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

November 5, 2025

44th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2025-Nov-05 vol. A (PDF)

L034A - Wed 5 Nov 2025 / Mer 5 nov 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 5 November 2025 Mercredi 5 novembre 2025

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Wearing of pins

Members’ Statements

Seasonal events in Thornhill

Government accountability

Food insecurity / Remembrance Week

Skilled Trades Week / Remembrance Day

Gender-based violence

Moose Hide Campaign

Burdett Sisler

International trade

Remembrance Day

Youth mental health

Gender-based violence

Gender-based violence

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Government accountability

Highway safety

Government accountability

Transportation infrastructure

University and college funding

Government accountability

Education

Electronic service delivery

Government accountability

Health care

Introduction of Visitors

Introduction of Bills

1000401927 Ontario Inc. Act, 2025

1000401924 Ontario Inc. Act, 2025

The Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Catharines in Ontario Act, 2025

668986 Ontario Inc. Act, 2025

Petitions

Foreign-trained doctors

Education funding

Post-secondary education

Environmental protection

Tenant protection

Endangered species

Soins de la vue

Social assistance

Supportive housing

Government accountability

Child care

Orders of the Day

Committee sittings

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Time allocation

Hon. Steve Clark: I move that, pursuant to standing order 50 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 60,

An Act to amend various Acts and to enact the Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025; Bill 33,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to child, youth and family services, education, and colleges and universities; and Bill 40,

An Act to amend various statutes with respect to energy, the electrical sector and public utilities;

That when the orders for Bills 60 and 33 are next called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of each bill without further debate or amendment; and

That upon receiving second reading, Bills 60 and 33 shall be ordered for third reading, which orders may be called the same day; and

That when the order for third reading of Bill 60 is called, two hours shall be allotted to debate, with 36 minutes for the members of His Majesty’s government, 36 minutes for the members of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, 36 minutes for the members of the third party, and 12 minutes for the independent members as a group; and

That at the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill 60 without further debate or amendment; and

That when the order for third reading of Bill 33 is called, two hours shall be allotted to debate, with 36 minutes for the members of His Majesty’s government, 36 minutes for the members of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, 36 minutes for the members of the third party, and 12 minutes for the independent members as a group; and

That at the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill 33 without further debate or amendment; and

That when the order for Bill 40 is next called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That upon receiving second reading, Bill 40 shall be referred to the Standing Committee on the Interior; and

That the Standing Committee on the Interior be authorized to meet for public hearings on Bill 40 on the following dates:

Tuesday, November 18, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m., and from 3:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.; and

Tuesday, November 25, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m., and from 3:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.; and

That the deadline for requests to appear for hearings on Bill 40 be 12 noon on Thursday, November 13, 2025; and

That the Clerk of the Committee shall provide a list of all interested presenters to each member of the subcommittee on committee business and their designate as soon as possible following the deadline for requests to appear; and

That if all requests to appear cannot be accommodated, each member of the subcommittee or their designate may provide the Clerk of the Committee with a prioritized list of presenters to be scheduled, chosen from the list of all interested presenters for those respective hearings by 12 noon on Friday, November 14, 2025; and

That the Minister of Energy and Mines be invited to appear as the sponsor of Bill 40 at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, November 18, 2025, and that the minister shall have 20 minutes to make an opening statement followed by 39 minutes of questions and answers divided into two rounds of 6.5 minutes for the government members, two rounds of 6.5 minutes for the official opposition members and two rounds of 6.5 minutes for the third party; and

That witnesses shall be scheduled in groups of three for each one-hour time slot, with each presenter allotted seven minutes to make an opening statement followed by 39 minutes of questioning for all three witnesses, divided into two rounds of 6.5 minutes for the government members, two rounds of 6.5 minutes for the official opposition members and two rounds of 6.5 minutes for the third party; and

That the deadline for written submissions on Bill 40 be 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 25, 2025; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to Bill 40 be 12 noon on Thursday, November 27, 2025; and

That the committee meet for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 40 on Tuesday, December 2, 2025, from 9 a.m. until 10:15 a.m., and from 3 p.m. until 6 p.m., and from 6:30 p.m. until midnight; and

That on Tuesday, December 2, 2025, at 4 p.m., those amendments to Bill 40 which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto; and

At this time, the Chair shall allow one waiting period, if requested by a member of the committee, pursuant to standing order 131(a); and

That the committee shall report Bill 40 to the House no later than Wednesday, December 3, 2025, and if the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed passed by the committee and shall be deemed reported to and received by the House; and

That upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on the Interior on Bill 40, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith; and

That upon adoption of the report, Bill 40 shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called the same day; and

That when the order for third reading of Bill 40 is called, two hours shall be allotted to debate with 36 minutes for the members of His Majesty’s government, 36 minutes for the members of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, 36 minutes for the members of the third party, and 12 minutes for the independent members as a group; and

That at the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill 40 without further debate or amendment.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The government House leader has moved government notice of motion number 9.

Back to the government House leader.

Hon. Steve Clark: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion today.

As I said in the motion, we’re dealing with three government bills today: Bill 60, Bill 33 and Bill 40. We’re time allocating for the scheduling purposes of these three very important priorities for the government. I’ve gone on at great length in other debates on the use of time allocation by all three parties, and I’m not going to do that today. Instead, I’m going to talk about the importance of the three bills before the House.

Obviously, on Bill 60, our Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in his opening remarks very eloquently talked about the importance of the government delivering on our plan to protect Ontario, to keep workers on the job by cutting red tape, by getting shovels in the ground faster and supporting the construction of new homes, new roads and infrastructure.

The minister also very eloquently outlined the fact that this bill builds upon the foundation that he laid with the building faster and smarter act by continuing to reduce costs in the time it takes to build; continuing to work with municipal leaders, as the minister has done very well with the stakeholders in every corner of the province and also other stakeholders, like home builders; and fighting delays and regulatory burdens. He was responsive to some of the concerns that Ontarians expressed, did the right thing and changed course, but really has a foundational bill that, as he’s said and as others on the government side have said, is an important priority for us.

The Minister of Education has done a tremendous job with Bill 33, and has really articulated the priorities of having more accountability in school boards. He said it many times: Parents deserve confidence that school boards are making decisions that are in the best interests of our children’s education. That’s why he’s strengthening accountability and transparency right across Ontario’s education system: to ensure that every dollar invested delivers real results for students.

Interjection.

Hon. Steve Clark: There you go; there’s your applause line—see, he won’t even applaud now. You applauded before.

The government, through Bill 33, is making it very clear that school boards must put students first—not politics, not bureaucracy—and they need to act decisively when they fall short of that responsibility. The minister demonstrated that in the Bill 33 over and over again.

The bill that the government is proposing goes to committee is Bill 40,

an Act to amend various statutes with respect to energy, the electrical sector and public utilities. Again, my seatmate, the minister, has articulated very well during debate the importance of this bill to our government. As global competition intensifies, energy demand surges and affordability becomes more important than ever, our province isn’t standing still; we’re stepping up.

I think the minister has, over the time that we’ve debated Bill 33—and the associate minister, and the parliamentary assistants—talked about the decisive action to build a more competitive, a more resilient and a self-reliant economy by introducing the Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act.

Again, the minister was very clear: He wanted this bill to go to committee. I’ve talked about this both in the House and outside of the House, that the ministers have done a great job with these bills, piloting them through, but there are some cases where the government has decided that we need some committee hearings.

With that, I’ll allow the opposition to get their points forward, and in a couple hours we’ll see how this motion does on the floor.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to speak in the House, and today on behalf of the official opposition, regarding another time-allocation motion. I don’t think it’s going to be a surprise to anyone that we’re going to be voting against this.

But I listened very closely to the House leader. I usually quote a few illustrious quotes from the government House leader when he was opposition House leader, and I’m just going to use one today. It’s actually dateline November 28, 2017. This is when the opposition House leader, who had the position that I hold now, was talking about a time-allocation motion which, at that point, the Liberal government of the day was putting forward. Actually, it’s very appropriate because it could be word for word what I would say. The only difference is, I actually believe it.

I’m not sure that he did, because he’s doing exactly the same thing: “You know what? That’s right. The Facebook ads are running now, the government ads are running now, to promote this bill, yet this government is silent. They don’t want to debate it. They don’t want it in committee. They don’t want to hear from people.

“You know what, Speaker? My party loves to hear from people. We’ve been talking to people for months. We’ve had hundreds of volunteers, thousands of ideas. And you know what? If this government doesn’t want to listen to people, I’ll give them a guarantee. I’ll give them, actually,” and remember this, people—that was my interjection, sorry. “I’ll give them, actually, the People’s Guarantee, because we will listen to them, and we will ensure that those Ontarians are being listened to.”

My question is, what happened to the People’s Guarantee? And now we know what happened to it, because it’s in this quote: “We will ensure that those Ontarians are being listened to.” And that’s important: “those.” It didn’t say all Ontarians; it said “those.” This government likes to pick and choose who they listen to. I think that’s becoming very obvious, and now it’s even gotten to the point with committees.

They take three bills. Bill 33: As much as I respect the Minister of Education—I actually enjoy spending some time occasionally with the Minister of Education—we don’t always agree, right?

Hon. Steve Clark: I have a feeling he doesn’t agree with this.

Mr. John Vanthof: I don’t agree with his bill.

But the government House leader said they had done such a good job that they were confident that this bill didn’t need to go to committee. I think the fact that this bill is not going to committee is actually a lack of confidence, because the government only wants to listen to people who agree with them. But the government should listen to—they don’t have to take the advice of the people they disagree with, but they should listen to everyone.

What this government is really afraid of—really, it’s not overconfidence. What they don’t want to hear is, “I told you so.” This government is really afraid of, “I told you so,” because no one likes to hear, “I told you so.” They’ve had a lot of failures over the years, and it really hurts when we say, “Well, if you only had listened to the opposition or actually listened to experts or listened to people at committee.”

Bill 33: Take it to committee and have teachers—have a few trustees, I don’t know, but have teachers, have students come to committee and say, “Have you thought about this?” And then, if the government didn’t listen and someone brought something forward that was actually relevant, they could have said, “I told you so.” But if you don’t allow the people to speak, your ego doesn’t get hurt, because no one can say, “I told you so,” because no one got the chance to say anything.

That is not how democracy is supposed to work. You are going to get your bills through; I don’t think that’s a surprise. But you do have the duty to get as much information as possible. So to make that legislation, even though I disagree with it, or we disagree, that’s not the—the point is that you owe it to the people of Ontario to give them as much opportunity as possible to discuss those bills. And maybe change one or two things, or maybe not, but at least understand what their views are.

I don’t think it’s overconfidence; let’s make this really clear. It’s not overconfidence; it’s lack of confidence. The People’s Guarantee was—and we all missed that. At least, many of the people who voted missed that, because when I saw all those plaques, “the People’s Guarantee,” you were already telegraphing that you were only going to listen to some people, not all people. I think a lot of the members on the other side didn’t actually run for that, because you know that you need to listen to all views. You might not agree with them.

One of the things I like about committee is that sometimes I hear views, I hear things that I had never thought of, and they change my viewpoint. That’s the strength of committee.

The fact is that on very important bills, like education bills, changing the complete education system—that you have all the answers, that you don’t need to listen to anybody in the committee process.

Come on. You’re only fooling yourselves. And the “I told you so” will get a lot uglier—will get a lot, lot uglier, because the mark of a long-lasting government is actually taking everybody’s views into account. As this government progresses, it’s becoming more and more obvious that that is not the case.

And it’s not only the education bill. Bill 60—a housing bill, right? This government is great at blaming the previous government for all the housing problems in Ontario. They forget the fact that they are the previous government. Then they blame the previous, previous government. Who is the previous, previous government? Them.

You’ve been in government for almost a decade. Housing starts in Ontario are crashing. Food bank lines, homeless people—we have homeless encampments all across the province. When I was first elected, homeless encampments weren’t a thing. You’ve had almost a decade—a decade—to address this issue, successive housing ministers, successive housing bills, and your solution is, “You know what? We’re so smart, we’re just not going to listen to anybody anymore because we don’t want to hear ‘I told you so.’”

Are there good things in Bill 60? Yes. Are there some terrible things in Bill 60? Absolutely. Should tenants have the ability to come to committee and put those on the record? That’s a pretty big thing here, putting things on the record so that we can learn from our mistakes—and we all make mistakes. And believe you me, Speaker, this government also has their share of mistakes.

If you remember the greenbelt act, one of their first housing acts that was going to give everybody a house in Ontario, it wasn’t even about housing. The government House leader knows that very well. It was also one of their suites of fantastic housing bills. And they’re not learning. They’re not learning. They need to listen to people.

Now they do. Bill 40—they want to listen to people because there will be more people that agree with them. And again, I get that. But why not listen to opposing views so you can form a more balanced view yourself? That is the most egregious—that’s a big word for me. “Egregious” is a big word for me.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Yes. Where did you rent that?

Mr. John Vanthof: I know. I’ve been here a long time. I’m working up.

But it is one of the saddest things about motions like this, and it happens more and more often. And yes, all parties have used time allocation, and all parties have been wrong, including mine.

But we stand in this place. We are the voices of the people. We work really hard to get elected. And the way this system has been built over decades is to debate opposing views, is to bring bills before committee so people can talk about them. This government is choosing not to do that. They choose to sit limited days. They choose not to do committee on certain bills. Any bill where someone might say, “You know, Minister, have you thought about this?”—that’s what they don’t want. They don’t want to have to admit that they haven’t thought about that, or that they have thought about that and, quite frankly, they don’t care. That’s what they don’t want to admit. It’s very egregious.

We all love our system. We love Ontario; we love Canada. We are all willing to stand to fight to protect the freedoms that—we’re wearing a poppy to commemorate the people who stood and fought for our freedom. I’m very proud of that. It drives me crazy—crazy—when I hear people say that Canada is broken. Canada is not broken. It’s one of the greatest countries in the world—one of the greatest countries in the world. I’m so proud to be a Canadian.

But I’m not proud that I have to stand here and make a reasoned argument about why a bill from a majority government should go to committee. You’re going to get the bill passed. There is nothing stopping you from getting the bill passed. So you are choosing to ignore the opinion, the intelligence of people who may not agree with your path. You’re choosing to do that. You don’t want to hear, “I told you so.” And do you know who’s going to pay the price for that? Ontarians are going to pay the price for that, not you; the people you represent, the people who put their faith in you to do the right thing.

We may disagree philosophically—I 100% get that, I respect that. But I don’t believe that any of us got elected here to basically force our views on other people. We got elected here because we believe in the system; we believe in debate; we believe in bringing bills to committee.

Yet for some reason—that’s why I started with the quote from the then opposition House leader—it seems that when you cross the floor, your beliefs disappear. And with this government, I think it’s even worse because I don’t think that the Premier’s office respects this place one bit. This place is a hindrance to the Premier’s office. That’s why we end up in scandals. It’s a hindrance; it’s not a tool to them. It should be a tool to make better legislation.

You won an election. You have the power to put your legislation through. This Parliament is a tool to make sure that legislation is as good as it can be, and the fact that you’re ignoring that is proof that you just see this as a hindrance—the strength of our parliamentary democracy.

We all proudly wear that poppy, but I’m not sure that we all understand what we’re fighting for here and why we’re standing here and why we wear it.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): I recognize the member from Ottawa–Vanier.

M me Lucille Collard: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s very nice to see you in the chair.

Here we go again. Wasn’t it just last week that we had to defend why time allocation motions are not good for democracy? It seems rhetorical—it keeps coming up. This morning, I don’t really want to say that much about this practice that has become business as usual, because I think that time-allocating everything has become something quite ridiculous.

I’ll agree with my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane; everything he said is on point, and he has had the occasion to repeat those things over and over again. So we understand—we’re all coming from this place.

I’ll say this: My position that this is not a good idea has not changed. What I said last week about why it’s not a good idea, why it’s not good for democracy, was probably something that was more or less what was expected.

So today, maybe I’ll surprise you, but I’m going to give it to you straight. I think that time allocation motions can actually be good in certain cases, under certain circumstances, and for certain bills; for example, when all parties agree that we have a really good bill where it’s worth accelerating the implementation. It happens—not very often, but it does from time to time. However, the time allocation motion for Bills 33, 40 and 60 does not fall into that category—not by far. But the government has a majority and will get its way anyway. So what we say might be meaningless to them. I hope that the public is listening.

I also have to admit that sometimes six and a half hours of debate or more can be too much. And having sat in the Speaker’s chair—like you are today, Madam Speaker—for some debates that were repeating the same thing over and over again, I’ll admit that I may have contemplated the value to limit debates. When everything has been said and the positions are clear, why continue to use airtime that no one is listening to? That works for certain more simple bills. But Bills 33, 40 and 60 do not fall in that category either. If we want or if the government wants to pass good legislation, we need to hear from the public.

And that’s why committee work, with public hearings for the people to express their support or their concerns, is so important.

And to the comment that the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane said about the government wanting to only speak or hear from people that agree with them: It’s true, but actually, I wish the government would understand and learn what I’ve learned with my job, that you actually learn the most when you have conversations with people that disagree with you. It allows you to see another perspective and learn things that will entice you or convince you to make your bill better. But forget it; we’re not doing that.

Unfortunately, a time allocation motion not only cuts time to debate—which could be acceptable in certain cases, like I mentioned—but it cuts out the most important part, which is the committee process, which is effectively the public voice that we’ve been elected to listen to. And they are being told to shut up: “We don’t want to hear about you. We know everything, and we’re just going to get this bill, and you’ll just have to live with the consequences, and if you don’t agree, well, too bad, so sad.” That’s not democracy, Madam Speaker. That’s not responsible government. That is, indeed, government arrogance in all its splendour. And it is, frankly, revolting.

So go ahead, have your way. But be assured that people, electors, are paying attention.

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

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It’s an honour for me to rise today, although, this motion that we are discussing this morning, motion number 9, is really quite concerning to the people of the province. I’ve heard so much from my office, so much concern and so much fear and so much angst and anger about Bills 33 and 60. And I’m quite sure the government’s own email boxes have blown up. And yet, they still seem to want to rush these through.

We have to ask ourselves the question, Speaker: Why are we rushing so quickly with these bills? What is the government hurrying for? What is their purpose for trying to get this through as quickly as possible? This motion is what I would call authoritarianism covered in grease.

You know, I found it also quite interesting that as my friend the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane was quoting the words of this government when they had been in opposition, many of them were smiling. Many of them were remembering. Many of them acknowledged and recognized their words and their upset and their anger over time allocation. And yet, now that they are on the government side, that has seemingly disappeared. Those concerns are utterly obliterated.

From a very early age, from the age of kindergarten, we get basic, fundamental life lessons that it seems that many people have forgotten in their older years. We learn how to listen. We learn how to share. We learn how to take turns.

And yet this government, through this motion number 9, is refusing to listen. It’s not as though they’re even pretending to listen. They’re not even having these committee hearings on these very disturbing pieces of legislation. And yet, they are not even bothering to pretend. That is hubris; that is pride. And that they should be very concerned about.

But it also begs the question: If the government does not want to open up committee hearings, if the government does not want to hear from the people of Ontario, if they do not want to listen to the public, then who, Speaker, are they actually listening to? It begs the question of what voices matter to this government.

I can tell you that with

schedule 12 and Bill 60, they’re clearly not listening to seniors. They’re not listening to people living with disabilities. They’re not listening to folks on social assistance or folks on fixed incomes. They’re not listening to young people just trying to start out in life, and they’re not listening to people who are living paycheque to paycheque and are deeply concerned about falling into homelessness.

No, Speaker; they’re listening to wealthy corporations. They’re listening to real estate investment trusts. They’re listening to corporate landlords who don’t look at human beings; they look at people as an item on a ledger, a number on an Excel spreadsheet.

With motion number 9—I’m making this go by as quickly as possible—it does make us ask, what is this government also trying to hide from the public? What are their priorities? Why are they doing this?

We often hear the government use the words—and yet they’re completely devoid of meaning; they’re absolutely destroyed, quite frankly, from their original intention. We hear words like “accountability,” words that should make one think of being responsible, of being forthright, of being open or being able to explain or to justify, being able to defend their positions. But this motion, motion number 9, is a lack of accountability. It’s unwillingness to explain, it’s unwillingness to defend, it’s unwillingness to justify and it’s unwillingness to be transparent, open and forthright with the people of Ontario.

Abandoning committee and speeding through debate is really an ethical problem, a huge ethical problem. I did want to before—because debate is being so completely truncated with this government—point out to the government that government members have been heard indicating that in Thames Valley there were trustees who went on the Toronto trip, and I can tell you unequivocally that 18 senior administrative officials went on the Toronto trip; not a single trustee went, not one. They did not vote on that trip to Toronto; they did not participate in that trip to Toronto.

And it’s just really quite dubious that this government is choosing to reveal facts in such a way as to cast doubt on those trustees when they had no

part in that trip whatsoever.

I think Bill Tucker Sr. could also teach this government about being honourable, about being forthright, about being accountable and about being responsible. It’s a shame that the government has closed their ears.

Through these bills, it does other disturbing things like undermining local control of CAS budgets. They’re destroying the ability of parents to advocate for their children with trustees. They’re a true, authentic local voice, and they’re trying to replace that with an unelected Toronto bureaucrat. It does make us ask the question: How is it possible that someone in downtown Toronto knows the needs of your local school? Will they pick up the phone? Will they answer emails? I highly doubt it.

It’s yet another opportunity for this government to install one of their failed candidates, one of their donors, one of their cronies, one of their backroom insiders, into a position, all while pretending this is about accountability. Again, this is authoritarianism covered in grease.

If we were time-allocating a bill to restore the $6.35 billion that this government has stripped from education, I could see a reason to time allocate that, Speaker. If this time allocation was concerning a bill that put more caring adults in classrooms, we could certainly vote for that.

If this was ensuring the government fixed the flawed 1998 funding model, which treats all children the same and does not ensure that kids with special education needs or mental health needs get the funding that they deserve—if this bill made sure that each child was funded based upon their need—that would be absolutely something to time allocate. Getting kids the right supports at the right time will change their life, yet this bill is not about that. This time allocation motion certainly is not about that.

If this bill was to make up for the funding shortfall that the government has created by not funding CPP and EI, those statutory benefit increases, then that would be something that would be easy to vote for and to time allocate, yet it is not.

This bill and this motion are setting the stage for a takeover of public education, and it also is an attack on post-secondary education. It’s a distraction to the underfunding of post-secondary education, quite frankly. This government wants to do it quickly and do it fast, and they hope that people blink and don’t pay attention.

This is a false choice that is being offered through Bill 33, allowing students—who are already financially beleaguered by the cost of everything in life, especially university tuition—the opportunity to opt out of fees that benefit them and benefit the broader school community, such as food banks, mental health supports, sexual violence supports and so many other things that are critically important and vitally important for them and for the student experience. Yet this government, through motion 9, doesn’t want people to open their eyes and to notice.

And I haven’t even begun to touch upon the disturbing issues that are within Bill 60. The government, in their—hmm—wisdom, decided to remove rent control from buildings first occupied after November 2018. They also did not force landlords to report that people were moving into buildings without rent control, so people, after having lived in a building for 12 months, would be handed an increase that could be any number that that landlord picked, because this government drilled a massive hole in the boat of renter’s rights.

It was the exact same that happened under the previous government, which was to bring in vacancy decontrol to allow landlords to charge whatever the market could withstand as soon as a unit became vacant. That was a situation which allowed unethical corporate landlords to kick good, long-term tenants out because they knew they could jack up the rent.

It might have looked okay on paper, but I can tell you this is something that deeply concerns seniors, people living with disabilities, new Canadians, young families, all people living on a fixed income, all the people who are working multiple part-time jobs just trying to survive. And this government—who are they listening to with this legislation?

Further, while the government did backpedal on their consultation to remove the month-by-month tenancy, they also still have things within Bill 60 that are deeply concerning for tenants: Eviction notices can be given seven days after non-payment of rent rather than 14 days. It also allows landlords to declare their own use with 120 days’ notice, and then there’s nothing that that tenant can do. I want to say, Speaker—we’ve said this before and we will say it again—what tenant, after being evicted by a landlord based on the landlord’s own use, is going to come and check with the new resident to make sure it is indeed the landlord?

Speaker, this government makes a lot of noise about being for the people and listening to the people. This is a clear example: Their ears are shut, their back is turned and they’re not listening to the people who are most deeply affected by this time allocation motion.

I urge the government to listen to their conscience and do not vote for this time allocation motion.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Further debate? I recognize the member from Ajax.

Mr. Rob Cerjanec: Good morning to all of my colleagues, and, again, it’s nice to see you in the chair, Speaker.

We’re talking about time allocation. And I find it a little bit ironic because we were on a bit of an extended summer break, and I know we were doing work in our communities, in our ridings—at least, I know I was. The federal Parliament resumed a lot sooner than our Legislature did, and that really could have been important time for us to debate and discuss these pieces of legislation, debate and discuss these at the committee level so that we can have an informed conversation.

We can do that amongst ourselves, but we can also do that with different stakeholders and interest groups that are going to be impacted by this legislation or have good pieces of feedback and advice for us to improve legislation. Unfortunately, here we are again, and it feels as though this is a government that really doesn’t care about the committee process. That’s how it feels. I think that’s really unfortunate because I came here to represent my constituents, work on their behalf, connect with them and listen to their feedback.

We’ve had a lot of conversation about the education bill, Bill 33, in here, for example, and had other conversations at the regional level, for example, about Bill 60, even before that bill was introduced, talking about different ideas or thoughts that now we actually do see within the bill. So it’s really unfortunate that we’re not going to be able to debate this and discuss both Bill 33 and Bill 60 at the committee level, because I think it’s a really great opportunity to listen to our constituents and be able to have more opportunity to bring those voices into this chamber.

Around Bill 60, the committee process, I think, is integral, because this was a bill that was just introduced two weeks ago, on October 23. There was a lot of controversy, I think, when this bill was introduced. We saw the government backtrack a little bit on consultations around changing rent control. I think that was really to the testament of the public and people who were very loud and very clear that we should not be ending rent control in this province.

But to see that floated as a trial balloon, to see that in the stakeholder or the briefing materials that were provided, I think, to me, was very, very concerning. While the government right now has said, “No, we’re not going to touch that. We’re not going to make changes there”—we would have had a good opportunity to discuss elements of Bill 60 at the committee level.

I’ll just say this, colleagues, Speaker: to touch rent control in the way that was floated is very concerning. I grew up in an apartment building. I grew up in a one-bedroom apartment, with my mom and I. Frankly, having rent control on our unit—and it can increase year after year, and I think that’s important, because expenses go up, property taxes go up, cost of water and electricity and operating the building and needing to do repairs, those costs go up. So it’s fair that there are increases to rent year after year, but it needs to be done in a way that’s responsible.

Having rent control on our unit, frankly, I think was a lifeline for us. I fear what could have happened if that unit was not under rent control.

I’m very, very concerned about that and very concerned that this was floated in the first place.

The housing bill was introduced two weeks ago. I’m not even sure everyone has had the opportunity to digest elements within that bill, and I think that is really unfortunate. I’m not even sure all of us in this chamber have had the opportunity to digest and understand different portions within that bill. To be able to talk about the bill at committee, to hear from groups, I think would help make this bill a better bill.

The bill proposes landlord and tenant changes. And do you know what? I want us to be able to hear from landlords. I want to hear from large landlords on this. I want to hear from small landlords on this. I want to hear from folks who own a home who might want to rent out their basement apartment, for example—a basement suite—or add a suite within their unit, or add a granny flat, a garden suite, in their backyard, or, if they’re in places with laneways in Toronto, add a laneway suite, and be able to talk about that and what that means and how we help create more rental availability.

As seniors consider downsizing—I know a lot of seniors want to stay in their home because they like their home. It’s where they raised their kids. It’s where they raised their family. But maybe that home is a bit too big. So to be able to add a rental unit in there, I know, for a lot of folks—and maybe some supplemental income to help their kids with, frankly, the high cost of living. I think that is a good thing, and we could be discussing that at committee. We can be discussing ways in which we’re able to add more rental stock and do it in a way that’s fair.

If you’re a small landlord—if it’s a unit in your basement, for example, that’s a lot different than a 200-unit apartment building. So we could actually get into that and have those conversations and be able to hear from tenants as well.

A friend of mine has the ability to have a second suite within his home, but he doesn’t rent it out on the long-term market. My friend doesn’t rent out that suite on the long-term market because the HVAC system is shared within that building and his daughter has a lung condition. So he doesn’t rent out that unit because the HVAC system is connected. I know of other friends of mine and other folks as well who have allergies to pets.

So we can be talking about that at the committee level. We can be saying, “How do we make the current system work better? How do we add rental supply into the market?” We could be doing that, but, unfortunately, we’re not doing that with a bill that has been rushed through, and I don’t think that is really giving the public an opportunity to be able to participate in this process.

We know that there are changes at the Landlord and Tenant Board, and we know that, frankly, for the last seven years, the Landlord and Tenant Board has been a disaster in its inability to process applications and give a fair hearing to both landlords and tenants.

When I talk to landlords, when I talk to tenants, everybody tells me they want the system to work, they want it to be fair, they want it to be effective, and they want to be able to have their due process without delays. That’s what I hear when I talk to folks.

So it’s unfortunate that we’re not going to be able to have that debate at committee, should the time allocation motion pass, which I suspect it will in the majority government that we have.

Rental starts are doing okay, thanks to some changes through CMHC and federal support and reducing development charges on some pieces. But if we want to look at housing starts overall, they’re terrible; they’re in the garbage. That’s not good. It means our skilled trades workers aren’t going to be able to work on—whether it’s greenfield development, whether it’s infill, we need to be able to ensure our skilled trades folks are able to be out there and working.

This is a government that talks quite a bit about the skilled trades and how much they care about the skilled trades. Well, I care about the skilled trades too, and I want to see them work on job sites. I want to see housing construction go up. I want to see housing construction continue. Because right now, if we look at recent stats around this—we’re talking about condo starts, new home starts. In Toronto, for example, you can almost count them on my fingers and my toes and maybe a little bit more and that’s about it. That’s not a good thing. We could be having those folks there, but we don’t.

Yesterday at committee, we were talking with the Minister of Northern Development, and we were talking about the forestry sector. Here in Ontario, the forestry sector is an important

part in many communities where we have lumber to build homes. But if we’re not building homes, how are we going to support the forestry sector? Not being able to talk about this bill at the committee and ways that the government can actually increase housing starts, increase housing supply, continue to try and bring down the cost of new housing—but we’re not really going to be able to talk about that at the committee level. We won’t be able to listen to some of those ideas.

So I’ll give some of those ideas here in the Legislature. The government could cut the HST off new builds—and not just for first-time home buyers, because I know that’s what some of my honourable colleagues will be thinking about: “Oh, well we’re going to take the provincial portion of the HST off for first-time homebuyers.” That is a very, very small segment of folks that are purchasing new construction homes. I think we want to be able to have folks purchasing a new construction home, if it’s going to be your principal residence. I think we want that in this province. And again, we know the taxes and fees on this are so high.

So what the government could be doing is going a lot further and cutting the HST. Maybe it’s on the first million, and then a sliding scale to a million and a half, doing it for five years. That’s what the government can be doing if we’re serious about building housing, if we’re serious about ensuring our skilled trades members are able to go and work and not be out of work.

We could—hell, I’ll put a different proposal up here. They can remove the provincial land transfer tax on a new build for a period of time. That’s something that this government could be doing. Well, the property has never been transferred before, so why are we charging a land transfer tax on that? And I know some folks, maybe the Ministry of Finance, might be saying, “Well, it’s going to impact revenue.” Well, you’re not going to get that revenue if no homes are being built.

These are, I think, common-sense ideas that this government can take and do to ensure that our skilled trades members are working, to ensure that we are building the housing that we need for our changing demographics, for our changing population. They could cut development charges and make municipalities whole. There are a lot of choices, I think, that the government has, and I don’t think they’re making those choices. We have fancy titles of bills that sound really great. It sounds like we’re doing things, but, frankly, nothing is getting done except for, you know, we’ve got a long bill title that says the government is doing something when the government is not doing something.

Around Bill 60, it would have been really great to be able to discuss, at the committee level, public utilities for water and waste water, to get some public feedback on that. I’ve had conversations in Durham region about that. I think it’s really important that we get people to the committee table to talk about that, to talk about what it means to set up and create a public corporation for water and waste water.

Also, how do we ensure that we have safeguards as part of that to ensure that we don’t see the privatization of water or waste water services? There’s an underlying theme, I would say, with this government. There is a privatization theme. It’s just not out in the open. It’s being done quietly and slowly, creating crises and underfunding systems and wrecking them in some ways. We’ve seen this movie before, folks. We’ve seen this movie before.

It would be really good to be able to put in safeguards and have additional safeguards around that so that public corporations—the public interest is served in all of us. At the end of the day, there’s only one taxpayer. There’s only one taxpayer. If you’re paying waste water fees, well, it’s a fee. It’s a tax. It’s the same thing at the end of the day. How do we ensure that we keep those low? How do we ensure that we have public benefit for the public good? That’s something that we can be talking about at the committee level when we look at Bill 60.

On Bill 33, I look at the post-secondary sector—I didn’t have the opportunity to talk very much about it. I know that there are different groups: student groups; groups representing universities, representing colleges; people who’ve done research in this sector; folks who know a thing or two about our post-secondary institutions and maybe what is also happening around the world and how we strengthen our post-secondary institutions. But we see a big underfunding for our colleges and universities, creating a crisis. There was an overreliance on international tuition—110%. That’s right.

Instead of saying, “How do we fix that?” all I hear from the government side is, “We’re going to point a finger at the federal government.” That’s about it, when the business model itself was broken in the first place. Instead of, “Let’s fix the business model,” it’s, “We’re going to point fingers.” I don’t think that’s a good thing. So it would be good to be able to talk about some of the post-secondary changes that are proposed in Bill 33 at the committee level.

Around ancillary fees, for example: These are fees that students approved by referendum. It’d be really great if we had some student voices at committee talking about student fees, whether pro or against or anything. I think that’s healthy in a democracy. On campuses, students have that debate. They have that debate when a fee is being put in. They can actually change fees as well. That is something that students have the ability to do. If they don’t like the fees, okay, initiate a referendum and change that. That’s a democratic right. I think that’s a good thing at the college and university level.

I’d love to hear from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance at committee on this. I’d love to hear from the Canadian Federation of Students at the committee level talking about ancillary fees—folks who are voices of students, who are elected on their college and university campuses to represent students and advocate on their behalf. They’re going to be shut out of this committee process, out of even talking on this bill at committee. Yes, there have been some submissions, but there also needs to be changes and consideration, I would say, on the government side.

It would be great to be able to talk at committee about merit-based admissions and what’s being proposed and understand how that is going to work. The feedback and the input and the debate that we could have at the committee level on that I think is a really good thing. Are we just looking at grades? Is that all we’re going to do around merit-based?

I can tell you, I went and did an MBA. The admission process for an MBA, for example, looks at your GMAT score, your GRE score. But it looks at other aspects of what you can add into the classroom so that there’s a diversity of opinion, there’s a diversity of thought within the classroom. So I’m not sure what’s being suggested here around a merit-based admission process. It would be really great to be able to have that conversation, again, at the committee level.

Around research security: This is a government that wants to reduce red tape. They’re adding red tape around research security when there are already federal requirements that our universities strictly adhere to. Universities are important tools to fuel innovation, playing an important part with community. So we shouldn’t be diverting resources away from commercializing research and technology to talk about research security when there are already strong provisions in place with the federal level as well.

We’re at a global battle. The Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade sometimes says, “We’re in a war with the United States.” I think we really are, around research and intellectual property and commercializing research and creating new businesses and jobs and opportunity. We are in a global battle around that for the best talent, for the best ideas. We need our universities to be able to be focused on that instead of adding red tape to what they’re doing. It’s a bit ironic.

On public education: When Bill 33 was introduced, the Minister of Education had many conversations, I know, over the summer, I think meeting in private. I think there were some non-disclosure forms that were signed as well with different stakeholders. The bill was introduced and then the minister has conversations with the sector, with unions, with principals, with directors of education, with everyone in the publicly funded education sector—to have those conversations after the bill is introduced.

I wonder, does, then, the minister think this bill is perfect, that we don’t need to make any changes to it after all of those intensive discussions? Because when I talk to those folks, they think there should be changes in the bill. But we’re not going to be able to talk about that at the committee level. I think that’s really unfortunate.

I think the government, in some ways—and this is, I guess, a warning to the government: Be careful what you wish for, because the changes that you would like to make, that it appears that you’d like to make, to public education, for example, may end up hurting you in the long run. That’s why I think it’s so important to be able to have this conversation at the committee level.

I’ll give one example within Bill 33: There’s a public interest provision, essentially, that would allow the Minister of Education to be able to take over a school board. The minister and I had a good debate around that when I spoke about Bill 33 in this House not too long ago.

The provision here—and I’ll read it out—could give the minister the ability on any of these reasons to be able to take over a board: the delivery of education programs; student achievement and well-being; the financial affairs of a board and its use of resources; the construction, maintenance, management, acquisition and disposition of capital assets; local governance; the day-to-day management of a board; and the engagement of parents and other entities that may have an interest in the activities of a board.

I think the public as a whole has a really big interest in that. This seems very, very broad. Essentially, the minister would be able to take over a board for any reason at any time, even if the board was doing all the right things. And I know in this House we spoke about the issues at Thames Valley, for example, where it was the senior administration team that went to the Blue Jays game, not trustees. I know we spoke about the issues at Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic, where it was trustees that changed policy to essentially be able to go on first-class travel to Italy, and that’s egregious. That is ridiculous.

So I agree, and there are situations where the minister, I think, does need to go in and deal with issues at a school board, but this is really broad.

There are a couple of things that talk about the acquisition or disposition of capital assets, for example. I fear where this government might be wanting to go on that, depending on which insider is able to get the ear of the Premier’s office to say, “Hey, there’s this parcel of land in this area. We really want that.” So then what happens? Well, I guess the minister can just come in and do that and make that happen without local consultation, without involving the community.

When school boards make these decisions, especially around the disposition of assets and land, they do that in a way that considers those communities and looks for options. I’d love to see things where we can have better creative thoughts and ideas around how to better utilize our school lands and school facilities to benefit the local communities, because when you build a neighbourhood, the school is put in that neighbourhood. And the park land, which is really the school land in there, is in the neighbourhood for a reason. That is really, really good and really important.

Once you get rid of that land, especially that green space, it is gone forever.

So I think there are some really important pieces that we can be discussing at committee here, and it’s really unfortunate, with this time allocation motion, that we’re not going to be able to do that so that we can enhance the public good, so that we can ensure that all of us in this chamber as the voices of our communities can have that ability to do that.

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

Mr. Ted Hsu: I’ve listened to some of the remarks here today, and I want to start out by saying just how disappointed I am that the government is afraid to have the content of their bills looked at in detail during the committee stage. So Bills 33 and 60 will completely skip committee.

But I want to speak to the part of the motion with regard to Bill 40, because it looks like the government is going to bring Bill 40 to committee, but I would call this the illusion of committee. If you look at the motion that we’re debating now, government motion 9, there are only two hours and 15 minutes allowed for the detailed consideration of amendments either to correct the bill or to respond to what witnesses tell us about this bill. This motion schedules witness hearings.

I think it’s really important if you want to respect the public and the experts who come in to talk about Bill 40 and to point out how it can be improved—it’s an insult to them to restrict in advance the amount of time that we will take to implement their recommendations. Because it’s not only about listening to witnesses—there’s time for that—but we have to digest what they say, and we have to propose amendments to implement good points that are brought up, and then we have to debate them to make sure we get it right.

I believe in taking the time to make sure that laws, which are supposed to be permanent, get done in as good a way as possible. That’s our job, as legislators: to write good laws. I find it especially insulting to any witness who comes, to say that we’re only going to talk about their amendments for two hours and 15 minutes, and then we’re going to deem every amendment moved and all we’re going to do is we’re going to vote on the amendments without discussing them—forever, basically.

Because I think we should be respecting witnesses who make the journey to the Ontario Legislature, I move that the motion be amended by striking everything after “until midnight.”

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): The member for Kingston and the Islands moves that the motion be amended by striking everything after “until midnight.”

Further debate?

Mr. Ted Hsu: I’d like to elaborate a bit on this amendment.

Part of the motion that we’re debating here was inspired by what happened on Bill 5 back in June. So I have to remind everybody about Bill 5 and why it’s such a dangerous bill. One of the reasons why it’s dangerous is that it gives this government immense executive discretionary powers—the ability to ignore any Ontario law. That has a lot of people worried. It had a lot of Indigenous communities worried. It had people across Ontario worried. We were considering Bill 5, and it was in committee stage when people were gathered outside here at Queen’s Park and gathered at rallies across Ontario to protest Bill 5.

Bill 5 also allows the government to ignore protections for endangered species. It also singles out a particular landfill in southwestern Ontario for reopening. So Bill 5 is a dangerous bill.

The government tried to push Bill 5 through committee with its majority. We had a lot of things to talk about in committee because Bill 5 was so dangerous. In fact, the Ontario Liberal caucus had, initially, the largest number of amendments, 20 or 30 amendments—I don’t remember the exact number, but we had a good number of amendments to discuss. It took some time. Why? Because Bill 5 was such a dangerous bill. We talked about it until midnight that day. Then the government tried to have an overnight sitting because, for some reason, they wanted to push the bill through committee, even though we could have taken a few extra days of sitting.

The government has had us sit only 28 days in the fall of 2024, only 28 days in the spring of 2025, and now only about 28 days in the fall of 2025. So the government doesn’t care how long the Ontario Legislature sits. It doesn’t take advantage of the fact that we could come back and consider the legislation the government is proposing and take the time to do it right.

Instead, this government wants to hide from elected MPPs, to hide from the scrutiny that elected MPPs can have on this government because of the tools that we have when the Legislature is sitting. We have question period. We have debates. We have opposition day motions. We have committees. There are many tools that our parliamentary democracy—

Interjections.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Wearing of pins

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Point of order.

Mr. Brian Saunderson: Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for members of the House to wear pins in support of the Moose Hide Campaign.

The Acting Speaker (MPP Andrea Hazell): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Members’ Statements

Seasonal events in Thornhill

Ms. Laura Smith: To celebrate the fall season, my team and I recently hosted our first pumpkins and popcorn party at the North Thornhill Community Centre playground.

It was a great day. We had perfect weather, sunny, warm and full of laughter. We had so many visitors—families, parents, grandparents, children—who came out to take

part in the fun. Even our ward city councillor, Chris Ainsworth, joined in, which was a great surprise, and it was so nice to see his support.

The kids had a fantastic time, as I did, and we painted pumpkins to take home. We used a lot of glitter glue—some still in my nails right now—and bright colours. I have to say, every pumpkin turned out to be amazingly creative and unique. We handed out goody bags and treats. The popcorn and cotton candy vendor was a huge hit, big hit. We even had some impromptu Zumba dancing. Between the music and the dancing and the smiles all around, we had a really great day and a fantastic experience. It was a great sense of community, and I know how lucky I am to live in the great riding of Thornhill.

I want to thank my team and everybody who helped join in and everybody who participated. All the residents of Thornhill really made that day perfect, and it was a great way to celebrate the fall season.

Government accountability

Ms. Catherine Fife: Speaker, my statement today is a call to action.

Lately it is getting harder and harder to keep track of all the ways this government is undermining democracy in Ontario. The latest example: ramming through legislation that bans speed cameras in the province with zero public consultations, no committee hearings, no opportunity for municipalities or road safety advocates or police or parents to have their say. Just another “we know best; just trust us” moment from a government that seems incapable of transparency and accountability—not to mention yesterday’s

article revealing that this government is funding a numbered company that is exploiting women.

Speaker, this is becoming a dangerous pattern. We should not silence the voices of the people that we’re elected to serve. Democracy does not end at the ballot box. It lives in open debate, in public participation and in the willingness to listen. Democracy is messy. It’s participatory and it’s rooted in listening, not in backroom deals and bulldozing legislation through this House.

People in Ontario deserve a government that works with them, not one that governs over them. Our province is fairer when all voices are heard, not just those that pay to access the Premier. People think that what is happening in the US cannot happen here, but it can and it is.

We wear poppies to remember the fight for democracy, but they also are a reminder to stay vigilant and protect the privileges that came with great sacrifice.

Food insecurity / Remembrance Week

Ms. Lee Fairclough: Last month, the Daily Bread Food Bank in Etobicoke–Lakeshore released its Who’s Hungry report. They reported a record-breaking 4.1 million food bank visits in Toronto, with 88% of clients living in unaffordable housing.

Some 35% of food bank clients are employed, many holding more than one job. After paying for their housing, households are left with an average of just $8.33 per person per day. And when the price of a dozen eggs is nearly $5, which has doubled since 2022, it is nowhere near enough for anyone to cover the daily costs of meals, medication or transportation.

This province’s affordability crisis is not an individual failure but a systemic one, and we need to work across party lines to build a province where one in four children no longer rely on food banks.

I want to say thank you to the Daily Bread Food Bank and the many volunteers that work in our community every day to ensure people have access to food.

This week is also Remembrance Week, a time to honour those that have served our country. I want to recognize the dedicated members of local Royal Canadian Legions for their leadership and service. Thank you to Zone D1 commander, Shelley Sing; Branch 101 Long Branch president, Alan Roy; Branch 643 Flight Lieutenant David Hornell; and president, Donna Sampson. Thank you and all veterans for your service to our country.

Skilled Trades Week / Remembrance Day

Mr. David Smith: This week, I’m proud to host Skilled Trades Week in my riding of Scarborough Centre, a time to celebrate the hard-working men and women who build our homes, power our community and keep Ontario moving. We welcomed students, job seekers, new Canadians and residents to explore rewarding careers in the trades. It was inspiring to see many young people connecting with electricians, carpenters, plumbers, welders and HVAC technicians—people who make a real difference every day. Organizations were on site to offer jobs, apprenticeships and co-op placements.

The message was clear: Skilled trades offer good jobs, stability and a bright future with a bigger paycheque. To everyone who mentored, hired or inspired, thank you for helping shape Ontario.

Next week, we pause to honour those who served, those who never returned and families who carried the burden at home. Across Ontario, we gather at cenotaphs, in schools, workplaces and at home to remember their courage and sacrifice. Let us commit ourselves to peace, to service and to care for veterans and their families.

I encourage everyone to wear a poppy and join in two minutes of silence at the eleventh hour—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I want to remind members that members’ statements are one minute and 30 seconds.

I recognize the member for Oshawa.

Gender-based violence

Ms. Jennifer K. French: November is Woman Abuse Prevention Month. It is a time dedicated to raising awareness about gender-based violence and supporting survivors. I was proud to join the second annual community walk to end intimate partner violence. The walk was hosted at the region of Durham headquarters and organized by Victim Services of Durham Region, YWCA Durham, Luke’s Place, the Denise House, Herizon House, Bethesda House, Safety Network Durham, the Women’s Multicultural Resource and Counselling Centre and all of the advocates and supporters from across Durham region who know that intimate partner violence is an epidemic and we have to work to stop it.

I was honoured to join other elected leaders at the walk in solidarity with survivors and the services. Hopefully next year some elected men will stand with us. I was quite disappointed to have been the only MPP from the seven ridings of Durham region who decided to show up for women at the walk.

Our province has to do better. I have stood in this chamber when Lydia’s Law was voted down by this government while galleries of survivors who will never get justice watched and cried. I was in this room when the motion to call IPV an epidemic in this province was defeated by this government.

We are in the midst of an intimate partner violence epidemic. Each year, Victim Services of Durham Region sees a drastic rise in referrals, showing a 75% increase already this year compared to last year. Far too many individuals in our community are living in fear and danger. Growing demand for services underscores the urgent need for collective action, sustainable resources and community-wide commitment to ending violence in all its forms.

I was honoured to walk, and I will continue to fight to end IPV.

Moose Hide Campaign

Mr. Brian Saunderson: November is Woman Abuse Prevention Month in Ontario, and during the last session of this Legislature, the Standing Committee on Justice Policy conducted extensive hearings on intimate partner violence in Ontario. During those hearings, we heard from Raven Lacerte who, with her father, Paul, started an Indigenous-led, grassroots movement to engage men and boys in ending violence against women and children. It has grown into a nationwide movement of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians from local communities and First Nations committed to ending this violence.

I’m talking about the Moose Hide Campaign, a movement that is grounded in Indigenous ceremony and traditional ways of learning and healing. A cornerstone of the Moose Hide Campaign is the moose hide pin that signifies the wearer’s commitment to respect, honour and protect the women and children in their lives, and to speak out against gender-based violence. To date, over 10 million moose hide pins have been distributed free of charge to communities, schools and workplaces across Canada, and in this House today.

Speaker, the Moose Hide Campaign is here today at Queen’s Park for its inaugural 10 men at Queen’s Park day of fasting, and I was proud to join several of my colleagues this morning to participate in this important event and join the fast.

I want to thank Raven and Paul Lacerte for their vision, commitment and dedication to starting the Moose Hide Campaign and welcome them to Queen’s Park.

This program educates and heals, but, most importantly, Madam Speaker, it breaks the vicious cycle and saves lives. Meegwetch.

Burdett Sisler

MPP Wayne Gates: I want to share a special congratulations today to one of my favourite constituents. Recently, after the sad news of the passing of Margaret Romans, one of my constituents, Mr. Burdett Sisler of Fort Erie, became the oldest living person in Canada. Burdett, or Burd, as we call him, is truly an incredible and special person. Burd is 110 years old, is a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces and, having served this country during the Second World War, he’s the oldest living Canadian veteran of the Second World War and, I believe, is the sixth-oldest living veteran of the war in the world.

Burd spent 30 years working for the Canadian Border Services Agency and raised a family in Fort Erie. And listen to this: He now lives at Garrison Place and has five children, 11 grandchildren, 22 great-grandchildren and 14 great-great-grandchildren.

I’ve been extremely privileged to call Burd a friend. In fact, Burd nominated me for re-election as MPP in the last three elections, the first time when he was 102 years old.

I was also proud to recently attend Burd’s 110th birthday party in Fort Erie in April of this year at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 71. At Burd’s birthday, I had the honour of awarding Burd with the King Charles III Coronation Medal.

Congratulations, Burd. Thank you for your incredible service to our country, for all you have given to our community in Niagara and for your friendship. Thank you very much.

International trade

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: This weekend, I visited the Filipino-Canadian Professionals Convention. This was a great event with nurses, health care leaders and professionals who contribute so much to the Ontario health care system and economy.

It is great to see the success of foreign-accredited immigrants integrated into Ontario’s economy. Our government is opening up careers to professionals and new Canadians with foreign credentials by cutting red tape that prevents experienced immigrants from working in their profession. For example, we removed the two years’ Canadian experience from the Ontario credential system for 37 professions.

Likewise, I have had the opportunity in recent months to meet with a number of professional associations, business networks and international friendship associations. There are those like the Fiji Ontario Business Association, the Mississauga Chinese Business Association, the Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce and the Canada-Arab Business Council, just to name a few.

In times of uncertainty, when our international trading relationships are changing, Ontario needs to diversify economic ties and build our international partnerships.

Speaker, as Ontarians from diverse backgrounds, our domestic business associations are in a better position to partner with international communities, nations and businesses.

Thank you to all the business partners for your—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Remembrance Day

MPP Bill Rosenberg: As Remembrance Day approaches, we pause to honour the brave men and women who have served and continue to serve our country in defence of our democracy and freedoms.

Across Ontario, the familiar poppy reminds us of their sacrifice. The poppy campaign, a long-standing tradition, has evolved, now allowing Ontarians to also make contributions virtually to support the veterans and their families.

Ontario is proud to be the first province in Canada to recognize veterans through the Ontario Veterans Award for Community Service Excellence. This award honours those who continue to serve beyond their military careers by helping fellow veterans reintegrate into civilian life, support those living with injuries and strengthen communities through volunteerism.

As time moves forward, it is ever more important that we continue to remember—and to teach future generations—about the sacrifices that have secured our peace. I encourage all Ontarians, especially our youth, to visit their local cenotaphs on November 11 to take

part in remembrance ceremonies and show their support.

Our Royal Canadian Legions are pillars of our communities, preserving our history, and ensure that the stories of service and sacrifice are never forgotten. Their members volunteer countless hours to support veterans. They deserve not only our respect but our ongoing support throughout the year.

Let us always remember. Let us always be grateful. Lest we forget.

Youth mental health

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: I stand today with deep concern for the future of our children. We are failing them.

Young people are facing unprecedented challenges. Mental health struggles are rising, driven by rapid changes in technology, the isolation of government-mandated lockdowns during the pandemic and the overwhelming pressures of growing up in an uncertain world. Instead of addressing these issues, this government is simply walking away, leaving gaps in mental health support and failing to provide resources all of our kids need to thrive.

For children and youth in care, things are bleak. Children and youth do not have access to timely treatment services. If we invested early, we could avoid crises. Families are not able to access services they need: mental health treatment, children’s developmental services and respite.

Then there is, of course, the Ontario Autism Program wait-list that now sits at around 65,000. Sadly, parents are relinquishing custody to children’s aid societies when they can no longer cope. This is an unimaginable decision for any parent to have to make. This government points the finger at our agencies; however, the data tells the true story that increased costs are related to the high cost of care for children with high needs and high-risk behaviours.

What are agencies to do when this government fails to acknowledge the truth and there’s no financial assistance to provide the proper intervention? It’s imperative we be fiscally responsible, but at the same time, we need to fix the cracks in child welfare.

Gender-based violence

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Parkdale–High Park on a point of order.

MPP Alexa Gilmour: I seek unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment of silence for survivors and victims of gender-based violence in recognition of Woman Abuse Prevention Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Parkdale–High Park is seeking unanimous consent of the House to observe a moment of silence for survivors and victims of gender-based violence in recognition of Woman Abuse Prevention Month. Agreed? Agreed.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): You may be seated.

Gender-based violence

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

Hon. Charmaine A. Williams: I seek unanimous consent that, in the opinion of the House, the government of Ontario recognizes the endemic nature of intimate partner violence in Ontario and its significant and continuing impact on individuals, families and communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Associate Minister of Women’s Social and Economic Opportunity is seeking unanimous consent that, in the opinion of the House, the government of Ontario recognizes the endemic nature of intimate partner violence in Ontario and its significant and continuing impact on individuals, families and communities. Agreed? Agreed.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Point of order? I recognize the member for Windsor West.

MPP Lisa Gretzky: I seek unanimous consent of the House that the government of Ontario recognize and declare intimate partner violence an epidemic.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Windsor West is seeking unanimous consent of the House that the government of Ontario recognize and declare intimate partner violence an epidemic. Agreed? I heard a no.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Stephen Crawford: Good morning, Speaker. I have the great honour today of introducing some distinguished guests on a trade mission from Saudi Arabia to Canada. I’d like to introduce the honourable Mohammed Al-Duleim Al-Qahtany, Khalid Al-Sharief, Abdulrahman Al-Nahdi, Shazaad Mohammed, Sacha Singh, Abdullah Alyami, Abdullah Alshalan and Ali Al-Otabi. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Marit Stiles: It’s my honour to welcome the consulate general of the Republic of Angola in Toronto to the Legislature today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Angola. Please join us later as we celebrate the raising of the flag on the south lawn at 12:15.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’d like to welcome my friend Eve-Lynn Stein and her husband Allen Flaming. We worked together at TDSB. She’s one of the best social workers we had. I’m grateful that you can call this place your House and come visit.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I’d like to welcome my constituency office manager, Kamrana Qureshi, and her son, Azaan Rajan, who is here for Take Our Kids to Work Day.

Ms. Laura Smith: On behalf of the Minister of Energy, I’d like to welcome the family of one of our wonderful pages, Ava Di Donato. She is joined by Anthony, Annamaria, Angela and Anthony Di Donato, and her grandparents Grace and Francesco, as well as aunt Nina. Welcome to the House. You’re doing a remarkable job.

Hon. Doug Downey: I want to welcome all of the lawyers with the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association who are here all day with over 40 meetings.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to extend a warm welcome to all the faculty and academic librarians from OCUFA who have joined us today—in particular, Rob Kristofferson, who is the president of OCUFA, and Shawn Hendrikx, who is the president of Western University’s faculty association. Welcome.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I, too, would like to welcome members of OCUFA, with a special shout-out to Helen Booker from the University of Guelph Faculty Association.

I would also like to welcome members of the Moose Hide Campaign, including co-founder Paul Lacerte, director of training Chelsea Taylor and consultant Heena Kapoor. Thank you for being at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Good morning. Today, I’d like to introduce Armando Sifuentes. He is the son of one of my staff members and a bright grade 9 student from William Lyon Mackenzie collegiate. He is also an excellent soccer player. One day he will play for Canada at the World Cup. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Will Bouma: Speaker, I’d like to commend page captain Oliver Prang on his great work here and welcome his family, Sara Marcella, Frank Resendes and Emery Prang. Welcome to your House.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: It’s a privilege to welcome members of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association to the Legislative Assembly. They have a delegation here today, and I’d like to introduce some of their members: Mary-Anne Strong, president; president-elect Jay Ralston; Joanna Sweet, who is the vice-president; Christine Allenby, who is the CEO.

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association is having their own reception this evening from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. in committee rooms 228 and 230. All MPPs are welcome.

Welcome to your House.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: I’m happy to introduce guests with the Moose Hide Campaign, a First-Nations-led grassroots movement to stand up against violence towards women and children. Members from all parties are participating in today’s 10 men fasting ceremony. Welcome to Paul Lacerte, co-founder for the Moose Hide Campaign; Elder Jimmy Dick; Chelsea Taylor; and also Heena Kapoor.

It was good to see you today, and also this evening when we have the fast-breaking ceremony. Meegwetch.

Mrs. Michelle Cooper: I’m pleased to welcome Amanda McFarlane, who is here with her daughter Selena Saunders. She is from my constituency office and she is here for take your child to work day.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Today, I’m delighted to welcome Jack McKay to the Legislature as part of take your kid to work day. Jack is the son of Edyta McKay, my director of communications.

And on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, as we commemorate Veterans’ Week, I’m honoured to welcome members from Coding for Veterans: Jeff Musson, the executive director; Eiffie Cahill, director of events and marketing; and Apoorva Rana, business and tech management analyst. Later today, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., we will be hosting a reception in room 340 and invite all members to attend.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): We are out of time for introduction of visitors, but that was an interesting way of getting that one in.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Good morning. This Premier and this government have been a jobs disaster. Again, yesterday, we learned of a rather distasteful, I think, example of this government handing out taxpayer dollars—Ontarians’ hard-earned money—to their friends, to insiders. People have a right, at the very least, I think, to expect that their government is going to deliver jobs and opportunities, and not favours to political insiders, to friends of the Premier and his government. They deserve to know that every single one of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are going to produce real jobs.

I’d like to ask the Premier: Why do you continue to prioritize a friends-and-family special over an actual jobs plan?

Hon. Doug Ford: To the Leader of the Opposition: If they were ever in charge, we’d be bankrupt, which they did for 15 years with the Liberals and NDP—highest debt ever, highest electricity costs anywhere. We saw 600,000 jobs leave.

Let’s talk about when we got elected in 2018. It was like walking into a bankrupt company. I know you don’t understand me, because you’ve never run a lemonade stand. In saying that, there’s a million more people working today than there was seven years ago. There’s $70 billion of investment that came to our province because we created the climate and the conditions by reducing the costs of doing business by $12 billion every single year, until companies could come here and hire more people.

It’s economics 101. We cut taxes for people. We cut taxes for business, creating more opportunities. They voted against every single bill that we’ve done. They just believe in taxing and spending and gouging the taxpayers.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, Speaker, at least my lemonade stand was legal. Not only is this government bankrupt; they are morally bankrupt.

Speaker, this is a big week in Ontario. We have a Premier who has been a jobs disaster. Youth unemployment is through the roof. Just in the last three weeks alone, 4,000 more Ontarians have learned they are losing their jobs. Thousands of workers are waking up every morning not sure if they’re going to have a job to go to.

And now we have a federal budget that I’m going to just say I do not think delivered on what we needed at this moment; a budget that is not what regular people were looking for right now. What Ontarians need right now is a government that is going to stand with workers, not on the side of well-connected insiders.

Premier, when are you going to stop this pay-to-play scheme and deliver a jobs plan for Ontario?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you, Madam Speaker—

Interjection.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member from Whitby.

Let’s look at some of the facts for the 15 years that the NDP had the Liberals had the levers of government. Madam Speaker, do you know how many nurses they saw being cut? Some 1,600 nurses being cut; 600 schools closed; seven jails closed; in my riding, zero long-term-care beds built over—zero beds.

Under this government, we’re creating jobs—almost a million jobs. We’re retraining and reskilling—almost a million jobs. Do you know why? People want to work in Ontario. They want to have a great-paying job. This government is putting together the vision and the plan to get that done.

Tomorrow, I will be tabling the fall economic statement. And this is what my ask is: Will you support Ontario? Will you back Ontario? Will you support the—

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, I’m getting pretty tired of this, and I think Ontarians are getting very tired of this. Every day not only is there a new headline with more job losses, but there’s a new scandal of this government’s making. Every day, another headline, another story about some Conservative insider—maybe he’s a strip club owner, maybe not. But they’ve cashed in on this government’s pay-to-play scheme.

Hon. Doug Ford: Maybe not. It’s false.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Oh, yeah—no. But there was a strip club owner there. I think you know it, because he was delivering the hot dogs at your barbecue, Premier.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Doug Ford: Withdraw that she’s a liar.

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

Hon. Doug Ford: Withdraw.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Did he withdraw? All right. Great.

This government, once again—and the Premier has to keep calm here for a minute. This government only helps those who help them.

Premier, when are you going to put an end to this pay-to-play scheme and restore trust in government?

Hon. Doug Ford: Let’s just talk about jobs. Last year, 409 companies from around the world came to invest in Ontario. They invested $40 billion and created 25,000 jobs. We have 825,000 manufacturing jobs. That’s more than Florida, which is a much bigger state, and New York, which is a bigger state, combined. We have more manufacturing jobs here. And we’re going to continue to grow.

We’re going to continue to grow in our nuclear growth and energy sector that you vote against. You’re voting against the Ring of Fire. You vote against mining. You vote against everything that creates an opportunity and jobs, not just for now, but for the future.

For the students who are going to be out in the work world, just pray to God we’re still here because you’ll have a job. If we aren’t, you’ll be in the unemployment line under these guys.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: When layoffs outpace hiring, then that is a jobs loss, and that is a jobs disaster. Do the math—my goodness.

I’ve got to say, Speaker, as I look out—and this is to the Premier again—across this chamber, each of the government members are going to have to explain all of this to their communities.

You’re going to go back next week—it’s constituency week—and you’re going to have to explain why taxpayer dollars are going to your friends, to well-connected insiders, to donors to your party, and not to measures that are making life more affordable for people.

I want to ask the Premier again: Is this how you and your government do business?

Hon. Doug Ford: Let’s look at the job numbers. The September job numbers came out: 44,700 new jobs. August: 22,100 jobs. Again, what we’re doing—we’re competing against the entire world.

Your philosophy is tax, tax, tax. You raised taxes 43 times when you were in office, along with the Liberals—

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

Hon. Doug Ford: —propped up by the Liberals. You ended up getting rid of 600—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Order.

Through the Speaker.

Hon. Doug Ford: Sorry. Through you, Madam Speaker: We created $22 billion—with the construction in schools.

They fired 1,600 nurses. We’ve hired 100,000 more nurses, 16,000 more doctors. We’re putting medical schools up every single year to attract more health care workers.

You know something, Madam Speaker? You have two choices: Tax and spend, gouge the people, drive businesses out, or have a prosperous Ontario where we can compete against anyone in the world. I’ll take the—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Let’s talk about numbers, shall we? Numbered companies that exploit women and vulnerable people and get taxpayer dollars from this government—shame on you. The second-highest unemployment rate in Canada—that’s a fact. Ontarians are struggling to make ends meet. People are pinching pennies while this government thinks that the government coffers are their personal piggy bank.

A record number of people are visiting food banks in this province. Families in Ontario are doing everything right, but they can’t seem to get ahead under this government. Can the Premier explain why, while Ontarians are lined up at food banks, his government is handing out Skills Development Fund dollars to his friends and his donors?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: It’s so ironic that the party opposite supported the increase in the carbon tax year after year after year, which raised the price of food every year. It was this government—while they were increasing taxes, we were cutting taxes. And which way did you vote? You voted for increasing taxes, not cutting taxes, which puts more money back in the pockets of people—just in the budget, $13 billion of taxpayer support for the many hard-working women and men of this province.

Let me ask you, when the jobs in the north for Algoma were challenged and we were there to support them so they could keep 2,800 workers in the north going, which way did you vote? Did you vote for workers or did you vote against workers? I submit, they voted against them. Every chance they had, they voted against supporting workers and joining this side.

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

Ms. Marit Stiles: Every time this government says that they’re going to deliver for Ontarians, whether it’s housing or it’s jobs, they get caught up in a scandal. They used the housing crisis—remember that? It’s still going on—to help their donors and their lobbyists cash in. We are no closer to reaching our housing targets today, while this government is being investigated by the RCMP for the greenbelt scandal.

Now they have the gall to use the jobs disaster of their own creation to help those same donors and those same lobbyists cash in again. I’ve got to tell you, Speaker, I don’t think the people across from us expected—most of them—when they were elected, that they would be propping up scandals like this by this Premier and his government.

What is it going to take for this government to start paying attention to the needs of working people in Ontario?

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

Hon. David Piccini: This fund has strict financial controls, monthly reporting and on-site monitoring, and we’ve committed to further improving. During my time as minister, we’ve added financial controls, financial audits, and integrated our employment service database to track long-term employment outcomes.

But when we want to talk about that, to actually getting the jobs—as the Premier said, a million net new jobs—they voted against every measure to bring those jobs to miners in the north, to men and women in the energy sector, to the boilermakers.

I quote Victoria Mancinelli. Not once did the members opposite reach out to learn about these jobs in training: “Not a phone call, not an email. Nothing. Because truth doesn’t seem to fit their agenda here.”

That’s the quote, Speaker. That’s the facts—

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

Hon. David Piccini: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question.

Government accountability

Mr. John Fraser: I’ve said this many times in here—I know the Premier has heard me say this; you’ve all heard me say this: We’re like one big family. I know to people watching on TV and in the galleries, it doesn’t look like it, but we are. We’re all connected together, and it’s a special place. I come here and that’s what I feel. But we don’t replace each other’s families. You don’t replace my family; I don’t replace yours. They’re important to us.

We all go back at the end of the week, and we’re so glad to go home. I’m happy to go home. I miss my family. Then I talk about what’s going on here. I talk to friends and neighbours, my daughter, my wife, my sons. I want to know from the Premier: How do I explain to them that the government gave $10.8 million to the owners of a strip club?

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

Hon. David Piccini: The member doesn’t have to because it’s incorrect.

Speaker, through successive rounds, as I said, in this program, we have strict financial controls and monthly spot audits. Through rounds two to four, this program trained over 700 workers, meeting over 110% of its KPIs. The Auditor General herself acknowledged KPIs are strong in this program. We’ve committed to continuing to strengthen the integrity of this program through integrating it through things like our employment management service to track outcomes at six, nine and 12 months. And we accepted the Auditor General’s recommendations to publicly post programmatic indicators, KPIs, attaching them to the programs publicly for the public to see.

We’ll keep fighting for those workers. If the member, when he goes home, wants to visit it, I’d encourage him to visit SMART, the local union we’re investing in through the Skills Development Fund, bringing in French-language training for sheet metal workers for the first time in that union’s history.

Building the Ottawa Hospital: Again, investments in the budget by this Premier that that member voted—

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

Mr. John Fraser: That answer would be easier to believe if they actually collected data and that it mattered to them—if they actually collected data.

Let’s not put our families into it. There are young men and women in the galleries here. Speaker, respectfully, how do we explain to the young people in the gallery, the young women, that this government gave $10.8 million to the owner of a strip club? I want that answer. They want that answer. Can the minister do that?

Hon. David Piccini: It’s simple: No, that’s incorrect. The only member talking about that is that member.

Speaker, as I mentioned, we do collect data. We have monthly reporting, and we’ve taken measures to strengthen the integrity.

If that member is looking for wonderful activities to do in the constituency week, again, if it’s not sheet metal workers, they could go and visit local ironworkers. They could go and visit local boilermakers, who are working on the front lines of net new nuclear that we’re building. That’s the same net nuclear that they wanted to shut down at Pickering, that they wanted to shut down all over Ontario.

We’re supporting those workers. We’re investing in their training, Speaker. And those workers know that when it comes to their best interests, this government has their backs. They vote against every measure to invest in those workers every time they have a chance.

They have a chance on Thursday with the fall economic statement. I hope they’ll support us.

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

Mr. John Fraser: That non-answer is ironic given it’s take-your-kid-to-work day. That’s all I want to say.

Look, we know that in places like strip clubs bad things can happen, and we all know what they are. I’m not going to repeat the article—I hope you’ve all read it and read the comments of the people who are working there. We all know, every one of us, everybody here knows you can become trapped in a job you don’t like, a job you don’t trust, around people you don’t want to be around. We know that. I don’t know how the mister can justify this.

My question is really simple: Can we just get the $10.8 million back?

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, as I mentioned, this program has strict financial controls, monthly spot audits and visits by bureaucrats to make sure that every dollar is being spent on training.

That’s what we saw here: over 700 workers trained. These are hospitality workers. These are front- and back-office management. These are the men and women who are serving us, who are serving tables, who are making beds in hotels in our hospitality sector—a $15-billion sector ravaged by the global pandemic. We’re going to support those workers.

As I mentioned, I’d encourage that member to visit some of the worthwhile projects in his own region that I referenced. Visit those workers who are building our hospitals, who are building our new highways, roads and bridges. And, yes, support those projects when you have a chance, in the budget.

Government accountability

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Speaker, the SDF is just one more example of this government’s disrespect for taxpayer money. The Auditor General’s report told us that the minister’s office chose to fund poor-, low- and medium-ranked applications 54% of the time instead of high-scoring applications. They told us they dolled out $742 million to applications that scored medium, low or poor. Millions of dollars in taxpayer money went to applicants who basically got a failing grade because they were insider friends.

Speaker, this Premier talks a lot about running the government like a business, but in what world would the CEO of a business not be held to account for such a failure?

My question, through you to the Premier: When will he stand up and take accountability for his government’s failure on the SDF?

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

Hon. David Piccini: In the depths of a global pandemic, when restaurants were shuttered, when people were working from home, when employers were reaching out, seeking support, driving what they do best, wanting to open their businesses etc., this Premier invested in workers, rapid training for workers to help upskill those workers for better jobs with bigger paycheques.

Through successive rounds, as I mentioned, of monthly spot visits, spot audits, we’ve now integrated improvements in that programming, linking it to our employment database service, ensuring audited financial statements and, yes, accepting the recommendations of the Auditor General as well. This government recognizes that when it comes to protecting our economy and our workers, you can’t just stand back and do nothing. You have to invest in worker training.

We’ve seen the support of organized labour, who know that their members get paycheques when you make investments in historic infrastructure—investments this government is making. We’re going to keep supporting those workers and giving them a job to go to—

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

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Tomorrow we’ll see the fall economic statement, this government’s latest attempt to show taxpayers how they’ll spend their money. This government spent over $1 billion on the Skills Development Fund, a program that got a big fat F from the Auditor General. She said it was not fair, transparent or accountable. Basically, the Auditor General told us that this government spent over $1 billion of taxpayer money in a way that is not fair to taxpayers. Surely, if you got that message and you really had respect for taxpayer money, you would make a course correction.

My question to the Premier: Will he fix the Skills Development Fund, or will he continue to waste hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I’m happy to answer this question, Madam Speaker. Let’s take a look at how much of a benefit retraining and reskilling 700,000 people, on our way to a million people that will be retrained and reskilled—I think it would be good if the members opposite took a look at what we’re doing in Darlington: building four small modular reactors. You know what? That’s going to create 18,000—the member from Ajax is very supportive; there’s a seat over here for you. There are 18,000 construction jobs that we’ll need and already we’ve started to build those four small modular reactors. They are good jobs; they are construction jobs; they are long-term jobs.

This is why it’s so incredibly important to retrain, to reskill, to give our youth opportunities for the jobs of tomorrow and to help build Ontario.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: The Premier talks a lot about running a business, so let’s consider this: Suppose you’re a businessman who owns a company. Let’s say it’s a labels company, and one of your senior executives runs a procurement process for new equipment, and you find out that he chose a friend’s company instead of the most qualified bidder. Basically, your company got ripped off. You got inferior equipment at a bad price. So you have an auditor investigate. They conclude the employee did indeed not act fairly. The senior employee and his friends got rich while you got a bad deal. What would any competent businessman do? It’s very clear: They’d fire that employee.

My question to the Premier, through you, Speaker: When will he act like the competent businessman he claims to be and fire his Minister of Labour?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, as you heard, 700,000 workers are receiving meaningful training for better jobs with bigger paycheques.

We talk about key sectors of our economy that are benefiting from this training—training that has been improved through each successive round. We acknowledge that we can always continue to make more improvements, which is why we accepted the recommendations of the Auditor General; which is why, before that AG report, we implemented financial audits. We integrated this into our employment database system to track outcomes at six, nine and 12 months.

Who are these workers we’re supporting through this tracking? Our men and women in our nuclear sector—18,000 jobs. It bears repeating: 18,000 jobs through small modular reactors. We have 12,000 to 14,000 men and women at Hinkley in the UK on their new nuclear.

Do you know who else is talking about new nuclear, larger nuclear? This government, this Premier—to be energy independent; to stand on our own two feet as a country. We’re supporting those workers, like the millwrights, the boilermakers. We’re getting it done.

Highway safety

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Highway 11, particularly north of North Bay—it’s the Trans-Canada Highway: 2,000 trucks a day. It’s the backbone of Canada. Not only that—school buses, medical appointments.

In 2020, Highway 11 between North Bay and Cochrane was closed 107 times. That’s awful. But in the first nine months of 2025, it was closed 213 times.

Can the minister report on what is actually going on there?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: As the member knows, we work with the OPP and other law enforcement officials when making decisions to close highways down. We’ve invested, just last year, over $600 million into the north through the MTO transportation budget to make those improvements, which that member voted against every single time.

Our commitment has been to build on Highway 11 and Highway 17 to ensure that we’re making the investments, whether it be on commercial safety, increasing transportation enforcement officers. We’ve conducted over 90,000 inspections to date to keep our roads safe. That’s 35% higher than last year. And guess what? Those members voted against every single one of those transportation officer increases through the budget in the fall economic statement.

We’re going to continue to build Highways 11 and 17, improve investments and continue to deliver safe highways and roads across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. John Vanthof: Well, in ours, in the first nine months of 2025, Highway 11, with no detour from New Liskeard to Cochrane, was closed 31 days—a month out of nine. Now, they’ve got lots of ads about how northern Ontario is going to drive this province, and it does, but they can’t even keep the road open. What is going on?

You talk about road improvements. Why don’t we, instead of promising them in election campaigns, actually do them? The Minister of Northern Development knows very well—and he controls a lot of that money—but Highway 11 hasn’t had any significant improvement in years.

You want to develop the Ring of Fire? How about you keep the roads open?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): A reminder: We ask our questions through the Speaker.

Back to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Madam Speaker, let’s talk about Highway 11, the same highway that the Premier committed to getting a 2+1 pilot project started on. Some $28 billion over the next 10 years is being invested into highways, including 11 and 17. And guess what? That member voted against those investments in Highway 11 and Highway 17.

He has another opportunity. When the fall economic statement gets tabled this Thursday, he will once again have the ability to commit to funding on Highway 11 and Highway 17. I’m looking forward to seeing how that member votes when it comes down to supporting his own community and supporting Highway 11 and 17 improvements. Two-laning Highway 11, including the four-laning of Highway 17, is something that we’ve committed to and something that we are going to do.

It also includes investments into our commercial enforcement division, which is the transportation enforcement officers. I hope that member also supports—

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

Government accountability

Mr. Adil Shamji: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Across the province, public education is in crisis, particularly in colleges and universities. A few weeks ago, the FAO projected an annual funding decline of 3.3% over the next three years, amounting to at least $1.3 billion.

Look, we’ve already seen thousands of job cuts under this government—program cuts, institutional deficits—because this Premier and these ministers are more interested in private friends and well-paying donors.

We now know that the Minister of Labour paid out over $10 million to a strip club owner that could have been better spent supporting students, faculty and universities. Why is the Premier more preoccupied with adult entertainment instead of adult education?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Nolan Quinn: I always enjoy the opportunity to highlight the investments into the publicly assisted post-secondary system. We invested $1 billion dollars this year: $750 million into 20,000 new STEM seats, on top of the 70,000 grads we are graduating every year—another $56,000 for nursing seats, another $55 million for teaching seats. We’re investing into the post-secondary sector.

I really wish the member opposite would speak to the federal counterparts in Ottawa and let them know their announcement yesterday—cutting our international students again, another hit to our post-secondary sector—was really missing the mark on labour market needs. We hear from everyone across the province that the federal government’s unilateral decisions when it comes to our international students have caused chaos right across the whole province and country.

But we’ll continue to be there for the sector. That is why we have a funding formula review currently taking place, and I just met with the Council of Ontario Universities yesterday. We’ll continue meeting with all the stakeholders, Speaker.

Mr. Adil Shamji: It’s the same answer from yesterday, mirroring the same underinvestment for the last seven years.

Let’s get something straight: Colleges and universities, under this government, have been brought to their knees. Meanwhile, Ontario taxpayers are paying for a high-end, sophisticated burlesque experience from a friend of the Premier, where scantily dressed performers hang from their teeth, patrons enjoy lap dances and private rooms can be accessed for a $400 fee.

It’s already well-known that this government trades in preferential access and special favours; just ask Kory Teneycke. But this is a new low. All of this, all $10.8 million, is going to support a long-time friend and donor of the Premier’s family and his party.

Will the Premier try again to explain how lust and lap dances matter more than excellence in education?

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

Hon. David Piccini: Speaker, it’s concerning how much that member knows about this, but what I can say is, over a billion additional dollars, a billion additional dollars to colleges and universities—let’s talk about additional Skills Development Fund dollars for colleges and universities, partnering with Loyalist College, Base31. I just received a note from the school about some of the graduates that have gone through that programming, supporting our construction sector.

As you heard from the Minister of Finance, incredible investments are being made in our fall economic statement, which I hope they will support: investments in new nuclear that are going to create up to 18,000 jobs with small modular reactors; investments in construction and training for new hospitals, new roads, new bridges; supporting labour organizations that are supporting this government. When that member has an opportunity to support those investments, to support those workers who will receive bigger paycheques thanks to those investments, I hope he will support us.

Transportation infrastructure

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The Gardiner Expressway is a vital link connecting downtown Toronto to the GTHA, including my own community of Oakville North–Burlington. But the Liberals and the NDP showed how out of touch they are by calling for the Gardiner to be torn down. Some opposition members have even proposed tolling the Gardiner. For years, the Liberals talked about fixing our highways but never delivered. Projects were delayed, costs went up and drivers paid the price.

Our government knows that action matters far more than words. Under the Premier’s leadership, we are delivering results and protecting Ontario’s future. Speaker, can the minister outline what steps our government took to get this project over the finish line?

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

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Speaker, our government is focused on common-sense solutions and common-sense results. Three years to repair Ontario’s most important highways is too long. That’s why we worked in partnership with the city of Toronto and we invested $73 million to speed up construction and enable work on a 24/7 basis.

Speaker, as a result of our approach, we cut the project timeline from three years to just a year and a half. The 140,000 drivers who rely on the Gardiner every day will now save up to 22 minutes each day, each way, on their trip. I can’t imagine how long this project would have taken under the Liberals. Under our Premier’s leadership, we’re getting it done and protecting Ontario.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: Thank you to the parliamentary assistant for this response. As the greater Toronto and Hamilton area continues to grow, we need our infrastructure to keep pace. That means investing in roads, highways and transit that support our economy and help people get where they need to go faster.

For far too long, under the Liberals, these projects were delayed, cancelled or left to crumble. This cost drivers a lot of time, which they could otherwise be spending with their families, and cost our economy billions in lost revenue. Ontarians support our plan to build faster and smarter. They want a government that works with our municipal partners and our industry partners to get results.

Speaker, can the parliamentary assistant share how our investments in major projects like the Gardiner and the QEW are helping protect Ontario’s economy?

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: As the greater Toronto horseshoe’s population grows, so must our economy. That requires both long-term investment in our infrastructure and long-term partnerships between all governments and all our stakeholders.

That’s why we worked with the city of Toronto to cut the Gardiner construction timeline in half. We invested in the Gardiner to speed up construction, and now we’re widening the QEW and adding capacity to keep traffic moving.

Ontarians support our plan. A recent survey by the Toronto Region Board of Trade found that 73% of respondents support 24-hour construction and 74% support 24-hour public transit construction. By delivering this project almost a year and a half sooner, we have saved over $273 million in gridlock impact.

Our investment in the Gardiner supported approximately 500 good-paying jobs and will deliver long-term benefits for commuters across the GTA.

University and college funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, for years, this government has allowed international student tuition to subsidize our post-secondary system so they could cut public funding to the bone. This is not ethical and it’s not sustainable.

Yesterday, we saw the federal Liberal budget announce a 65% reduction to international study permits, which is another huge hit to the international student tuition revenues that have been keeping this sector afloat.

Speaker, when will our colleges and universities finally receive the increased public operating funding they urgently need?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Nolan Quinn: We invest $5 billion into the public operating of our post-secondary system every year. Next year, that will go up to $5.8 billion, which is a 12% increase over 2023-24.

We’ll continue making strategic investments, like our $750 million into 20,000 STEM seats, while the member opposite votes against that. We’ll continue to be there for the sector. We’ll continue to ensure that the sector stands on its own, even with the challenges that the federal government has created. That’s on top of the $1.3 billion that we invested into the sector last year. Almost $2.5 billion has gone into our post-secondary sector in the last 18 months.

We’ll continue being there for the sector, and this is why we are doing a funding formula review. Unfortunately, the federal government has made many unilateral decisions—too many to count on two hands at this point. But we’ll continue being there for the sector, making sure the sector is there for decades to come.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Minister, I hope that tomorrow’s fall economic statement includes a reversal of the $1.2-billion cut in the 2025 budget. Without a firm commitment to increased per-student funding, a funding formula review will do nothing to stop the layoffs, to maintain vital programs and keep campuses open.

There are already 28,000 unfunded students attending Ontario universities—no funding whatsoever attached to those students. There are an estimated 80,000 Ontario students who may not be able to get into the programs they dream of and our economy needs because the government is not funding those seats.

Why is this government denying students the opportunity to get the careers so critical to the future of our province and our communities?

Hon. Nolan Quinn: We all know, with the NDP or Liberals in power, they’d put it on the backs of the students. They would raise tuition. It went up 23% under the NDP government, under those Bob Rae days that were very short, and 48% under the Liberal government.

We are the party and we are the government that cares about affordability for students; you do not. We’ve invested over $2.3 billion in the last 18 months. You may not acknowledge it, but we’re going to continue making those strategic investments, like the two new medical schools that we brought on board. We’ve invested into 100,000 new seats in the last year for our students across STEM, across construction, across teaching, across nursing. We’ll continue to be there for the sector while you continue to vote down every investment we do for our post-secondary system.

Government accountability

Mr. Stephen Blais: While youth unemployment hits record highs, this government has handed millions from the Skills Development Fund to a man running a so-called “training program” alongside a licensed strip club.

Now picture this: bartenders and bottle servers told to wear red corsets, high-cut black thongs and fishnets; performers in even less clothing dancing on stage, swinging between bars and hoops, even some suspended in the air from their hair and by their teeth; strippers working the room, offering lap dances.

I know the Premier is a proud girl dad. He knows of no father—and neither do I—that would dream of this kind of work for their daughter. So how can the Premier look Ontario fathers in the eye and defend a minister who used their hard-earned tax dollars to fund this kind of job creation for their little girls?

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

Hon. David Piccini: That’s categorically incorrect, Speaker. What this program has done is support over 700 workers for training, achieving over 110% of their key programmatic indicators.

When we talk about this fund—I’ve mentioned monthly visits. I’ve mentioned spot audits. I’ve mentioned the steps we’ve taken to improve the integrity of the program through implementing financial audits, through implementing integration to our centralized employment management system which tracks outcomes at six, nine, 12 months. That’s what we’re continuing to do to support workers of this province.

As we head into constituency week, I’d encourage that member to visit those sheet metal workers who are benefiting from a new training centre—a new French-language curriculu