified the record that we have achieved.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I get along with the member, and we’ve had some jokes before about the necessity of disciplining members and the methods that can be used. That said, you know I was primarily focused on the federal Liberals, because they have not set targets that are consistent with what’s needed in the world, and they’re not meeting those targets. We are consistently one of the bad boys.

I actually went to the climate conventions in Germany and South Africa. Canada was seen as one of the bad players by the rest of the world. When Jean Chrétien was in power, we were seen as one of the wreckers that were undermining climate action in the rest of the world. So what we see with the federal Liberal record is appalling and continues to be appalling. If you want to talk about the Liberal record here, the pressure to shut down the gas plants—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Further debate?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone. Happy Bike to Work Day. I am sure many of you did that, and we got here safely in those bike lanes. Thank you.

I’ll be splitting my time with my caring and compassionate colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I’m honoured to be here representing beautiful Beaches–East York and all Ontarians, addressing the House on another lovely morning.

The government proposed Bill 27, the Resource Management and Safety Act, 2025, on May 27, 2025. Bill 27 proposes four schedules.

Schedule 1 focuses on forest fires. Beyond changing the title from the Forest Fires Prevention Act to the Wildland Fire Management Act, the act shifts all terminology from “forest fire” and “forest area” to “wildland fire” and “wildland area” to reflect the title change. The bill introduces officer positions and corresponding responsibilities. The bill also provides that wildland fire compliance officers may issue permits that would authorize the holder to have a fire outdoors during the fire season, subject to written conditions.

The bill adds a new

section that demands municipalities in fire regions and any other prescribed entity in a prescribed location doing prescribed activities must create a wildland fire management plan and provide it to the ministry. The bill imbues the minister with the ability to issue orders restricting activities and permits for activities in these areas. The act also increases existing penalties and introduces additional penalties, such as remediation orders and administrative orders, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council’s authority to create regulation is updated.

Schedule 2 enacts the Geologic Carbon Storage Act, 2025. As a new act, the legislation would provide

definitions, interpretive provisions, a purpose and prohibitions. In

part I, the act would seek to clarify what activities would be considered research and evaluation activities; for example, using wells to explore storage repositories that may be used for the purpose of carbon storage. The act also details carbon storage activities such as using wells to inject carbon dioxide into a storage repository to serve as permanent storage of this CO 2 . Research and evaluation and carbon storage activities would be prohibited unless requirements are fulfilled.

part II, the act touches on ownership and rights to pore space; in other words, voids or cavities within storage repositories. The act would allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to claim pore space as crown-owned in relation to lands identified in the regulation. Additionally, the crown would be empowered to authorize other actors to exercise those rights over pore space.

part III of the act, the government lays out the rules around the issuance of various authorizations, notably permits that are provided for in the act, their transfer, suspension and revocation.

Part IV of the act addresses the obligations applicable to any person performing the activities mentioned in the act, as well as other provisions regarding the operation and closure of carbon storage sites, providing for powers from the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Part V then governs reviews and appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding ministerial decisions to refuse or revoke permits.

Part VI provides for various enforcement measures, such as the appointment of inspectors and enforcement officers who are responsible for securing compliance with the act and its regulations.

Part VII establishes the Carbon Storage Stewardship Fund, to which authorization holders and other prescribed persons are required to pay money.

Part VIII of the act lays out more general provisions, but specifically with regard to authorizing provisions and regulations of a transitory nature.

Part IX of the act provides related amendments to the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act, as well as provisions regarding the act’s

short title coming into force.

Schedule 3 of Bill 27 focuses on the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act that I mentioned in

part IX of

schedule 2. This

schedule of the bill amends the act by adding a new section, 7.0.1.3. This

section grants the minister the authority to take any action to prevent, decrease or eliminate a hazard to the public or to the environment regarding work in specific circumstances. This

schedule would also permit the minister to recover the costs of any action taken from the relevant operator of the work or from the associated security.

Finally,

schedule 4 pertains to the Surveyors Act. Just so you know, my father was a surveyor and had a great surveying company up in Collingwood, so he’s very interested in this act.

Schedule 4 expands the licences the registrar can issue, including limited and temporary licences, as well as reinstated retired members’ licences.

The

schedule also lays out more information regarding the requirements and qualifications that are necessary to obtain licences and certificates. For example, corresponding examinations and academic requirements would now be legislated if this bill passes.

Schedule 4 stipulates that the requirement for regulations and bylaws to be confirmed by vote of the members would cease. The

schedule repeals the fees mediation committee and permits applicants to appeal to certain determinations or directions by the Academic and Experience Requirements Committee to the Registration Committee. And

section 42 of

schedule 4 is re-enacted so that service of documents or notices may also be made electronically or by fax.

Bill 27 is rich with information. However, for the purposes of my debate here, I will focus on schedules 1 and 4, the Forest Fires Prevention Act and the Surveyors Act, respectively.

The Forest Fires Prevention Act has not had a major update since 1999. We all know our world has changed drastically since 1999, from the frequency and type of wildland fires, the climate emergency, the resources and technology available, and the established infrastructure. Unfortunately, we are seeing just how drastically the climate and extreme weather events have changed in our province and country over time.

It is alarming, and with the cost of wildfire protection at a staggering $1 billion per year—notably, severe single fire events may cost up to hundreds of millions of dollars, with health care costs related to fire events estimated at $1.28 billion in 2023—this does not even begin to look at the costs to our climate, biodiversity, and mental health related to losing homes and communities in the blink of an eye. The importance of fortifying our wildfire prevention and response to the best of our ability cannot be overstated. We are seeing these costs accumulate right before our eyes. And we’ve been warned.

We’ve been warned by the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario over and over again.

Ontario wildfires, travelling haze and smoke: Yesterday, June 3, out on the front lawn of Queen’s Park, MPPs, staff and organizations gathered for the glorious Pride flag-raising. The main event was set to the smell of fire smoke and the backdrop of a wildfire-induced haze. Not sure if you all noticed that, but it was quite apparent to anyone outside yesterday, and this is just early June. The sunny haze and distinct smoke smell are primarily the consequences of wildfires ablaze in the provinces west of Ontario, including fires in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and as far away as British Columbia.

Alarmingly, Europe reports to be seeing the smoke from these fires as well. The fires to the west of Ontario are in addition to 14 active fires in Ontario’s own northwest region as of June 2—can you believe that, already?—of which five fires are not under control, one fire is being held, six fires are under control and two fires are being observed, with five fires having been called out over the past 24 hours.

This is a stark reminder that wildfires, their frequency and their severity, are evolving, and that the effects of these fires, no matter how far away they seem, are far-reaching. The impetus to work together across party lines to prevent fires before they happen, and manage them and keep communities safe when they do grows, stronger every day.

The current Manitoba wildfires are another terrifying reminder of the destructive potential of wildfires for the environment and for communities. As of June 2, Manitoba had a total of 27 active fires, with nine classified as out of control. Their powerful and passionate Premier, Wab Kinew—such a great Premier—ordered a province-wide state of emergency. These fires have resulted in tens of thousands of Manitoba residents being forced to evacuate to survive, with mandatory evacuations in place for communities including Flin Flon, Cranberry Portage and Pukatawagan.

Particularly affected are First Nations in Manitoba, such as Pimicikamak Cree Nation and Mathias Colomb Cree Nation, with hundreds of residents being evacuated to Ontario’s Niagara Falls hotels. Thank you to the member from Niagara Falls.

These fires are reaching thousands of hectares in size, yet some of the affected First Nations remark that they are not equipped with the necessary tools to manage the fires and save more homes, augmenting the brave work of those currently fighting the fires.

Chief Gordie Bear of Mathias Colomb Cree Nation said that all the community has are two fire trucks, hoses to flood the hockey rinks, and cots—woefully insufficient to fight the current fires, especially considering that all but 50 of their essential workers have been evacuated. Chief David Monias of Pimicikamak Cree Nation requested a fire truck—just one, just one single fire truck—in the hopes that they could at least stop embers from spreading onto shingles and ravaging more homes.

Despite the clear desire, determination and initiative of both of these chiefs to contribute more to the team fighting these fires, without the proper support, their nations are unnecessarily suffering. This is why

schedule 1 of this bill and strong prevention measures that I will touch on later are so needed. Without adequate supports, Manitoba families are forced to leave their homes, not knowing if this will be the last time they will ever see them.

Now I’ll talk about Lytton, BC. Importantly, this is not a new phenomenon. Canada has a sordid history with wildfires. In 2021, the cute and quaint municipality of Lytton suffered a truly horrendous season of wildfires. We all remember it. It was on the news every day, beginning with record-breaking temperatures in June 2021, reaching up to 49.6 degrees. You remember that? Lytton was dangerously hot.

On the same day that Environment Canada sent out a notice on the extreme heat, 74-year-old Lytton resident Eric Siwik’s home burst into flames within literally seconds. The RCMP station in Lytton exploded in flames. Tricia Thorpe and Donny Glasgow’s home, barn, observatory, workshop and animals were ravaged by the flames. Soon enough, the entire village was engulfed in flames.

In total, the Lytton fires destroyed 124 structures, 45 structures in the adjacent Lytton First Nation and 34 neighbouring rural properties. Imagine that as your small municipality in your area, in your riding—imagine that. This amounted to 90% of local buildings taken by the fires, including Lytton’s village hall, official records, two grocery stores, the farmers’ market, pharmacy, bank, medical centre, coffee shop and outdoor benches, along with two civilian lives.

We really have to think about what it was like to be in Lytton then and what it’s like to be there now, and how if it can happen in Lytton, BC, it can happen anywhere in Ontario—and it is. Imagine that: Everything you know is gone in a single flash.

Heat is rising and we need to be prepared for when it amounts to a fire. But regardless of their preparation, Lytton’s local buildings and physical reminders of their history are gone. Reactive plans, while they may mitigate loss, cannot bring that back. Prevention of fire by employing strategies like clearing dry bush, building fire-resistant homes and establishing fire-breaking infrastructure are the more powerful tools to stop losses like this in their tracks.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the emergency responders who are currently and have historically risked their lives to save communities all over the province and the country. As you know—I’ve mentioned a few times in here, and he’s even been in the chamber—my second-oldest brother is the deputy fire chief in Collingwood, Ontario. So I hear from him first-hand how they struggle and how dangerous that job is, but they do it because they have heart and they care. They care about keeping us safe.

A couple of weeks ago, we all had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, who told us the importance of sustainable funding support, early detection and prevention of firefighter cancer—it’s huge, guys; I know the government has done some work on that, and I think we should keep going on that front. Also, fire department billing to the MTO for no-service calls: That’s an important one too. I’m sure the fire chief spoke to you all about that. If not, come and see me later.

This is in stark contrast to the government’s move to decrease its budget for emergency forest firefighting from $177 million to $135 million. Even as evacuation orders are already in place in at least one northwestern Ontario community this spring, we must do better by those who always do good by us. Why would we possibly be cutting the forest firefighter budget? I’m just shaking my head over that one.

The Minister of Natural Resources claimed that these changes to the fire prevention act are the first step in making our emergency responders, specifically as it applies to wildland fires, safer. I think that this is certainly an important step, but it should neither begin nor end there. The true first step is prevention. The safest fires for community members, wildlife and the natural world and wildland firefighters are fires that do not happen, right? Prevention is key.

As the critic for environment and climate change, and emergency preparedness and management, I am unwavering in my advocacy for addressing climate change and climate disasters through smart, long-term practices—preventative, as best we can.

One of the most important and impactful long-term investments we can make is education and awareness. Education and awareness do not just manifest as a one-time poster, speech or press release.

I recently met with some stakeholders who came to Queen’s Park to discuss how we as elected provincial officials could best support and forward their initiatives. Their primary emphasis was something that is very simple yet seems often overlooked in politics: consulting stakeholders and rights holders from the very beginning. Stakeholders range and each bring their unique experiences and expertise that augment and perfect our legislation. After all, we make bills to benefit the public, so why not listen to them? When we skip consultation, we often fail to capture their perspective.

It is fine that we do not understand everything, that we do not immediately understand and capture the perspective of the animals or the manufacturers or the city sanitation workers. Expertise comes from lived experience and practice.

What is not fine is when we assume we know their perspectives and speak for them or when we ignore their perspectives altogether. When that happens, we are left with incomplete legislation that tends to have the opposite-to-desired effect. As a result, these programs must be reviewed and edited, often by engaging the consultants who were missed in the first place, resulting in lost time and money.

This government speaks a lot about doing things faster and smarter. We all know and have seen the consequences of legislation and programs that are rolled out but must be retracted when the government realizes that this is not what the public wanted or will accept or the goal that they themselves were aiming to accomplish because it cannot be met in the bill in its current form. That’s okay. It gets messy and then it gets fixed, but if we do it right the first time, like Billy Joel says, then we can be in a better place.

We have all experienced the outcry from the greenbelt and the court cases regarding the removal of bike lanes. We waste precious time in the Legislature discussing bills that should not have been proposed in the forms they were in the first place—when we could spend time on more important and positive bills—and cause unnecessary panic amongst the public that disrupts their lives, consuming time and energy that they could devote to other things.

So I beg this government to consult ahead of time. Propose bills that are not only well intentioned but reflect the lived experience and lessons of those who they will affect. Specifically, when it comes to the current bill, Bill 27, engage the communities who these carbon stores will affect, engage the wildland firefighters who will be tasked with keeping us safe and engage the current surveyors who are doing the job now.

I am now going to turn to specific ways in which we can and should engage the public on this bill, Bill 27. We can all agree that offering outside-of-court remedies for those who contravene the new wildland fire act is usually preferable to costly court procedures, but why not avoid court and alternative forms of reparation altogether?

We need to explicitly offer education to the public on what is prohibited under the new act through announcements, multiple public forums and community consultations, easily accessible and readable news articles, infographics in parks and fire zone areas and written pieces on public websites. Give the people a why.

With public safety being top of mind for everyone, what are all the important reasons to avoid actions prohibited by the legislation that could potentially start a wildfire? Why are our trees so important? What species and what ecosystems could these fires endanger? Just give people the information, the facts.

It is true that many fires are caused by humans, so it is paramount to not just threaten to punish people—but also facilitate justice and perhaps deter—but to prevent fires altogether. Punished or not, the fire still happens. Homes are destroyed, people are evacuated from their communities, habitats are ravaged and trees are lost. No amount of punishment will reverse these losses, so why not work together with people from the beginning?

You may recall, because I know that you are always attuned to my private member’s bills—you’re chomping at the bit to hear about them—I did have two, three, four last Parliament. Most of them, except one, got killed. The one about extreme heat, which I’ve just revived—and also my flooding awareness private member’s bill that I revived. But the extreme heat one, why wouldn’t we get more information out to our residents? The difference with flooding: With flooding, there could be deaths.

With extreme heat and the heat dome that will occur in Ontario at some point—sooner than you think—there will be deaths, thousands of deaths. All of that is preventable. In your spare time, take a look at my latest private member’s bills and give them some consideration.

Moreover, however, there are a whole class of fires that are the result of climate. Those fires that are caused by humans are accelerated and exacerbated by climate change. Warmer temperatures, drier soil, dried and dead leaves, grass and trees, increased wind and flammable litter all contribute to wildland fire. Whether a human starts it or not, the severity and length of the fire is largely determined by natural conditions.

Inextricably connected to these conditions is the climate emergency, which causes warming and irregular weather patterns. Unfortunately, wildland fires create a cycle wherein fires release greenhouse gases, which increases warming, adding to the conditions that accommodate fires. Consequently, key to adequately preventing wildland fire is addressing climate change. Even if those words make you nervous, we are in a climate emergency, so we need to wake up over there.

There is not one solution to climate change, but some major ones, including reducing the greenhouse gas pollution we contribute by adopting heat pumps over gas furnaces, reducing how often we drive our cars—especially on Bike to Work Day, which I mentioned already. Instead, opt for bikes and transit, carpool, do not litter, and minimize excess consumption.

As government, it is our duty to cultivate the conditions where it is easy, accessible and sensible for constituents to engage in green actions.

Provincially, we may do this by using green and innovative materials and solutions in our infrastructure so our homes and businesses let less heat escape in the winter and less cool air in the summer, negating our need to use our heating and cooling systems as often, and introduce well-thought-out programs to incentivize people to choose green solutions for their homes; improve transit and alternate forms of travel—do not rip out bike lanes; ensure waste receptacles are well placed; establish fire-mitigating designs, such as creative use of open-space parks without fire starters, as well as rock formations and hardscaping as fire breaks; and plant climate-appropriate vegetation—and trees, trees, trees.

I’m going to briefly move to

schedule 4.

Schedule 4 of the bill pertains to surveying. The act would introduce a limited licence for the purpose of attracting more surveyors, specifically those who have less Canadian survey experience, as well as permit internationally trained surveyors to enter the workforce faster. This provision and its purpose needs to be reviewed in relation to the government’s call for a Team Canada, Team Ontario approach that prioritizes and supports Ontario-made materials. This applies to our workforce too.

While we may need more surveyors in the interim and need to expand the province’s criteria for working in these positions to accommodate that, the government should also be seriously considering how to stimulate Ontario’s surveyors—upscaling, graduating from the accreditation system, and eventually entering the workforce right here in Ontario. Because I don’t think my father, a former land surveyor, wants to come back from retirement.

Additionally, the act would introduce a temporary licence that would allow surveyors from other provinces to provide survey services in an emergency event such as a flood or fire. That’s good. That’s good, guys, I’m giving you a compliment. It’s rare, I know.

The minister and associate minister to natural resources spoke about this bill yesterday. When speaking on

schedule 4 of the bill, they discussed the importance, particularly of this provision, to aid northern Ontario. I agree. We should use all of our Canadian resources, including surveyors from other jurisdictions, to lend help when necessary.

However, I think it is important to think about how we can augment the survey profession and industry in the north and surrounding areas to ensure that they are equipped with a team of surveyors that, in fact, do not need to travel from Alberta, but can be called on right there in northern Ontario.

When we speak about a Team Canada or Team Ontario approach and the necessity of insulating Canada against the threat of US tariffs, promoting and preserving Canadian jobs and materials, we need to think about how we can ensure each region is similarly equipped. Each region should have the option to call in reinforcements if an emergency arises, without barriers. But more importantly, we need to tune in to their specific needs and make sure they have all the resources that they need right here at home in Ontario.

When surveyors are familiar with the region they work in, they are able to bring prior knowledge to the table and an understanding of process that would eliminate unnecessary back and forth between bureaucratic actors. We see the necessity of equipping regions with dedicated resources in addition to emergency support.

Right now, in live time in Manitoba, Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak—MKO—Grand Chief Garrison Settee says that the lack of proper supports within the nations are an essential reason why the destruction from the fires and related mass evacuations are as bad as they are now, so listen to him if you won’t listen to me.

A community should never be stuck in a situation where there is nothing that they can personally do to save their homes and livelihoods. People should not be forced to wait for help from other jurisdictions before the real work can begin when the need and want to act is there. These things may seem minuscule, silly or even unrelated to the bill. They are not. It is the little things that add up and prevent the big things from spiralling out of control.

I wholeheartedly support emergency management. Municipalities absolutely need a wildland fire plan, actors like surveyors and firefighters that are available to facilitate the plan, and a framework to hold those who violate provisions accountable.

I always have much more to say, but I’m going to hand it over to my cordial colleague now.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Ted Hsu: It’s a pleasure to stand up and speak to Bill 27 today. This bill largely does a lot of good things. Ontario’s way of managing wildland firefighting and abandoned wells needs updating, and I’m glad that this bill attempts to do that.

But before I say any more, I want to start: This is a season where I think we should be thanking wildland firefighters. We’ve been hearing reports of fires in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, northwestern Ontario. The weather there has been very different than it has been here in southern Ontario. So I want to thank the crews on the ground, radio operators, pilots for all the work that they’re doing protecting people from wildland fires.

I’m not going to speak at length about firefighting because my colleague from Beaches–East York has done a wonderful job of that. But one thing I want to talk about is why I’m really interested in following this bill through the committee stage, something that was skipped for several bills in the last week or two in this chamber.

For example, in this bill there’s a clause which gives additional powers to a wildland fire compliance officer. They have powers to inspect computers. I understand that there are similar powers in other acts, but I think it’s important to verify through witness testimony at committee that these kinds of powers are necessary and have the proper limits to protect privacy.

I’ll read a little bit of the act. It says: “During the inspection, the wildland fire compliance officer may ... use or require the use of a computer system for the purposes of ... producing a readable record from the computer system” that they’re looking into, or they have the power to “remove any computer hardware, software and any other data storage, processing or retrieval device required to produce a readable record.”

So these are powers that, I think, would strike the average person as being a little bit surprising. Maybe they’re needed, but I think we need to sort that out in committee. I think the people deserve to understand why these powers are needed to do a better job of fighting wildland fires, so I call on the government to make sure that this bill goes through committee, unlike many bills in this session of the Legislature which have skipped the committee stage and therefore have skipped detailed examination, and skipped the possibility of an articulation of the language to improve bills.

Let me now switch to the carbon capture and sequestration part of the bill, in the time I have left before we stop for members’ statements. I’m glad that this bill emphasizes the need to examine long-term carbon storage in Ontario because it recognizes the growing impacts and the urgency of climate change. We’re going to have to look at every possible way to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This government has delayed, has not been aggressive in moving forward on clean and renewable energy and storage, so emissions are piling up. Emissions are piling up around the world, and we’re running out of time, so we have to look at carbon sequestration and storage.

Before I speak about it, I want to talk about a project that’s happening in my city of Kingston, Ontario, for carbon sequestration. There’s a mine in Kingston. People may not know that. It’s a surface mine. It would be an open-pit mine, for a mineral called wollastonite. It’s a calcium silicate kind of mineral.

They have partnered with a company from the United Kingdom called UNDO to work together to use the wollastonite, crush it up, spread it over farmers’ fields to use as fertilizer to improve the soil quality and the pH, improve the yield from the farmland and, at the same time, sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This is actually a proven technology from the point of view of being able to sequester carbon.

I say that because it is the reason why, in the last few hundred million years, ever since plants developed roots over hundreds of millions of years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has been falling. What happens is that these silicate minerals react with rain and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and produce carbonates.

That has been over several hundred million years, that the level of carbon dioxide has been slowly falling, and it’s only in the last few decades that the level of carbon dioxide has suddenly spiked up at such a rate that the biological systems and the kind of world that we live in are going to be changed radically, from one that has supported civilization to one that’s going to give civilization a very, very hard time.

So this is a geological mechanism that’s been proven, and this partnership between Canadian Wollastonite, who owns the mine in Kingston, and this company, UNDO—they’re going to try to figure out if they can dig up, crush and distribute the wollastonite on farmers’ fields in a cost-effective manner. It’s all about cost. But if you want to figure out whether something is cost-effective, the best way is to do it, and then do it again and again until you figure out more and more cost-effective ways of doing that. So this is a very interesting test of a new-but-old technology to sequester carbon. It’s related to this bill.

I also want to mention that this collaboration between Canadian Wollastonite and UNDO recently—in fact, a couple of months ago—announced that they won a $5-million XPRIZE. There’s a competition for prizes. So their idea was so good that they won a $5-million XPRIZE. This is a fund that awards money to help people develop innovations to restore the planet. So I want to wish them good luck. It’s all about getting the cost down so that this technology can be more widespread.

The amount of wollastonite in Kingston is not going to solve climate change—but this is a much more common mineral, basalts, that are silicate minerals. If we can figure out how to do it more cost-effectively with wollastonite, hopefully we can do it more cost-effectively with the much more common basalts around the world, and this could be one contribution to sequester carbon in the ground.

Geologic carbon storage, where you inject it deep underground, is a technology that we have to explore because of the urgency of climate change. But again, we have to figure out if it is cost-effective or if it can be done cost-effectively or not. Past pilot projects for carbon sequestration have failed in that respect, in being able to deliver cost-effective carbon sequestration, so this is the challenge. This is the challenge, and it’s not easy. It’s easy to pump carbon dioxide under the ground, but you have to be pretty sure that that carbon is going to stay in the ground for at least thousands of years.

Why thousands of years? Because the current elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will stick around for a thousand or so years.

So if we remove carbon dioxide, we have to keep it out of the atmosphere for at least that long. It’s okay if it leaks out slowly over longer time periods, but right now, we really need to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases, which have spiked up very suddenly on a geologic or even a civilizational time scale and are threatening our civilization.

I am pleased that at least this

section of the bill is in place and that we are going to be examining the framework by which we regulate geologic carbon storage. I’m not sure if this act applies to the surface storage through crushing wollastonite and turning it into fertilizer for farmers’ fields, but again, that could be sorted out in committee. I think that’s something that we need to do.

Finally, I want to mention something about the government’s press release. The government put out a press release. There’s a new minister in this file, in natural resources. But the government repeated some figures that it put out in the last Parliament, when it had a previous version of this bill. It claimed that it could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by five to seven million tonnes, create 4,000 short-term jobs and lower carbon costs by a billion dollars a year.

That is completely unsupported, because we don’t really know what the final cost of carbon sequestration will be. These are unfounded, unproven claims by the government, and I would call on the government to withdraw these claims, because they can’t be supported by the facts. We have to figure out what the facts are, and we have to figure out what the facts are by trying out carbon sequestration. We have to keep trying to see if we can lower the cost so that it’s lower than other ways of sequestering or reducing carbon emissions.

Again, this is the sort of thing—

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): It is now time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Events in Algoma–Manitoulin

MPP Bill Rosenberg: Today, as we near the long, hazy days of summer, I would like to extend an invitation to members and all Ontarians to come up and visit our northern piece of heaven, Algoma–Manitoulin. There are many events, music concerts, family fishing derbies and celebrations across the region that bring together the community and visitors alike. You can try the numerous opportunities—ATV ride adventures, kayak trips—or just relax and take in the cool, clear waters. Our communities are planning street dances, music festivals, food festivals, parades and powwows.

Classic car shows and motorcycle rides are well received, not to mention art shows and festivals and, many nights, car races at a local raceway. We even have a Winnie the Pooh festival in August.

This is just a glimpse of what is going on and more. Check out algomacountry.com to see the full list of events. From a cruise up on the Chi-Cheemaun to Manitoulin Island, to a ride up Highways 129 and 17 along Lake Superior, and take the Agawa train tour to Bridal Veil Falls and Black Beaver Falls—all that inspired the Group of Seven.

This piece of heaven is beautiful any time of year, but summer is the best opportunity to come and play with your families in beautiful Algoma–Manitoulin. I hope everyone has a wonderful and safe summer and I hope to see you in the north in our slice of heaven.

Labour dispute

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I’m honoured to bring the voices of Windsor West into this Legislature. Right now, there are three active picket lines in Windsor where workers are demanding better working conditions. I stand shoulder to shoulder with workers from CUPE Locals 2073 and 1750, as well as Unifor Local 195. The workers at Canadian Hearing Services have been on strike for six weeks asking for fair pay. CEO Julia Dumanian receives 122% more pay than her predecessor. Meanwhile, some CHS workers are forced to rely on food banks. That’s not leadership—it’s exploitation.

For the last two weeks, 3,600 WSIB workers across Ontario, including 300 in Windsor, have been on strike. One of their main concerns? The Premier is handing their jobs to a private company in Austin, Texas. Outsourcing Canadian jobs to the US? That’s not working for workers; it’s selling them out. Just days ago, members of Unifor Local 195 at Windsor’s Best Western Hotel hit the picket line fighting for fair pay and job security.

Workers across Ontario are putting up one hell of a fight because they deserve better: better wages, better working conditions and a government that shows up. The Premier loves to say that he’ll fight for every worker, but where is he now? Thousands are on strike and he’s missing in action, spouting empty slogans while Windsor holds the second-highest unemployment rate in the country at 10.7%.

I’ll continue to show up and fight for workers and to walk the picket line with them. They deserve better than a Premier who’s full of slogans but light on substance.

Filipino community

Mr. Ted Hsu: Mabuhay. Kingston and the Island’s small but vibrant and growing Filipino Canadian community is holding its very first Philippines Independence Day celebration on June 22 in honour of Filipino heritage, culture and contributions to Canadian society. Their theme this year is unity.

June is Filipino Heritage Month in Canada, and did you know that over one million people in Canada are of Filipino Canadian heritage? Filipino Canadians are known for their hospitality, super-friendliness and hard-working nature. Many first came to Canada in the caring professions and left behind their families to care for our families. It’s a sacrifice that comes from their will to build a better life for their families.

Today, we have Filipino Canadians serving not only in critical front-line positions in health care, but contributing throughout society, including in politics, business, education and the arts.

Congratulations to Kingston’s Filipino Canadian community, and Maraming Salamat. Thank you for enriching our community, and I’ll see you at the Philippines Independence Day celebration.

George Leslie Mackay

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Today I rise to celebrate the remarkable legacy of Rev. Dr. George Leslie Mackay—a true bridge between my riding of Oxford and Taiwan. Born in 1844 in the town of Embro, Mackay was the first Presbyterian missionary to serve in northern Formosa, as Taiwan was known back then. Arriving in 1871, he went on to found a mission in the town of Tamsui and dedicated his life to the local people. He embraced the island’s customs, traditions, and learned to speak the language fluently. He even married a local Formosa named Minnie and started a family there.

His accomplishments in Taiwan are extraordinary. During his almost 30 years on the island, he built a hospital, the first girls’ school in Taiwan, and founded the Oxford College in Tamsui, named for his home county back in Ontario. Today, Mackay is celebrated in Taiwan as a national hero. Statues stand in his honour, and schools bear his name. He is remembered for his advocacy for women’s rights, public education and medical care, and for all the people that he helped throughout his life.

His work also forged a deep and lasting connection between Oxford county and Taiwan. In fact, the county is now twinned with Tamsui district. As Ontario looks for more international trading partners, I’m grateful for the connection and enduring friendship between our province and Taiwan. Join me today in celebrating Mackay’s legacy. May we continue to advance the values that he championed.

Youth employment

Ms. Doly Begum: Young Ontarians are at the sharpest edge of both the housing and employment crisis. They’re caught in the middle of soaring rents, impossible home prices and a job market that’s shutting them out. Students and young adults across Ontario are looking for jobs to earn much-needed income, income they rely on to carry them through the rest of the year. But this year, their search is even more difficult. According to Statistics Canada, in February 2025, Ontario had the third-highest youth unemployment rate in the country. A staggering 15.5% of youth aged 15 to 24 were out of work.

We hear from young people in our communities who tell us how hard it is to find work and how this uncertainty weighs heavily on their mental health. They’re doing everything right—pursuing education, applying for jobs and showing up every day with determination—and yet they’re being left behind.

This is a critical moment to invest in our youth by creating opportunities that not only help them with their current economic struggles but also help them build their careers. However, instead of responding with urgency, this government’s budget missed that moment. It failed to invest meaningfully in programs or pathways to employment that would help young people build a future with stability and hope. Youth in this province are working hard to get ahead. They need a government that’s working just as hard for them.

Seniors’ Month

MPP Chris Scott: Last year, our government officially established June as Seniors’ Month in Ontario. It’s an honour to be able to stand today and recognize that fact and also to celebrate the incredible seniors who make communities like Sault Ste. Marie stronger. These are the folks who built the very foundations we now stand on today, raising families, running businesses, volunteering their time and shaping the values that guide us today.

Let me tell you, our seniors in the Soo are vibrant, they’re active, and they’re deeply committed to our community. Whether it’s through the city’s seniors drop-in centre or the northern community active living centre, our seniors are connecting, moving, laughing and living life more fully thanks to these programs. I hear it all the time from families: These programs matter.

That’s why I’m also proud to stand today with and truly appreciate this government’s leadership under Premier Ford and Minister Cho. They’ve made historic investments, adding 100 more seniors active living centres across Ontario, as well as expanding home care, modernizing long-term care and supporting local organizations through the Seniors Community Grant Program.

This is what respect looks like, not just in words, but in actions. To the seniors in Sault Ste. Marie and all across the province, thank you.

Dalai Lama

MPP Alexa Gilmour: I rise today to join the Tibetan community in my riding and across Ontario and, in fact, across the world in marking the “Year of Compassion” in honour of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, who turns 90 this July. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, an honorary Canadian citizen, is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism and a powerful symbol of the Tibetan nation and people, a world leader whose teachings inspire people everywhere.

Dedicating the Year of Compassion to him could not be more fitting, as he has led the Tibetan people’s struggles to freedom and justice with his steadfast commitment to non-violence and has modelled what compassionate leadership can look like in the face of great adversities. Through his teaching, his advocacy, he continues to be an important voice for the Tibetan people: a voice of non-violence, of compassion, of world peace and interfaith harmony. We are very fortunate to live in a time guided by a leader of his greatness.

On behalf of my constituents in Parkdale–High Park, I express heartfelt wishes to His Holiness for many, many more years of good health, happiness and long life. Here at Queen’s Park today, we are proud to celebrate the Year of Compassion with the annual—the 10th annual, in fact—Tibet Day, alongside the Tibetan community and the rest of the province. To my fellow members: We look forward to celebrating this special day with you.

Events in Perth–Wellington

Mr. Matthew Rae: I rise today to invite all the members to my house—of this House—to Perth–Wellington and Stratford.

Interjections.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Well, you can come to my house, too, everyone, but it’s not that big.

I know, everyone, the warm weather is finally here. It’s going to be a warm day today. I invite you to come and visit the Perth Farmhouse, the first winery in Perth county. We’re slowly catching up to Niagara, for my colleagues from there.

Whether it’s coming to the beautiful Stratford Festival—I know some members in this place take the pilgrimage there every year; they have a great lineup. Whether it’s coming to the Drayton Entertainment festival—I know the Minister of Tourism would love to come to that.

We have the baseball hall of fame in the town of St. Marys. The induction ceremony is this weekend. I’m looking forward to attending that. I invite all members to come and experience those historic memorabilia as well.

There’s so much to offer in Perth–Wellington, whether it’s the farm gate, whether it’s agritourism, whether it’s the theatres, whether it is the craft breweries—Speaker, they are excited about our government’s cut to their taxes and ensuring that we put more money back in their pockets.

I really encourage all members of this House to visit Perth–Wellington, and if they can’t make it to Perth–Wellington, please take some time over the summer to visit a wonderful place in Ontario. Whether it’s the north, the south, the east, or the west, we have so much to experience.

Eddie Chan

Ms. Laura Smith: I rise today to recognize an exceptional person in my riding of Thornhill, Mr. Eddie Chan. Every year, on the Victoria Day weekend, Eddie hosts a spectacular event known as the “pyromusical.” It’s a stunning fireworks show, choreographed to music, all in support of cancer research.

Eddie began his journey and his artistry in celebration of his mother’s life so many years ago, and what began as a small tribute in 2011 at a local park grew extensively year after year. Eddie honed his craft and he enhanced the experience, growing his team of technical worker bees, and created a beloved community tradition, raising over $15,000 to date for this important cause.

This initiative holds a very personal meaning for me. As someone who has faced a cancer diagnosis, I understand first-hand the importance of research, early detection and the hope it brings to patients and their families.

Eddie’s passion, generosity and creativity are truly inspiring. Through his efforts, he has brought joy to our community while shining a light on such an important cause that affects so many. I want to thank Eddie for including me and my family and our extended neighbourhood in that first fireworks show so many years ago, and for continuing that work year after year. I don’t believe I’ve missed a show since its inception. Thank you, Eddie.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today a cohort of interns participating in the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I’m sorry. I apologize. We have one more member’s statement.

I recognize the member for Haldimand–Norfolk.

Hagersville 150

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: It gives me great pride to tell this House about the 150th celebration of the historic community of Hagersville this weekend. This is a celebration of Hagersville’s people, who are best described as salt of the earth. It’s a small community, but it packs a wallop when it comes to charm, rural beauty, peace of mind and fascinating history. There is a strong community spirit that is the catalyst behind plenty of annual events, and an ambitious and growing commercial sector.

I’m sure Charles and David Hager, the two brothers who were pivotal in the mid-19th century development of this wonderful part of the province, would be very proud of what the area has become. Charles and David carved out roads, infrastructure and encouraged growth in all the resulting commercial interests. Before too long, Hagersville, with their help, grew into a going concern, with a railway station, post office and the foundation of what we would call today municipal services. Indeed, it was a railway hub for the Grand Trunk Railway. Just like for Canada on a whole, the railway meant jobs aplenty, and was a conduit for goods and services in and out.

As important as the Hager brothers were, I’d be remiss if I didn’t pay homage to all the other early settlers who worked to clear the land, build the schools, build those rail lines and roads; plus, all the teachers, the farmers, small business owners, and tradesmen and women, without whom there would be no modern Hagersville.

Congratulations, and thank you to the Hagersville 150 committee for all the heavy lifting done over the past year in preparation for this event.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today a cohort of interns participating in the Parliament of Canada’s Parliamentary Internship Program. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests to the Legislature.

Also in the Speaker’s gallery, we have two former members, Rick Byers, the member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound in the 43rd Parliament, and Paul Miller, Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, in the 39th, 40th, 41st and 42nd Parliaments.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: This morning, I’d like to welcome all the people in the gallery across the way who were here to make sure I read my statement today. It’s Director Liang, Taiwanese director general, and members and friends of the Taiwanese community. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce today our page captain for the day, Aastha—I’m not sure where she is on the floor. She is accompanied by her mother today as well, Kiran Jyoti, from my riding of Sarnia–Lambton.

Welcome to Queen’s Park. Thank you for the great—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Humber River–Black Creek.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I’m proud to be joined by my family today and welcome them to the 44th Parliament. I’m joined by my wife, Aleksandra, and my sons, Aleksandar and Ilija. I love you very much. Thanks for putting up with me every day.

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I’m very pleased to welcome visitors from the Tibet community today for Tibet Day, and those that are the members of the Ontario Parliamentary Friends of Tibet.

I also look forward to seeing them at the reception today at noon and hope that we’ll see some of our other members there as well.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I rise today with great pride and a little bit of relief to introduce two very special guests in the gallery: my two sons, Dr. Christopher Sabawy, who just graduated from dental school last weekend, and Dr. David Sabawy. David and Chris make me incredibly proud, not just with your accomplishments but with the way you’ve grown up into kind, compassionate and hard-working young men.

MPP Mohamed Firin: I’m please to welcome some special guests to the House today. Joining us in the members’ gallery are the proud family members of Isabela Ramos Gaertner, one of our exceptional incoming legislative pages. Isabela will be representing my riding of York South–Weston during this session and will also serve as captain of the page procession.

I would also like to introduce her family: Luis, Livia, Felipe and Adriana Gaertner. Please join me in congratulating Isabela on this exciting opportunity to serve in the Legislature.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s my honour today to welcome Evan Ferrari, from eMerge Guelph, who joined me in the media studio earlier today. Welcome to your House, Evan.

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: Bear with me for a second as I have a few people to introduce today. I would like to introduce special guests from the city of Ottawa who are with us today: Mayor Mark Sutcliffe and of course his senior adviser John Light. I will also mention that joining them is Scott Phelan, executive director of our Ontario regional office in Ottawa. We want to welcome you to Queen’s Park and thank you for being here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The leader of—oh, sorry. You still have more.

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin: I also want to congratulate Julia, who is today’s page captain, and welcome her parents and family: Natasha Gill, Tim Bressmann and Natalie Gill. Julia is from the riding of Mississauga Centre. Elle est étudiante à l’école Jeunes sans frontières à Brampton.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning. I’m very pleased to be able to welcome to the House this morning in the members gallery my parents, Katherine and Geoff Stiles, and my aunt Nancy Thomas, who’s visiting as well.

MPP Monica Ciriello: I’d like to welcome two constituents from Minister Piccini’s riding today. Joining us in the gallery are Avril and her son, Brodick Ewing, residents of Port Hope and proud members of the Northumberland–Peterborough South community. Avril is a dedicated wedding officiant who has helped countless couples begin their new

chapter with warmth and grace. Her son is better known in the region as the “Port Hope Piper,” a talented young man whose passion for bagpipes has been a beloved sound in the local community. Please join me in giving them a warm welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

M. Guy Bourgouin: J’ai mon épouse, Manon Gagné, qui est ici. J’ai mes deux assistantes, une législative et une est mon « EA », mais j’ai des amis aussi. J’ai Alain Trottier, qui est mon « riding association president », mais j’ai deux amis aussi : Trevor Russell et son épouse, Sylvie Russell. Bienvenue à votre maison. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I want to say hello and take a moment to thank my long-time constituency assistant Robin Swainson for his nearly 11 years serving our community. Robin has been a cornerstone of our team, providing exceptional support and service to our constituents. His dedication, professionalism, warm presence and British humour have made a lasting impact on all who have had the pleasure of working with him. I hope everyone in the House will join me in congratulating Robin on his retirement this week.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): We are now out of time for visitors. We can introduce visitors once again at 1 o’clock. Apologies to those who weren’t recognized. It’s not your fault or the members’ fault; it’s my fault.

Steve Paikin

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

Mr. Steve Clark: If you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow members to pay tribute to Steve Paikin, with five minutes allotted to the official opposition, five minutes allotted to the third party, two minutes allotted to the independent members as a group and five minutes allotted to the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Mr. Clark is seeking unanimous consent to allow members to pay tribute to Steve Paikin, with five minutes allotted to the official opposition, five minutes allotted to the third party, two minutes allotted to the independent members as a group and five minutes allotted to the government. Agreed? Agreed.

I recognize the member for London North Centre.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Steve Paikin has been a fixture in the homes of Ontarians. Since 1992, he’s been a trusted source for news, and while The Agenda is coming to an end, we are grateful that we will continue to hear from him on TVO, through his column and on his podcast. But it’s appropriate that after 19 seasons of The Agenda, we mark this occasion and thank Steve for his service to this Legislature and to Ontarians.

While politicians have come and gone from this Legislature, he has been a constant. He has worked to ensure that people get the information that they need and hear the perspectives of people from across the political spectrum. When the business in this House has gotten tense, when we’ve dealt with complex and technical matters, and especially when the various parties have disagreed on basic facts, people have counted on Steve to make this place make sense. Steve, we need you to make this place make sense.

There are not a lot of programs in this province that provide deep dives into the important topics of the day. Steve has said before that no topic is too complex to be discussed on The Agenda, and taking on that challenge has undoubtedly helped to elevate the tone and better inform the political discourse within the province. While many places around the world, including in Canada, are becoming more polarized, Steve’s reporting certainly shares some of the credit for resisting that trend in our own communities.

I know that I’ve tuned into his programs to help me get a broader perspective on the current affairs of the province—to make sure I don’t get caught in that echo chamber, because even when we have disagreements, the conversations that Steve leads encourage healthy dialogue and debate. It’s a hard job. Many of the people in this chamber have likely gone to him with a bone to pick about how something was reported, but we also recognize that we are fortunate to have reporters covering this Legislature with good judgment and in good faith.

It’s a particular credit to the trust that people have in him—that all parties in this House believe in him—that he’s so often selected as a moderator of the debates that people rely on to inform their votes. I think we’ve all seen political debates that have likely left people more confused and more angry than when they started. It takes strong leadership and the respect of everyone involved in the debate to keep things on track, and Steve meets that standard. He really is one of the best moderators we have in Ontario, and we hope that he will continue to serve in that role for many years to come.

Steve is more than just an exceptional journalist. He’s a community leader and an author, having written about Canadian historical figures, the nature of politics in Canada and public life—and even hockey.

In 2022, I had the opportunity to provide a tribute to a family friend of the Paikins, Marv Shore, the former MPP for London North. I recommend to all members in the chamber that they read that article. One of the parts I liked best was how the Paikin boys all call each other “Marv.” They call their father Larry “Marv.” Steve’s kids call him “Marv” to this very day. It speaks to the mark that some people have on us, on our lives and on our hearts. It’s also really a testament to him that he was able to capture the life of a person that he loved in such a wonderful way.

We look forward to seeing what else you do with your extra time, Steve—maybe even more books about hockey, hopefully.

So thank you again, Steve, for what you’ve already done for our province and for what we know you will continue to contribute.

And to you, Steve: Marv Shore, London North.

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

Mr. John Fraser: I hope everybody bears with me. I got a little bit of late notice—no complaints—this morning. Some CP reporters know that because I texted notes to who I thought was my staff, and they got it. So I’m sorry that you got the heads-up.

I was struggling because there’s so much to say. I thought I’d phone a friend, so I called my wife, Linda, this morning and I said, “Look, I’ve got all this great stuff about Steve, but I’m really struggling. I’ve got a problem.” I said, “I’ve been here almost 12 years and I’ve never, ever been invited to The Agenda. All my colleagues—everybody; even the new ones—okay?” And then she stopped, and she said, “John, you know I love you.” I said, “Yes.” She said, “You’re just not that interesting.” She’s right—but now that he’s gone, I’ve got a sliver of a chance of getting on.

Thanks, Steve. You’re so much a part of this place, so much a part of the history, and not the history that people would always read about, talking about things that affect leaders, what their lives are like and the things that they sacrifice—the things that people sacrifice in here. It is really important. It is important to us that people see that and acknowledge it. Not everybody’s going to read that; I know that. But that side of politics: It’s really important to all of us. That’s why we’re all here; we’re here for the right reasons.

And chronicling things like Bill Davis, who I have a deep, deep respect for, the kind of sacrifices that he made; John Robarts; Dalton McGuinty; and John Turner, who, not in this place, was somebody who was really important to me throughout my career—I won’t go into the reasons right now. You never made yourself the news, and I think that that’s sometimes hard to do when you’re in a position of profile like that. You made the history the news, the people the news, how people really were. And that’s, I think, such an important part of Ontario politics.

You did so much too—have done so much, I should say—just moderating debates, which I don’t think I could do, and you’ve done it in a way that has been really beneficial to our democracy. That’s a huge contribution.

I’m not going to use all this time, because the member from Toronto–St. Paul’s would like to say a few words. But on behalf of our party, I’d just like to thank you for your contributions. I know you’re going to continue to contribute more. We really appreciate the genuine interest that you take in the people who work in this place, the people who put their name on a ballot, and in the human way that you’ve told their stories. I think that’s really important.

And I can’t wait to get on The Agenda.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Toronto–St. Paul’s.

MPP Stephanie Smyth: Thank you, Speaker. I’m looking up there for someone named Parker, not Steve, because this person Steve Paikin was known as Parker—i.e., the reporter in Spider-Man, the earnest reporter—back in the day when he was at CHFI and CFTR as a city hall reporter; and back then, I don’t know, 40-some-odd years ago, as earnest and amazing as we see today as he was then.

We know that we could all learn a lot from Parker—or Steve Paikin. We know that leaders’ debates are better because of him: the ability, the knowledge and the civility he brings to them. Politicians, as I said, could learn a lot from him, and maybe some of us have. When I first talked to Steve about possibly going into politics a few years back, he advised me to read one of his books. He said it was on sale for two bucks online.

But, to me, Steve, your knowledge is absolutely invaluable, and the Legislature needs more people like you to help us understand what we do. Your dedication is parallel to no one, really. You are a scholar, you’re a gentleman, and I, too, was never on The Agenda, but maybe you and Mr. J.M. McGrath can get us on #onpoli at some point in time.

I just have to say to you, through my husband: We still love you, even though you’re a Ti-Cats fan. Oskee Wee Wee.

Thank you, Steve, for all you do. You’re amazing.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I was on The Agenda.

The member for Guelph.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: You know, Speaker, it’s a pretty special day when you have an opportunity to pay tribute to an extraordinary journalist, author and all-around great guy in Steve Paikin. I can tell you, for a political nerd like me, The Agenda is a staple in our house and has been for 19 years. I’m looking forward to continuing to see Steve on the #onpoli podcast.

I have a personal connection and gratitude to Steve, not only because he lets the entire world know Elizabeth May and I share June 9 as a birthday with Steve Paikin, but also because I have been on The Agenda.

I’ve got to tell you this story, though. After the 2014 election, I told Steve I thought I performed well enough that the Greens should be on The Agenda more—or at least on for once—and he said to me, scrupulously non-partisan, “I cannot make that decision, but I will allow you to convince the entire Agenda staff.” So I went in, gave a speech, and they all voted to allow Greens to be on The Agenda, I think just to stick it to the member from Ottawa South.

Thank you, Steve, for a great—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Haldimand–Norfolk.

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: Congratulations, and all the best to the illustrious Steve Paikin. As a broadcast journalism student, I’ve always looked up to Steve, who delivers genuinely, is known for fairness, impartiality and, indeed, keen interviewing skills. Recognized for his ability to engage and inform viewers on a broad range of public policy issues, Steve has undoubtedly been a significant contributor to public discourse in Canada.

I have a cute story. After the 2022 election, when I first saw Steve here at Queen’s Park for the first time, he was a bit shy about admitting to me that, on election night, when Haldimand–Norfolk came across the screen, he said something to the effect of “Keep moving. That can’t be right. We’ll come back to Haldimand–Norfolk in a bit.” Of course, in true Steve Paikin style, he apologized profusely and has since made it up to me, especially after the most recent election—yes, on The Agenda.

I wish you well, Steve, and I thank you for being an incredible person and voice in Ontario politics. All the best.

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

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the opportunity to say goodbye, I suppose, temporarily, to Steve Paikin.

I would say this, Madam Speaker: When a renowned journalist on a state-run news channel is told that they’re going to retire, there is literally a Conservative stampede to the door of everybody that wants to wish them goodbye. I got there first.

It’s no secret that, when I was in Ottawa, of course, we rallied and talked—still did—about getting rid of the CBC. Imagine my horror when I found out that, as Minister of Education, I run my own state broadcast.

I’ll say that everybody has talked about all of the good things that he’s done, and I would say this—he probably would agree; probably nobody knows this. One of my favourite Christmas cartoons is The Year Without a Santa Claus. There’s a guy named Snow Miser in this commercial. He’s a really good guy. He’s really charismatic. Steve, you always remind me of Snow Miser. I don’t know why.

But there is one person—and I’m going to look directly at the camera. There is one person right now who is watching, I know. He lives in a gated community in Markham, and he is horrified right now that I am doing the goodbye to Steve Paikin, because every single day for 18 years, this gentleman has sent me an email: “Steve Paikin said this. Why don’t you do this?” So, guess who’s saying goodbye, my friend? That’s right; it’s me.

Now, I think I was invited on The Agenda, but I would never go on The Agenda and I’m happy it’s coming to an end, to be honest—only because, I will say this—and he’s doing it probably right now. He has this look about him when he knows that you’re ragging the puck or you’re just trying to do something. He’s got this look about him that is a half smile, half “I know what you’re doing,” and I’ve never wanted to be put in that position. So I thought, “I’m just not doing it. I’m not going to go on the channel and I’m not going to do that.”

But Steve, I will say this, because I’m the only one who will say it: Everybody is thinking you’ve won lots of awards, you’ve done an amazing job, been a great broadcaster, according to a lot of people. I always thought you sucked.

I’m just kidding. I just wanted to see who applauded to that.

The others have touched on it, though, but just think about this for a second. Think about the anchor of TVOntario being asked to host national leaders’ debates. Just think about that for a second and how amazing that is. I know the people in other parts of the country are saying, “Who the heck is this guy?” And it is, I think, something that we should all be quite proud of—the fact that that is the case. I am very proud of that, to be honest, and you’ve always done such a great job.

They talk about your starting off at 680 CFTR. I used to wake up to CFTR when it was a radio station. It’s not anymore, obviously. I didn’t know it still existed, but God bless them.

You have done an amazing job. We’re all very proud of all that you have accomplished in this place. And I say in a very real sense, you and I are alike in a lot of ways. We both love this place. We love the people who are in this place—some more than others, to be honest with you—and we are very jealous and guarded of not only this place, but what Parliament represents. You have been one of those people that helps us once in a while remember how important it is to be here.

The personalities that have shaped not only this place but the province of Ontario—you’re the one who’s given voice to a lot of that very often in the books that you have written, that all of us have read and enjoyed. That, I think, more than anything for me, is your legacy, that you have been jealously guarded of how important it is to be in this place.

Now, I know you have an Italian wife, so what I have done for you—I do have some sandals and socks in the back and an Italian undershirt so that you can start tending the garden. I know that your tomatoes should be spectacular.

But can you imagine being Paikin’s neighbour in retirement? Just imagine this: You go over the fence, you’re talking, and he’s going to start moderating and looking at you in that way. It would be the worst place to live because you would have Ontario’s pre-eminent journalist right there all of the time. Usually, you have to die in order to get this type of a tribute.

I’ll break one little piece of news, and then I’ll sit down and say thank you. His family is across the political spectrum; they’ve worked for everybody. But, so everybody knows, Steve Paikin actually is a Progressive Conservative supporter—no, I’m just kidding. To the man in Markham, he is a Conservative. He has probably turned the TV off in anger—no, he has not.

Honestly, thank you so much for everything you’ve done. Congratulations. I know you’re just retiring from one program, but you have done an amazing job for the people of the province of Ontario, and we are honoured to have had you for so long. Thank you so much.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Steve, if you would like to experience the debate in the chamber from a different vantage point, please feel free to join us from the Speaker’s gallery down below. It’s a little bit of a different perspective. You’re more than welcome.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, before Steve leaves, I want to thank him—Steve, before you leave and head downstairs, I just did want to lend my voice as well to saying thank you so much for your extraordinary contribution to our province, telling our stories, telling the stories of this place. I can’t wait to see what you do next, tomatoes or no tomatoes. Thanks.

My question is to the Premier: In the greenbelt scandal, powerful land speculators with connections to the Conservative Party stood to gain billions when the government removed their specific lands from the greenbelt. It all happened behind closed doors after the Premier had promised Ontarians he wasn’t going to touch the greenbelt. But they got caught and now, Speaker, they are under criminal investigation by the RCMP.

My question to the Premier is, knowing all of this, why would anyone trust this government to give itself the extraordinary, extraordinary powers provided in Bill 5?

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

Hon. Victor Fedeli: This is all about cutting unnecessary red tape. You’ve heard it many, many times; you’re going to hear it many, many more times from me today. We are under an extraordinary threat from the United States. Donald Trump is after all of our jobs, after all of our business. He wants to pull these out of Ontario and move them into the States.

We need to fight back. We know that there’s only one way to fight back and that is to be prepared, to have our lands ready for the companies who want to come here, companies that are leaving the States, companies from Europe who are looking for places for their capital to land.

Speaker, this is us getting prepared for what we hope will be a huge addition to the $70 billion we’ve already landed.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Let be very clear with everybody here: We don’t believe that First Nations rights, treaty rights, are red tape. Protection for our clean drinking water, labour laws—not red tape, okay? And Ontarians have not forgotten the greenbelt scandal and neither have the RCMP. Nobody gave this government the right or a mandate to seize unlimited power, to run roughshod over treaties or create these no-law zones.

If Bill 5 passes, the government can suspend any law, anywhere, any time. Why would anyone believe that this government won’t sell these no-law zones to the highest bidder?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, our special economic zones are all about unlocking Ontario’s true economic potential, not about overriding any Indigenous rights, or anybody’s rights, for that matter. This is all about being prepared. You have to appreciate the fact that we are in a war. We are in an economic war with the United States. They are taking our companies; they are taking our jobs; they are costing our companies and our families work. This is us getting prepared.

We know that there is a chill on business right across the world, and all of the capital that is being built up will be ready to be unleashed somewhere in this world. It had better be Ontario and we’d better be ready, Speaker, and that is why we are preparing special economic zone legislation, so that we can be absolutely ready for the onslaught of capital that will come because it’s getting a chill from going to the States.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Yes, just like the greenbelt was all about solving the housing crisis, right? Not exactly, and we’re not buying it, and the people of this province are overwhelmingly not buying it.

Speaker, Bill 5 is destined to join the ranks of Bills 28, 124—all those bad bills that have landed in the hall of shame of bad bills here at Queen’s Park. At a moment when our province is truly vulnerable, when jobs are leaving the province, when people are looking for help, this is the priority of this government? It is about the government helping themselves. That’s what Bill 5 is about.

The Premier likes to say that he’s not afraid to admit when he’s wrong. Well, he is very wrong with this one. Everybody is watching to see what this government is going to do today, what happens in the House, and when this bill comes to a vote, whether this government is going to vote no.

I’ve got to tell you, I think the Premier should do the right thing here. Will the Premier do the right thing, scrap the bill and go back to the drawing board?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, you heard it from the Leader of the Opposition: We are truly vulnerable. Jobs are leaving. Yes, yes, they finally have figured it out. We are in a vulnerable situation. We have companies who are leaving. We have companies who are closing. We have jobs that are leaving.

Speaker, this is exactly why we need to be ready with special economic zones, so when the onslaught does happen—and it will. It is coming. That capital is being—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The opposition will come to order.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We want to be the only place companies from around the world will look at and say, “It’s Ontario. We’ve got to be in Ontario. They have the land. They have the 70,000 STEM grads. They have the clean, green energy. They have all the things ready for our company to locate there.” And that is exactly why we’re building these zones.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, just like the government used the greenbelt as their excuse—that grab to build housing, so-called, but really it was all about giving insiders a lot of money and a big opportunity to make billions—Bill 5, just like everything else this government does, is always going to be another opportunity for this Premier to help wealthy insiders to make a buck. We know where this is headed.

CTV News reported that York1, the company behind the controversial Dresden landfill that we’ve all been hearing so much about, took the government to court over the commitment to a full environmental assessment. Instead of standing up to the corporation and protecting the community, the Premier folded like a cheap suit, and Bill 5 fast-tracks that dump.

So I would like to ask the Premier, did the Premier break his promise to the people of Dresden to appease York1?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Yesterday, Reuters announced, with a very, very strong article, “alarm over China’s stranglehold on critical minerals” grows as their export ban takes hold. China has blocked the shipment of critical minerals to the United States. What have we got in Ontario’s north? Critical minerals. They’re buried in the ground. We want to get them out of the ground. We want to get the nickel. We want to get the chromite. We want to get the cobalt. We want to get the lithium. Yes, we want to take the gold up as well.

Speaker, that is why we need to have these special economic zones. We need to be able to get at those critical minerals and be able to capitalize on the wealth that will be created for all of our families in Ontario by pulling those minerals out of the ground.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, last I checked, there were no critical minerals in the Dresden dump, but maybe we’re missing something here. The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex will remember—because the Premier stood with him as they promised that community that they would do a full environmental assessment before they moved forward with the dump. I hope other government members here are careful about the promises that they’ve made to their communities because the Premier has shown he will not honour them. Bill 5 can override everything, all of it.

Does the Premier’s word mean anything at all?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: These special economic zones are all about cutting unnecessary red tape, not cutting corners. Listen to what is happening around the country. The King in his speech said, “one project, one review.” The federal government has said that we will get building these super projects in two years. NDP Premier David Eby: All of these delays will cost us when we can least afford it. That is precisely why we need to be prepared with our special economic zones. We need to be ready.

Speaker, all around the world they are looking for places to put their capital and safe places to invest. They look at Ontario as that reliable, stable, predictable partner. They do not see that in the United States any longer. They look to us to lead the way and have these zones built.

Ms. Marit Stiles: This bill is not about meeting the moment, Speaker. This government is using this moment as an excuse to override any law in any community at any time that they wish. That means treaty rights. That means they’re going to override child protection laws, child labour laws, any labour protection law, any labour law—

Interjections.

Ms. Marit Stiles: They can heckle me all they want to, but we see the writing on the wall. Safe drinking water and protection for farmland—that is what is at stake. With the stroke of a pen, every single law is going to be wiped out by this government.

I’ve got to tell you, there is unprecedented opposition to this bill. If the members opposite are not hearing that, let me tell them: People in Ontario will not stand for this. The risk of more corruption, of more waste, of more delays—that’s what this bill will create.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We have successfully landed $70 billion worth of work. You don’t get to land that by doing what this Leader of the Opposition says. Speaker, we absolutely understand—absolutely understand—and we have shared this: You cannot compete globally when you lower standards. We understand that. This is about streamlining approvals. That is what the rest of the world needs to hear. They need to know that our properties are ready for them, that we have streamlined the approvals and that we are a completely predictable, stable and understandable economy.

These companies around the world are watching what we’re doing. They know what we’re doing, and they’re excited by what we’re doing, Speaker. That’s why we’re bringing these special economic zones.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: I’d just like to begin by thanking the Clerks and Hansard, translation services—everybody who worked so hard as we sat in committee last night until midnight. I want to say something about the member from Scarborough–Agincourt, who was a great Chair and did a great job last night. I thank him.

Applause.

Mr. John Fraser: Well deserved.

What we hoped last night is that it would give the Premier and his ministers time to think about what the right thing to do is with Bill 5. The right thing to do is to kill Bill 5, go back to the drawing board and get it right. Will the Premier do that?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: When we heard last night about changing the Travel Industry Act, the Traditional Chinese Medicine Act, the Public Libraries Act—if they had actual, serious amendments to bring, that would be a thing. But instead, they chose to play games.

They do not respect how serious the situation is with our families and with our companies. We are at the brink here with President Trump. That is the actual situation of where we are. That opposition needs to begin to respect the issues that we have at hand. They need to completely understand that we are vulnerable to the United States right now. We need these special economic zones to be prepared to fight the United States.

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

Mr. John Fraser: The minister wants to talk about respect. They’re not respecting First Nations rights. They’re not respecting the promise that the Premier made to the people of Dresden, if you want to talk about respect.

The minister may remember that the government had a chance to get another 12 hours in committee last week, and all the government members of the committee voted no to sitting for 12 hours last Thursday, so don’t give me that.

Do you know what the Premier had to say when I said this last week? The Premier said to First Nation—this is what he said: “Don’t get left behind.” And like I said yesterday, what that means is, “We know what’s good for you.” First Nations have heard that for centuries, often with tragic consequences. Is it any wonder that First Nations leaders and others are going to be on the front lawn again today?

When is this government going to get it? You need to respect First Nations. They’re a partner. You can’t throw a couple of amendments in at the 11th hour and expect them to forget the—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Response? I recognize the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: At the very time that the opposition was bringing forth thousands of political games and amendments to the bill, President Trump doubled the tariff imposed on steel and aluminum. So maybe you all could wake up—

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: —turn on the news and realize we’re in an economic war. Maybe the opposition could realize, Madam Speaker, that we have an opportunity to stand up for Canadian resources. We brought forth amendments to the bill to codify the duty to consult, and because of your procedural games, we couldn’t even get to that amendment. So the moral indignity of the opposition, lecturing us—

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

Hon. Stephen Lecce: —on respecting rights, when we brought forth an amendment to the bill to strengthen that commitment—

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

Mr. John Fraser: I’ve got no sympathy for a government that treats First Nations’ rights as something that they can slide in at the 11th hour in the

preamble. That’s a joke, Speaker.

I want to apologize because I again said, because I got worked up, “our First Nations.” It’s not what I believe, and so I want to apologize for that.

But what I do want to ask the government to do is to consider what First Nations leaders are saying to you. They’re saying, “What we’re hearing from the grassroots is ‘Idle No More,’ that people are upset, that you’re not respecting truth and reconciliation.”

We want to work with you, so the right thing to do is not call the bill for third reading. Will the Premier not call Bill 5 for third reading, go back to the drawing board and get it right?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Response? The Minister of Indigenous Affairs.

Hon. Greg Rickford: The bill needs to pass so that we can get out there, perform the duty to consult, move beyond that and form meaningful partnerships with First Nations, because I’m hearing that from First Nations as well.

With all due respect, we will take no lessons from a party that took over 10 years and failed in its consultations just to twin a highway through Kenora–Rainy River district; one who took the Far North Act—and this is a matter of fact as well—and ran roughshod over every First Nations community in the Far North in the name of putting a park up in northern Ontario, essentially freezing any development in that region, at more than 400,000 square kilometres, a country the size of Europe. There’s no record of consultation.

The fact that chiefs spoke out at the time against this tells us all that we must not take lessons from the Liberal Party of Ontario when it comes to how we engage and form meaningful partnerships with First Nations.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: It’s interesting that the minister mentioned a park because my colleague from Kiiwetinoong referred to a park yesterday. That’s the point here, folks.

First Nations have heard for centuries, “We know what’s good for you. Trust us. We know what’s good for you.” We know what the consequences of that are: what my colleague from Kiiwetinoong mentioned yesterday. We know what truth and reconciliation has told us, and the Premier continues to say things like, “Don’t get left behind.” We need to put the past behind us. It should be in front of us and a lens that we look through. That’s the point.

So the right thing to do is not to call Bill 5 to third reading. Go back to the drawing board, take the summer and get it right. Will the Premier do that?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Economic Reconciliation.

Hon. Greg Rickford: The member has a responsibility to proscribe, in the strongest of terms; to take a stand against any inference, implicit or otherwise, that confrontation is a path forward or an option forward for us as a government to move forward meaningfully with First Nations. The fact of the matter is that we put joint decision-making in the Far North Act as a remedy for the act that they imposed on this province.

The fact of the matter is that these special economic zones, done right, offer a rare opportunity to form the kinds of partnerships with First Nations communities and First Nations businesses that put meaningful prosperity in play for those communities that are desperate to have it and that we would love to see happen.

Madam Speaker, we look forward to the opportunity to consult with First Nations, form effective economic partnerships, build Ontario and build Canada.

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

Mr. John Fraser: The Far North Act is one of some 800 acts in Ontario that this bill can override. I hope the minister knows that. Every bill that exists in Ontario right now can be overridden by this bill. That is a pretty—pardon my language, Speaker—crappy piece of legislation.

There’s no thought into that—no thought into the kind of power that it puts in the Premier and the ministers. It’s beyond executive power; it’s like the power of a sovereign. It’s like a king. They’re the kind of powers that Donald Trump thinks he has—or does have—south of the border.

It’s not just First Nations. The people of Dresden, all sorts of people across Ontario—you all know. We all know. We’re getting the emails. We’re getting the calls. So will the Premier do the right thing: not call Bill 5 to third reading, go back to the drawing board and come back here with something that will actually work and not end up in court?

Hon. Greg Rickford: I’m trying to reconcile that with comments I’ve made earlier when the member speaks.

Earlier this morning, the ever-Chatty Cathy member for Kingston and the Islands said that his party supports the mining aspects of Bill 5 on some channel 1010 or something. I don’t listen to the media and I don’t know anything about Toronto radio stations, but it appears as though there’s some division in the Liberal Party.

Let me set it straight. We have an extraordinary opportunity to build out economic partnerships with First Nations and First Nations businesses in developing the kinds of partnerships that offer long-term prosperity and move us forward as a province.

Today, the weight of Donald Trump is upon us. The doubling of those tariffs put us in a vulnerable position. We need to do the right thing, form effective partnerships with First Nations and move forward on building prosperous communities—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I’ll caution the member to be careful of the words he uses to refer to other members.

I recognize the leader of the third party.

Mr. John Fraser: I am shocked that the minister would say that.

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: Shocked, shocked.

Mr. John Fraser: No, I am. I’m shocked. And if being chatty is standing up for First Nations, well, then maybe he’s chatty. If being chatty is standing up for the people of Dresden, then maybe he’s chatty.

But you know what? What the member from Kingston and the Islands is doing is what we all need to be doing here, not just us but all of you, and that’s saying to the Premier clearly, “You haven’t got it right.” You have passed a law that allows the Premier to break every law in Ontario wherever he wants to and whenever he wants to do that. The laws don’t matter. It’s not right.

It’s a lousy, poorly written piece of legislation, and you need to go back to the drawing board. You can come back with something that has the mining pieces in it and the stuff that’s good and just get rid of all the other stuff that you didn’t put any thought into. It’s ridiculous.

So don’t call Bill 5 for third reading. Go back to the drawing board and come back here with some work that we can all vote for, that we can all support so we can get the things done we need to get done in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, unlike the member’s party, who showed up with props last night, stacks of paper, pretending to bring something serious, we are here with serious legislation.

Our province, our country is under threat by Donald Trump. Please understand that. We are losing companies. We are losing jobs. We are doing everything in our power to prepare Ontario for the future.

We have 70,000 STEM grads every year; clean, green energy; land. We have everything that companies all around the world are looking for. We put our special economic zones in place, and we can get these things opened in two years instead of 15 years. This is what we need. That’s the strength that we need here in Ontario.

Steel industry

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Premier. Trump’s tariffs have caused enormous uncertainty and fear in Ontario, particularly for workers and their families in industries exposed to tariffs. Today, our communities are facing an increased threat with the doubling of steel and aluminum tariffs. Our steel industry is warning of “unrecoverable consequences.”

USW national has warned that the steel industry is on the verge of collapse. They say they cannot access the American market at 50% tariffs. And it’s worth noting that 65% of Canadian steel goes to the US market.

Steel leadership have told us, “Focusing on Canadian-made products gives us a better chance of treading water to get through this, keep our head above water and be successful on the other side.” The storm is here.

My question is to the Premier: What specific measures has he taken to protect jobs of steel and aluminum workers in the province of Ontario? Because it certainly is not Bill 5.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Well, congratulations for acknowledging the storm is here. That’s exactly what we’ve been saying.

The member asks, “What have you done specifically?” Well, $30 billion is in the budget to help businesses all across Ontario. They continue to vote against every single thing that we brought forward. I could name you dozens of items—item after item after item, vote down, vote down, vote down.

It’s just shocking, Speaker, that the member would ask, “What are you doing?” Read the budget: $40 billion is in the budget, $11 billion was announced earlier, $9 billion worth of delayed payments to help them, $2 billion worth of WSIB going back to them, $5 billion of powder kept in the tank. There is item after item after item. Pick any page in the budget and you’ll find what we’re doing for the businesses of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Hamilton Centre.

MPP Robin Lennox: I stand here today to defend steelworkers in Hamilton Centre. As you know, Hamilton is Canada’s biggest steel producer and we have