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

May 1, 2025

44th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2025-May-01 (PDF)

L007 - Thu 1 May 2025 / Jeu 1er mai 2025

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 1 May 2025 Jeudi 1 er mai 2025

Orders of the Day

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

Members’ Statements

King Charles III Coronation Medal

Mental health services

Mental health and addiction services

Vera Mitchell

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Mark Willmer

Orthodox Christian Week

Charles Davis

Doctors’ Day

Kate Nixon

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

Automotive industry

Supportive housing

Justice system

Justice system

Justice system

Justice system

Public safety

Ontario economy

Justice system

Government accountability

Transportation infrastructure

Labour dispute

School boards

Ontario economy

Business of the House

Legislative pages

Introduction of Government Bills

Municipal Accountability Act, 2025 / Loi de 2025 sur la responsabilité au niveau municipal

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

Petitions

Mental health services

University funding

Social assistance

Northern Health Travel Grant

Labour legislation

Orders of the Day

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

The House met at 0900.

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

Prières.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): We will now have a moment of silence for inner thought.

Orders of the Day

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 29, 2025, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 5,

An Act to enact the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025, to amend the Endangered Species Act, 2007 and to replace it with the Species Conservation Act, 2025, and to amend various Acts and revoke various regulations in relation to development and to procurement / Projet de loi 5, Loi édictant la Loi de 2025 sur les zones économiques spéciales, modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les espèces en voie de disparition et la remplaçant par la Loi de 2025 sur la conservation des espèces, puis modifiant diverses lois et abrogeant divers règlements en ce qui concerne le développement et l’approvisionnement.

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

MPP Jamie West: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know I’ve said it to you personally, but it’s my first time in the House to say congratulations on the election.

Today I’ll be debating Bill 5. Before I forget, I want to note that I’m going to be sharing my time with the official opposition deputy leader, the MPP for Kiiwetinoong. He’s also the shadow minister for Indigenous and treaty relations and the shadow minister for northern economic development and growth, so I value his input on this bill.

Speaker, the stated aim of the legislation is to cut red tape and streamline approvals to speed up critical mineral and resource development projects, including in the Ring of Fire. In fact, the minister made the announcement in Sudbury, and part of what he said was that the new “one project, one process” approval model will streamline all approvals into one process, coordinated by a dedicated mine authorization and permitting delivery team. I listened to the beginning debate, when three of the ministers split their time, and, honestly, that’s all they talked about.

They pretended this entire bill was about streamlining processes, was about mining, was about helping extract ore out of the ground more quickly, but the devil is in the details.

I have to say, if that was the whole bill, we’d be in full agreement. I like the idea of “one project, one process.” I like the idea of streamlining approvals. I like the idea of having a dedicated team helping industry be more successful. That’s a great part of the bill. If it was the entire bill, I would urge debate to go as quickly as possible, I’d urge any committee work to go as quickly as possible, and I’d urge that we pass this bill as quickly as possible. But, honestly, I did the math on this and counted the pages, and this is less than 1% of this bill.

Right now, because of Donald Trump, the province is in crisis. People are worried about putting food on the table. People are worried about losing their jobs and paying their mortgage or covering their rent. They’re worried about taking care of their kids. They’re worried about taking care of their parents. They’re worried about farmers. They’re worried about their friends. Frankly, people in Canada are worried about their future, and they are coming together—elbows up—to stand with each other, and they are thirsty for leadership from us. They’re not interested in partisan nonsense. They’re not interested in us flying our colours or poison pills or anything else.

But instead of leadership, instead of a mining bill that’s just about mining, the Premier is using that worry to reward his wealthiest donors, and the people of Ontario should be frustrated and angry and upset. Frankly, I’m upset about this.

I live in a mining town. I started paying my mortgage because I had a job in mining. My parents came to Sudbury to work in mining. My grandfather is a miner. My dad is a miner. My stepdad is a miner. Most of my friends still work in that industry. And nobody in my city is happy with this bill being less than 1% about mining and 99% about nonsense.

Let’s be frank about this: It’s not a mining bill. This is an omnibus bill. Nobody in the world needs 229 pages to say, “A ‘one-project, one process’ approval model, streamlining the approvals, with a dedicated team to help things be more efficient”—but you do need 229 pages if you want to scrap the Endangered Species Act. You need 229 pages if you want to ensure that your donors can open a dump in Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. You need those 229 pages if you want to pretend that Ontario Place somehow is part of mining. I have been to Ontario Place. I don’t remember anyone mining there.

You need 229 pages if you want to write a cheat code so you can magically call anything you want a special economic zone and you can ignore or rewrite bylaws and legislation.

The greenbelt grab: Right now, the RCMP is investigating that as a corruption scandal. You can repeat that with the cheat code of the special economic zone. It’s not going to be corruption anymore. The RCMP won’t be able to get you because now it’s a special economic zone and you can ignore all the rules and regulations and bylaws.

Are you fighting farmers for land in Wilmot? Make that a special economic zone. Use your cheat code.

Are you in trouble for using preferential treatment for minister’s zoning orders? Cheat code: special economic zone.

Do you have a sketchy Ontario Place deal that you signed a 95-year lease for with a sketchy company? Did you give $2.2 billion to allow a private luxury spa to build at Ontario Place, to a broke company that lied to you about their company assets—that they had six and technically only have five? Well, don’t worry about that—cheat code: special economic zone.

Honestly, Speaker, this 229-page omnibus bill is technically about mining in the same way that my hair is technically curly. I mean, it’s true; I’m not lying about it, but I’m not telling you everything, and I’m hiding a lot from you.

Speaking of not telling people everything, you have a bill about mining that—when they talked about it, they said, “It’s not going to affect Indigenous consultation, treaty rights holder consultation,” but they didn’t talk to anybody from First Nations. They didn’t talk to any of the treaty rights holders. They didn’t share any of this with them. In fact, the only reason First Nations and treaty rights holders know about the bill and have information about the bill and are providing feedback about the bill is because our party shared it with them.

How do you talk about the Ring of Fire and have press conferences about a bill leading to extraction at the Ring of Fire but not talk to the people who live around the Ring of Fire? It doesn’t make any sense to me.

I have 30 minutes to talk about this bill. I do want to say there is a portion about mining, because I don’t want to be unfair, but I’m not going to have time to get through all 229 pages.

Schedule 5 is the Mining Act. You can tell it’s about mining because it doesn’t say “Ontario Place act,” like another

schedule does, and this is the “one project, one process” part of the bill. There are a couple of flaws, but, honestly, it’s pretty supportable.

One of the flaws is the duty to consult and accommodate—there’s a line in there that allows the Conservative government to delegate this to a proponent, and “proponent,” we presume, means the mining company, the extraction company. I know that, traditionally, Liberal governments, Conservative governments have been delegating this to the proponent all along, haven’t really been helping people.

We heard, with Bill 71, the last mining bill, from mining companies that came and spoke to us at committee saying, “We really need help with this.” Even companies like Vale or Glencore that are doing a very good job at this because they’ve been doing it for a long time—they have made those early-on errors and mistakes and have built strong relationships and said, “We could really use some help,” and it’s the duty of the government to do this.

Instead, they’re allowing companies to stumble around, hopefully to get it right, but you can really set back your project a long way if you’re walking around a room with your hands over your eyes and trying to find the door. You can bump into a lot of furniture, and you can frustrate a lot of people who otherwise would be your allies. So the duty to consult and accommodate is constitutionally set out as a responsibility of the crown, of the government of the day—the Conservatives today, the Liberals before that. You can’t really assign it to somebody else, and you shouldn’t be assigning it to somebody else.

If we want to help mining be more successful, especially junior mining companies—people who are new—the government should implement a plan to help us be more successful. This is what mining companies have been asking for. This is what they’ve been telling us. We asked for it in amendments in the last mining bill; we asked for a commitment, actually, to do it in the future, and in both those things we were voted down by the government side.

So this is the part of the bill—the “one project, one process” part of the bill—that we agree with. We’re 100% aligned with this. We think it’s a great idea. There are some parts that need to be massaged, but we can live with that. This is six pages. It goes from pages 34 to 41—six out of 229 pages have to do with mining. Six. These six pages might reduce mining time by 50%—it might. I say that because the government has committed to cutting review time by 50%, but they’ve also said that the time it takes to open a mine is an average of 15 years.

Our first day back, on Tuesday, during debate, I heard 17 years was the average. When we were reviewing the bill with the ministry delegates who were reviewing the bill with us, we said, “Well, does this mean that once this is implemented, we’re going to cut that time down to eight years?”, which is a little more than 50%, and they could not commit to that. It feels weird to go around talking to the people of Ontario, saying that we’re going to cut the 15 years in half, and when you get a straightforward question like, “Does that mean you get it down to eight?” they say, “Maybe.” So who knows?

But I do think it’s going to help.

There is some frustration. There’s a lot of paperwork and networks to work on and paths to go down. When I reach out to people who do the work—the civil service people, who don’t get enough credit for the work they do, for applications—the thing I heard, actually, is that the average time on their desk of paperwork being there is less than 14 days. The longest delays are because the applicants aren’t filling out the paperwork properly, or not at all. So they’ll get it and there will be a blank, and they’ll send it back to them and say, “You need to fill out page 4,” as an example—I don’t know what page.

The companies aren’t doing well on it. So I think having somebody help the company would actually streamline the approvals process and allow those delays—because my understanding is, the longest delay is actually from the applicants’ side and not from the civil servants’ side. But anything we can do to help this work faster, I think, is a smart idea.

It doesn’t really matter if we’re talking about 17 years or 15 years—cutting to eight years. I mean, that’s a great long-term goal. But the reality is that the Premier called an election in February because of Donald Trump. This is bill number 5 but technically the second bill that’s not part of procedure. This bill apparently was called because of the chaos Donald Trump was causing and the need for us to have a critical mineral strategy and moving forward on it. If we are focused on Donald Trump—15 years from now, eight years from now, Donald Trump will no longer be the President.

I know he’s rumouring about maybe taking over—fiefdom. But the reality is, in their system, Donald Trump will not be president in four years; in their system, you can only have two terms, and this is his second term, so he won’t be the President.

If we’re working on a system right now that, let’s say, is going to shorten opening a mine to eight years, well, that is too late for people today. Eight years from now is too late. It’s too late for people who already lost their job. About 600 people in my riding, in the mining industry, have lost their job already due to threats before the tariffs came out, as companies began to streamline. Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie is estimating between 1,500 and 1,800 layoffs because of threats of tariffs. Having a plan to open a mine eight years from now is not going to help us today.

Donald Trump will be the President for next three years and three quarters of a year, and we need something that’s going to help people today and in the short term. I’m not putting down the six pages of this bill that we agree with. I think we need a long-term plan. I think that’s important. But we also need a short-term plan. So what could we be doing today, in the short term?

The first thing I want to do is, I want to talk about mining, and it’s a difficult abstract for people who haven’t worked in mining. The minerals typically aren’t spread out everywhere. Imagine a chocolate chip muffin. The chocolate chips are the valuable parts, and the bready part of the muffin is rock, mostly. What you need to do is get enough capital to get to a chip, and when you mine the chip—that’s the ore—you get the valuable resources that help you to pay for the pathway to that chip, but you also have to save enough of that to get to the next chip.

In our country, we have existing mine locations that have five-year, 10-year, 15-year plans based on the amount of capital they have that will get them to the next ore body, get them to the next chocolate chip.

If, as a province, we’re committed to mining in Ontario, we could be investing in it. I’m telling you, in my city alone, the two biggest mining companies, Glencore and Vale, will gladly share with you the felled projects they have. These are projects where they cost-estimate net benefit to get to the next chocolate chip. They will share with you what they need for an investment to get there so we can start mining that ore quickly. That’s something we can do.

The other thing we can do—the last time nickel, before I was elected, started to take a downturn, surprisingly, cobalt started coming up. I worked at the smelter. Cobalt was almost a waste product; it just wasn’t that valuable. The time it took to extract more cobalt out of our material wasn’t worth that time, so most of it got dumped as slag. Well, when nickel started to take a nosedive and cobalt began to rise in price as a critical mineral, we converted a converter. Basically, it just cooks the bath a little better.

We converted one as a slag-cleaning vessel, and we pulled more cobalt out of that material that used to be waste. That process kept the lights on and the doors open and kept people employed. There are ideas at different mining sites that we could be investing in today that would bring more cobalt and more minerals, especially critical minerals, to market using existing infrastructure.

Another thing that we could be doing is, we could be taking materials that are already existing on the surface. It costs a ton of money to bring material from underground to surface. They call it muck, but it’s huge chunks. There are people in the gallery—if you do the tour on the first floor, you’ll see a big square of mineral near the big map of Ontario. Most of the ore that comes to surface doesn’t look like that. That’s a really rich ore; you can see it sparkling. It’s from Sudbury. But most of the muck that comes up isn’t that. It comes up as rock mixed in with ore, and you have to refine it.

You pay to bring the ore up, which is really heavy; you pay to transport it to the mill, which is really heavy; you pay to pound it into powder, which is really heavy; you pay to float it, which costs a lot of money; you pay to separate it—part of that part that’s separated goes to the tailings pond, which I’m going to talk about later as another great idea, and part of that goes into the furnaces to be extracted.

The extraction process isn’t perfect. Mike McCann, the former manager at Vale, got mad at me once for saying we melt rocks and make money, but the short version is, we melt rocks and we make money. When you melt the rocks, because the minerals that are valuable are heavier than the waste rock, it separates like oil and water. You skim off the rock, the waste rock, to slag, and the other stuff we call matte, and you tap that from a lower hole in the furnace—so high hole and low hole. It’s not a perfect mix. Some of those minerals end up being dumped on the side of the road in the slag dumps.

If you have postcards from Sudbury, they might be a slag dumping thing. It used to be a tourist attraction. Well, we still dump that. So, because it’s not perfect, there are minerals that get dropped there.

As well, when there are problems with the furnace—you have to keep the furnace running—sometimes we’re just dumping matte out there. When we’re emptying a furnace, we’re dumping minerals out there. You can repurpose that with an investment from the government. They’ve already started at a slower model, but there’s a lot there. The extraction process is better, but my company, Vale—and before that, Inco and Mond Nickel, and all the way back—has been doing this extraction for over 100 years; it was 100 years the year I was hired, and I was there for 17 years.

The farther back you go, the more valuable that slag, that waste product, is going to be, and we could be repurposing it and we could be extracting more critical minerals today, not seven or 15 years from now—not that I’m against that. It’s a good long-term plan. I’m talking about short-term plans.

The other thing I want to talk about that I think is really important is that—Dr. Nadia Mykytczuk from MIRARCO Mining Innovation. I mentioned tailings earlier. What happens is, you turn it into a powder, you add liquid to it and some chemicals, and it floats—the more valuable material kind of spills over to the top—and you end up with a sludge. You end up with a wet product, a feed, that goes to the furnace and the smelter, and you end up with a waste product that we just call tailings. That gets pumped out to a tailing pond. When I think of a pond, I think of something that maybe you can skip a rock across.

If you were to look at Google Maps and Copper Cliff and find the smokestack, which is pretty easy to find, the tailings pond is sort of to the east of that—just to the left on your computer screen. It goes from Copper Cliff to Lively to Creighton mine, so it’s basically the size of a lake, and we dump there and we dump there and we dump there all the time. That separation process isn’t perfect either, and years and years ago it wasn’t as good, so there are minerals that get dumped in there as well. Imagine this big pond: There’s water. Birds can swim on the top of it and stuff. I’ve heard there are fish.

I wouldn’t recommend eating the fish. At the bottom, you have a toxic kind of sludge that has settled onto the bottom. This is a massive liability for companies.

I know through the work that I did previously that Vale does an amazing job of that, but I know it’s a huge cost for liability, and it’s a huge cost for engineers who specialize in tailing dams, and you need that. You need to pay that cost and you need that expertise because we’ve had tailings dam failures. British Columbia had one at Mount Polley that did a lot of environmental damage. And Brazil had one at Brumadinho, I think. That one killed people. It buried towns completely. That’s the situation we have in Sudbury, because our city is built right beside the smelter and the tailings ponds.

I don’t want to scare people in these areas. These are very well constructed and well engineered, but we could reduce that risk by reprocessing the tailings that are already existing.

MIRARCO is working on this project already. From their web page: “In the near term, Ontario can strengthen our critical mineral supply chain by reprocessing tailings and mine wastes that are already at surface.” So they use bioleaching, and they estimate that they can extract between $8 billion and $10 billion in nickel and cobalt from the existing tailings ponds. That’s a great short-term plan—$8 billion to $10 billion. Also, they’re talking about a potential zero-waste solution after the process ends. So the by-product becomes sellable. It lowers your risk. It protects the environment.

It puts money in our pocket from resources we already paid to extract from underground. And that’s something we can do in the short term, that’s not going to take eight to 15 years. This is a win-win-win.

The exciting part of this—and the former Minister of Mines is here with us today, and I know he is a fan of this project as well. The great thing about this is that this is a project that is made in Ontario. This is something that we would have our fingerprints all over. This is something that I think people around the world would be knocking down our door to figure out how to do, because tailings are issues all over the place.

If it doesn’t happen here, it will happen in the United States. I have a good relationship with the people at MIRARCO, and I have been told that the Americans are knocking on their door and the Americans are lined up to spend the money to get this done. It will either be an Ontario project or it will be an American project. I want it to be an Ontario project. I want us to own this.

The problem is that MIRARCO has been working to secure capital funding. The province has given some; I’m not putting down the province. I see my colleague giving me the thumbs up. The province has invested, but if we can help them find more investments, if we can increase their investment, we can help—because they have funding basically until December, and in December they’re going to pause.

If they pause, the Americans are going to show up, and there’s only a certain amount of time, with the financial instability and people working at MIRARCO worrying about how they’re going to pay their bills and keep the lights on and get their kids into hockey—the money from the Americans looks pretty important. They don’t want to do it, but at some point, I can’t see how they could resist.

In short, I like the six pages of this bill. The other 223 pages, I don’t think I can support. They are a massive overreach for a Conservative government that, frankly, has not earned the trust of the people of Ontario to have unfettered power and access and overreach.

I can only imagine the people in Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, who were promised in a by-election, in the last provincial election, that this landfill site would not open, by the Premier, without a full, comprehensive environmental assessment—and then that promise was broken afterwards. I think I can imagine it, because I just read in the news that city council has approved $50,000 to fight against this. I read all kinds of quotes from people in this area who were outraged about this.

There is a cynical side of me that says, “Well, that’s what you get for voting for a Conservative who won’t return your calls and speak to you.” But also, I think this is a time when, they want politicians to be working together, and I am hoping that you’ll work with New Democrats, as a Conservative government, listen to the people in that riding who elected a member for your party, and do what needs to be done.

If the bill said—it would be legalese, so it takes six pages, but I can do it in a paragraph—“A ‘one project, one process’ approval model, streamlining the approvals into one process, with a dedicated team to help things be more efficient,” we would vote for this in a heartbeat. I would urge my House leader to help us expedite it passing as quickly as possible, so that we can open mines more quickly, so we can cut the time, potentially, from 15 or 17 years to eight years. Anything we can do to help mining be more successful, we are on board with as New Democrats. We just think it’s important that we’re doing it responsibly.

The problem is the other 223 pages of this bill we cannot support.

We can’t support scrapping the Endangered Species Act and bringing in

an act that just talks about where they live today, right now. It’s like saying that your house is protected, but it’s okay if we tear down everything around your house—the grocery stores, the school, everywhere else you go. That’s fine, as long as your den is okay. You can’t replace something solid with something incredibly watered down. Can you improve it? Yes, absolutely. But don’t pretend this is improving it. This is destroying the Endangered Species Act.

I can’t support 220 pages of a bill that just rewards wealthy Conservative donors and allows the Premier to break his promise to the people of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. I can’t support a bill that pretends that Ontario Place is part of mining. I can’t support a bill that allows the government to write themselves a get-out-of-jail-free cheat code.

I come from mining and underground. I don’t want to say the unclean version, the industrial version of this phrase, but I read this bill and the entire time, I kept thinking, “Don’t spit in my ear and tell me it’s raining.”

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): I recognize the member for Kiiwetinoong.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch, Speaker.

ᒥᑵᐨ

ᒫᐘᐨ ᓂᒥᓀᑕᐣ ᒥᓇᐘ ᐁᔭᔭᒥᔭᐣ ᒋᔭᓂᔑᓂᒥᔭᐣ

I’m very honoured to be able to stand up and speak my language in this place. I’ve been here close to seven years, and one of the things I know is, until last year—I was able to speak my language here for the first time.

It’s an honour, again, to be able to speak on Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025; to be able to speak on behalf of the people of Kiiwetinoong.

I’d like to thank the government for this bill. I’d like to thank the government for putting this forward. I thank them because it’s a reminder that colonialism, oppression, still exists in this place, especially to the First Peoples of these lands in what we call now Ontario and Canada.

This bill should be called “Ontario first, First Nations last,” because we are just an afterthought. I know we have to understand, through the situation that we’re in today, for Canadians and Ontarians, where we find ourselves right now—where their land is being threatened, where there’s a foreign power talking about annexation, where they’re being asked to give up resources and access to land. This is not new to First Nations people. Welcome to the club.

I want to quote Sharon Venne from Treaty 6 territory. In one of her writings, she says, “All of North America is Indigenous land. At the time of the treaty-making, Indigenous peoples never gave up the land. When Indigenous peoples talk about the land and the making of treaty, we are talking about our life and the life of future generations. Land is central to the process. We have a relationship with our Creation based on a legal system designed to protect and honour the land.”

As I said, over the years, I have heard many people say that non-Indigenous people brought treaty-making to Indigenous peoples. This is false. Indigenous peoples living on the great Turtle Island have always had treaty-making. Our people have always made treaties with our neighbouring nations. So when the crown came to our territories to make treaties, our treaty-making process was already well established.

One of the reasons treaties were signed here in Ontario was to create certainty for settlers, so they could access the natural resources of the First Nations people. Back then, it was mostly for hunting, fishing, mining and forestry rights. The infrastructure projects that make up Canada would not exist without the treaties. Our treaties were signed with the intention to open up the north for settlement and resource development. That sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The government needed certainty so settlers could make money off the resources found in the north.

I’ve often said it here, and I will continue to say it: The north is very rich. But when I say that, I’m not talking about money; I’m talking about the land, the water, the animals, the fish, our identity, and our ways of life.

Since 2018, being here, being a member of provincial Parliament—but first, I am a rights holder to treaty, and nobody can take that away from me.

“We agreed to share. We lived up to the terms of our agreement. We kept the peace ... allowed the white man to settle and live according to his laws....

“You said our rights would never be lost. You did not live up to the agreement.”

Those are the words of Grand Chief Andrew Rickard back in 1977, speaking to the Ontario cabinet. And those same words apply today on this current approach, where you use the tariff war to access the resources in the north while you’re trampling on the rights of the people who live there.

One of the things I want to talk about is the language that we use around reconciliation. We now have a concept of economic reconciliation that gets used in place of reconciliation. It seems governments have shifted that language to suit their needs. This bill, Bill 5, is part of that shift. We even see it in this government, where we have a Minister of Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Economic Reconciliation. But what’s presented today by the government as “economic reconciliation” doesn’t do much unless it recognizes First Nations’ full decision-making authority over our treaty lands—period.

Most people using this term now only see economic reconciliation as natural resource development.

The Yellowhead Institute notes that economic reconciliation doesn’t compensate First Nations for the environmental, social and economic damage caused historically by resource development on Indigenous lands, but, rather, identifies feasible ways to share economic opportunities arising from resource development. This heavy focus on economic reconciliation exploits reconciliation as a whole and steers it towards a version that primarily benefits corporate and state interests while promising fringe benefits for Indigenous people.

The Yellowhead Institute views this growing focus on economic reconciliation by politicians as well as right-wing think tanks and major financial institutions as a way of distracting from Canada’s and Ontario’s ongoing failure to complete the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Dr. Eva Jewell at the Yellowhead Institute has identified the rhetorical move to the concept of economic reconciliation by Conservative politicians as being about “creating conditions for Indigenous peoples to be more aligned with the capitalist system.” The Yellowhead Institute has argued that the concept of economic reconciliation has no direct connection to the 94 calls to action. The term “economic reconciliation” is not mentioned in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the concept is only referred to in one subsection of the 92nd call to action.

Speaker, this government claims that it supports responsible resource development, but I don’t see it in this bill. Ontario public servants, in the minister’s briefing on this bill, indicated that First Nations will have concerns—as well as municipalities—on the new requirements on permitting. According to the documents, the government’s strategy to avoid criticism and opposition is to lean on messaging that says that any proposed changes will not change or alter the province’s duty to consult with Indigenous communities, nor its responsibility to uphold health, safety and environmental protections.

This legislation is being sold as the way to facilitate projects, but the criteria for these projects haven’t even been developed by cabinet yet.

As it stands right now, this bill will severely undermine constitutionally protected Indigenous rights to consultation, accommodation and consent for any kind of project before it starts. The very concept of fast-tracking infrastructure on Indigenous lands, on our homelands, contradicts the legal principle of free, prior and informed consent contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

To me, when I say “free, prior and informed consent,” “free” means that the rights holders, the nations, should not have to pay a dime on that process, on that consultation; it is on the government. “Prior,” to me, means that before any drill goes into the ground on our homelands—that we should be talking first, not after. “Informed,” to me, means that the rights holders of these homelands understand, in our own language, to make sure we know what exactly is happening or what exactly these mines will be doing. “Consent,” to me, means that after the whole process of duty to consult—the free, prior and informed consent—the rights holders have the right to say if, yes or no, the project should proceed.

We have to understand how negatively the lands, the resources, the people will be impacted.

I must say, as well, that the timelines being put forward are very aggressive. They may be feasible if First Nations, the rights holders, are being engaged right from the beginning. But I do not see this happening. We know this is not happening—Ontario first, First Nations last.

There are a lot of examples in the Kiiwetinoong riding where mining companies come to First Nations with projects to consult on. These companies do not consistently engage with affected First Nations from the beginning of the projects. We have to understand that consultation is not just checking a box. Consultation is obtaining free, prior and informed consent and making sure that the benefits from mining and infrastructure projects flow to the people the land belongs to, not the other way around. When we signed the treaties, we agreed to share the benefits of that treaty, to share the benefits of these lands.

This government is working backwards towards treaty. It is colonial. It is oppressive. It is racist.

One of the things I mentioned before: Governments are a lot better than they used to be about talking about reconciliation with First Nations. But I don’t see it in action. It’s just a lot of talk. I say that because First Nations issues get reduced to vague references to partnership and inclusion in these aggressive plans, these aggressive projects. We have to understand, the rights held by the First Nations people, the rights holders, and our governments are protected by the Constitution. And we can see how well—or not—governments value and respect the rule of law on how they meet the duty to consult.

In an

article in the Breach last week, Dr. Pam Palmater stated that First Nations predate Canada and are recognized in domestic and international law as having inherent rights to govern over and benefit from our traditional lands and resources. These are not aspirational concepts. These are binding legal obligations to the crown.

We know that the federal and provincial elections are now over, and we now have to wait and see whether Indigenous rights remain a legal and a political priority at both levels of government. We can see with Bill 5 that these rights are going to get narrowed or even ignored under the weight of deregulation, speedy resource extraction and fiscal austerity.

For those of you who do not know, the duty to consult is triggered “any time the crown is considering something that might impact Indigenous rights.” That’s when the duty to consult is supposed to be triggered. On this point, Ontario’s own draft documents note that if pursuing a permit overhaul, its intention is “that the crown will continue to meet its constitutional obligations to consult with Indigenous communities.” But let me be very clear: Consultation is not consent—period. Consent is a gold standard in development projects, but we rarely, rarely get there.

When the government imposes its deadlines on a particular project or process, that is not always helpful in moving a project forward. There is an opportunity here to create that new kind of path forward—one in which Aboriginal rights, treaty rights, inherent rights, and free, prior and informed consent are upheld. But, you have to understand, that can’t happen if any of this legislation infringes on the rights of the First Nations people. This government needs to do better—no, this government must do better—but respecting First Nations jurisdiction and obtaining consent should be the goal.

Ontario has shown repeatedly that they regularly fail to fulfill their duty to consult. There is a long list of First Nations that have had to take Ontario to court over the crown’s failure to meet its obligation. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug—formerly Big Trout Lake; Eabametoong—that’s Fort Hope; Six Nations; Saugeen Ojibway Nation; and Wabauskang First Nation are just some of the First Nations that have had to take Ontario to court because of the failures of duty to consult.

Speaker, there are other constitutional challenges to Ontario’s Mining Act that will be heard this year. Applicants in these cases are arguing that the registration of mining claims triggers the duty to consult. We have to understand—we have to know—that duty to consult flows from the honour of the crown. It is an unwritten constitutional principle that requires the government to deal honourably with Indigenous people. This government has failed on this.

The duty to consult arises when the crown has knowledge—real or constructive—of the potential existence of an Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it. This government has repeatedly ignored this duty.

During the greenbelt scandal in 2022, Ontario was told by the Chiefs of Ontario, representing 133 First Nations, that Bill 23 could fast-track projects that have adverse effects on Indigenous lands, waters, wildlife and treaty rights. They said that the province had failed to engage meaningfully with First Nations “before passing the legislation late last month, despite a constitutional requirement to do so.” Attempts at correspondence with the government of Ontario were unanswered, and the government needed to be held accountable for the blatant disregard of the nation-to-nation relationship.

The then municipal affairs and housing minister, Steve Clark, said that Bill 23 received an endorsement from Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services. That endorsement was not consultation or engagement with First Nations since Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services does not hold any treaty rights. They are not rights holders. The province was also told that they cannot delegate consultation to municipalities as they do not have the constitutional duty to consult with First Nations, as their governments are not considered part of the crown.

I would like to remind this chamber today that the north is full of stories of resistance to projects they did not want—initially, it was the four First Nations in opposition to Ontario’s proposal to construct hydroelectric power stations along the Severn River. I don’t know how many First Nations were involved, but they rejected it, and eventually it was formed into a Severn River coalition of eight First Nations to ensure that Ontario recognized the control and the authority of First Nations over their traditional territories.

In February 2006, Platinex Inc., a junior mining company, set up a drilling camp in the traditional territory of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug. Rights holders, community members, protested at the campsite, as the company did not have their permission to explore. The conflict received international attention when Chief Donny Morris and five council members were jailed in March 2008 for blocking Platinex from accessing the area. The KI6, as they became known, were released three months later, after the successful appeal of their sentence. There were so many First Nations opposed to it.

The history of Canada is one where national interests keep on happening.

Again, this bill is Ontario first, First Nations last.

Let me assure you, our homelands are not for sale. Meegwetch.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): It is now time for questions.

Mr. Ted Hsu: I thank my honourable colleague the member for Kiiwetinoong for his speech.

The question I have for him is whether he thinks the government should have consulted with Indigenous communities before putting together this bill. I think it’s very appropriate, because when I asked, in the technical briefing, whether there was any consultation, the answer was no.

My colleague from Kiiwetinoong will remember, in the last Parliament, Bill 71, which was entitled the Building More Mines Act. He and I were in the same technical briefing for that bill. He was the one who asked whether there was consultation with First Nations and Indigenous communities before that bill. The answer, again, that time, was also no.

I’d like to invite my colleague from Kiiwetinoong to comment on that.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch for the question.

There are proposed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, and one of the things—I got a letter from Grassy Narrows. In their letter, they talk about the proposed legislation, 66.1, and the team’s position. You have to remember: They’re searching for their ancestors at former sites of Indian residential schools, and they have a concern with the proposed changes that erode the protections of the act, which currently provides for preservation of potential archaeological sites and former Indian residential school sites.

Article 11 of the UNDRIP provides that “Indigenous people have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs.”

The proposed new

section 66—ensuring the protection of Indian residential school sites, locations of known and potential burials and significant archaeological sites, in consultation with affected First Nations, is not happening.

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

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I want to thank the member opposite for his very, very heartfelt words.

I want to zero in on a couple of things related to the Endangered Species Act.

In 2012, the former NDP member from Kenora–Rainy River said this in this House: “The Endangered Species Act is a deeply flawed piece of legislation, no matter which way you look at it. It fails to accomplish its goals of protecting endangered species and their habitat, and the public have lost faith in it, if they ever had faith in it to begin with.” She went on to say, “The Endangered Species Act, as it currently stands, is hurting endangered species.” Those are very strong words from the NDP at the time.

I have a question to my colleague: What changed, and why stand up for this flawed piece of legislation, as identified by one of your former colleagues?

MPP Jamie West: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

What you’re talking about is an issue that was brought several years ago about the Endangered Species Act.

This bill, though—and if you’re proud of what the bill had, in the opening debate, any of the three ministers who spoke to it would have explained this portion of the bill, but they didn’t. They talked about it as if it was just about mining.

If there are ways to improve the Endangered Species Act, it is by not replacing it with the Environmental Assessment Act, which is completely watered down, and which erodes and misses the point of protecting species. The idea that just the habitat is protected, just where you live—the den is protected, but not where they have to migrate or travel, not where they go for food. That isn’t protecting species. The other flaws are that—the only way you have to protect some of these species is if you can identify it’s the only remaining one. How could you do that? How could you figure that out? It’s deeply flawed.

I would work with you on repairing the ESA, but not with this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): I recognize the member from London West.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank both of my colleagues for their very powerful words about this bill and the concerns that they have raised.

Certainly, I am hearing from Londoners, who are emailing me and calling me, who are opposed to Bill 5. In particular, they are opposed to the elimination of the Endangered Species Act—the redefinition of “habitat” that is giving the government the power to destroy grasslands and wetlands and forests in our province. They’re concerned about the extraordinary power that the government will have, under the special economic zones, to override provincial laws. They question how this is an appropriate way to support Ontario and face the threat of Trump’s tariffs.

My question to my colleague from Sudbury is, does this help Ontario respond to Trump’s tariffs?

MPP Jamie West: Thank you to my colleague for the question. It is important.

This bill was brought forward as if it was going to help with Donald Trump. As I said in my debate, people are scared right now. People have already lost their jobs. People in southern Ontario in auto manufacturing are losing their jobs and being laid off. In Sault Ste. Marie, there are threats of layoffs. There have been some layoffs in my riding as well.

I am frustrated with the Premier and the Conservative government using this as an opportunity to use those fears to bring in a laundry list of wish lists so they can do whatever they want—using a get-out-of-jail-free magic bill so they can ignore legislation and bylaws and so they can bulldoze endangered species, and so that they can reward their wealthiest donors and break election promises that they made to the good people of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): I recognize the member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. Ted Hsu: I failed to thank my colleague from Sudbury, who spoke for the first part of the hour for the official opposition. I also want to thank him for his answer to the previous question, because I think it’s important to point out that this bill doesn’t address the very proximate threats from Donald Trump’s tariffs in the United States.

My question to the member is—let’s be fair. Does this bill contain measures that we might support?

Let me put something forward: There is a new section, 153.0.1 of the Mining Act. The idea behind that act is to cut the time for different government ministries to get together and approve mines. The idea is to coordinate them.

So my question to the member is, are there any parts of this bill that he would like to indicate support for?

MPP Jamie West: Yes, in debate, I talked about how six out of the 229 pages of this bill are supportable. That’s the part that talks about streamlining the process and helping mining companies be more efficient with the permitting that they need. If I could draw a broad amendment, I would amend that we just get rid of the rest of the 223 pages of this bill that don’t really help move that forward. There may be sections in those other areas that are agreeable, if you pick them out. But, really, we’re talking about moving mining forward faster.

Even if we’re talking about Donald Trump’s threats, Donald Trump will be the President for three years and three quarters of a year. If we’re opening mines and we’re moving it to seven years from now, that will be three years after Donald Trump is the President. That’s not going to help people today in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Quick question? I recognize the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and congratulations on being in the chair today.

This question will be to the member from Sudbury. I noticed that he was talking about nickel and cobalt. I’m not sure if he has ever read the book Cobalt Red that was written by a professor from Harvard regarding what’s going on in the Congo right now. Some 75% of the cobalt that we use comes from the Congo, and 13 pounds of that cobalt goes into every electric car that is built around the world.

Do you agree that opening up our Canadian mines would be much better for the environment and much better for the world?

MPP Jamie West: Yes. That’s why I recommended that we invest in existing mines right now, so that we can start processing that and reduce our reliance on foreign cobalt. There is cobalt in Ontario right now that we’re extracting today—and also, a long-term plan in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): Further debate?

Mr. Ted Hsu: Before I start, let me just say that I will be sharing my time today with the marvellous member for Beaches–East York. It’s an honour to join my dear colleague to lead off debate on Bill 5 for the Ontario Liberal caucus.

It has become a habit for this government to do some sloganeering with the

short title of government bills. They called this bill, Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act. However, upon studying the bill, I think a more appropriate

short title would be “don’t protect Ontario and use tariffs as cover to unleash lobbying act.” That is a

summary of what I think is wrong in principle with Bill 5.

But before I go further, let me say, in fairness, that this bill does contain measures I would support, and I will point them out as I go along in my speech.

For example, they could have focused on the proposed new

section 153.0.1 of the Mining Act, and they could have then called this bill the “cutting time to review and approve mines through coordination of different ministries and binding service standards.” I would support that, because it is true that mines take a long time to open. But you’ve got to do the proper reviews to make sure that you have rules, that we live in a society that’s governed by rules and not arbitrary powers that might ignore important concerns.

To summarize, the big problem is that Bill 5 hands out too much unchecked discretionary power to ministers. It indemnifies government officials, as well, from legal actions in several places in the bill, thereby reinforcing the unchecked nature of these new discretionary powers. It does this to fulfill the throne speech’s plan to speed up development projects as a response to Donald Trump’s—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it is now time for members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

King Charles III Coronation Medal

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: It’s a pleasure to rise this morning to report that I recently had the great honour to present seven King Charles Coronation Medals, to recognize outstanding service and community leadership in Mississauga–Lakeshore.

Katie Vincent is a sprint canoeist from Lorne Park, who helped lead the campaign to include women’s sprint canoe events in the Olympics, which happened in 2021. In Paris, last year, she was the first Canadian woman to win the Olympic gold medal in a canoe event.

Frank Giannone is the president of Fram Building Group, an award-winning community builder in Port Credit and the founder of the Port Credit Community Foundation, which has done so much to support our community events, like Paint the Town Red and the Southside Shuffle.

Tina Cole was named Industry Person of the Year at the Mississauga Music Awards, recognizing her work to develop and promote independent young Ontario artists.

Carmela Liparoti and Frank Trevisan founded the Mississauga Italian Canadian Benevolent Association, which supports families and seniors across our community.

Noreen Lista is a community leader and co-founder of the Old Credit brewery in Port Credit, recognized as one of the best microbreweries in Canada.

And William Crawford has volunteered with his Lions Club for over 60 years.

Speaker, they represent the absolute best of the Ontario spirit, and again, I want to thank them for everything they’ve done.

Mental health services

MPP Catherine McKenney: I want to take the opportunity, first, to congratulate Yasir Naqvi on his most recent win as member of Parliament in Ottawa Centre—I look forward to working with him to build permanent and deeply affordable housing—and to thank Joel Harden, our former MPP, for his years of service here at the Legislature and in the community.

Shortly after I was elected as MPP, I received a phone call from a woman who was desperately advocating on behalf of her son, who was recently diagnosed with mental illness. He had experienced a psychotic episode in October 2024 and was subsequently arrested on minor charges. In December, he was found not criminally responsible and ordered by a judge to be accepted to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, but there were no hospital beds. So he remains in custody, unwell and in need of health care.

Over the past six months in detention, he has not been receiving the mental health treatment he requires for his recovery. His family fears greatly for his physical safety and his mental well-being.

I bring this to the attention of my colleagues here in the Legislature today to demonstrate the dire need for investment in mental health care beds so that we can remove people from prison who are unwell and do not belong there, and so that we can provide the health care they require to improve their well-being.

Mental health and addiction services

Ms. Lee Fairclough: I’m honoured to rise today to make my first member’s statement as the MPP for Etobicoke–Lakeshore.

From May 5 to May 11, agencies, advocates, families and patients are marking mental health awareness week across Canada.

In Canada, one in four people will experience mental illness. We know that addressing mental health early is critical to prevent illness.

Tomorrow, I will be visiting the Jean Tweed Centre, a treatment centre in my riding for women looking to overcome challenges with substance use, gambling and mental health.

Next week, I’ll be attending mental health night at my son’s school, Silverthorn Collegiate, where he’s a student in the high-performance athlete program. The invited speaker is a prominent advocate for mental health in the sports community. It’s open to anyone to attend.

Young people aged 15 to 24 are more likely to experience mental illness and substance use disorders than any other age group. Some 39% of Ontario high school students indicate a moderate to serious level of psychological distress, including anxiety and depression.

We have come a long way in addressing stigma, but we have a ways to go in funding mental health like other health care challenges. Mental health is health.

I encourage all MPPs to seek out mental health providers in your communities and learn more about the essential role they play in supporting healthy families and vibrant and prosperous communities.

Vera Mitchell

MPP George Darouze: Good morning, Madam Speaker. It’s my first member’s statement this morning.

On April 18, 2025, Carleton lost an icon, with the passing of Vera Mitchell.

Vera was from a generational dairy farming family in rural Ottawa’s Osgoode ward. Her life in farming equipped her with a strong work ethic, a sense of community, and exceptional levels of kindness, compassion and integrity. Those qualities gave her a strong foundation for her work as a registered nurse and as a township councillor.

Over the years, she received the Queen’s Jubilee Medal for outstanding citizenship, and she was inducted into the Ontario Agricultural Hall of Fame. In 2015, she received the Order of Ottawa for her outstanding contribution to the agricultural society and many other incredible achievements.

When I entered politics a decade ago, Vera was one of my strongest supporters. She was also very informed when it came to politics and the history of the Osgoode ward, which I proudly served for 10 years.

Her kind-heartedness and generosity will never leave me as I think back on the many occasions we had to share a cup of tea and laughs at her family home on Donevelyn Farms over the years.

Vera was 96 years old and such a special woman indeed. She leaves behind a legacy of selflessness which has inspired generations in our riding. She was also a Sens fan.

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Good morning, Speaker. ᒥᓄᑭᔐᐸᔭ

At the end of April, a delegation of Matawa First Nations youth travelled to New York to speak and represent their nations at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. They were accompanied by two members of the Matawa First Nations management board of directors. These youth were strong and outspoken advocates for our nations in northern Ontario. They reminded our various governments in Ontario, in Canada and globally of the importance of truly committing to a spirit of partnership and reconciliation.

They met with other Indigenous youth from nations across the world and made significant connections. They also had critical discussions with leaders like Willie Littlechild and the Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict, and even including our former Premier, Ambassador Bob Rae.

While on the global stage, in their statements at the forum, they made sure to address issues close to home. They spoke on how government has the obligation to meaningfully implement treaty agreements and respect our lands and sovereignty as rights holders.

I just want to acknowledge them, recognize them and congratulate them for their leadership

And thank you to the board of directors for empowering our future leaders. Meegwetch.

Mark Willmer

MPP Billy Denault: My member’s statement today is to acknowledge the passing of a man who made tremendous impact during his life through public service to the communities, in my riding, of Arnprior and Madawaska Valley. Mayor Mark Willmer, mayor of Madawaska Valley, passed away unexpectedly during the Easter season.

Mark was a beloved partner, father, grandfather, brother, friend, former councillor for the town of Arnprior, and mayor of Madawaska Valley township. Above all, he was a true public servant.

He spent over 30 years serving the city of Nepean and Ottawa in recreation and municipal government, and 22 years as a councillor in Arnprior. After moving to Madawaska Valley, Mark continued his service as a councillor and mayor.

I had the privilege of knowing Mark during our corresponding time on municipal councils. His warmth, compassion and commitment to community were clear in every conversation we shared.

This evening, many will gather at the Paul Yakabuski centre in Barry’s Bay to celebrate his life.

My thoughts and prayers are with Janet, his family, friends, and the many residents whose lives he touched.

As his obituary said so beautifully, “Thank you, Mark, for your love, your leadership, and your light. You changed lives, built communities, and left the world a better, kinder place.”

Orthodox Christian Week

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Ontario recognizes the diversity of our great province by commemorating special weeks and month of significance to honour the many different faiths and cultures that are present here.

In December 2024, we unanimously voted to establish an annual Orthodox Christian Week in Ontario and give Orthodox Christians the recognition they deserve.

April 20 of this year marked the inaugural Orthodox Christian Week in Ontario, and it was celebrated at Queen’s Park by a gathering of religious leadership of many Orthodox Christian jurisdictions.

This special reception was hosted by the Serbian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Church, and included the presence of His Eminence Metropolitan Mitrofan of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Canada; His Eminence Archbishop Marew of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada; His Grace Vicar Bishop Athenagoras from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Canada; His Grace Bishop Mina from the Coptic Orthodox Archdioceses of Mississauga, Vancouver and western Canada; and many very reverend fathers from different Orthodox Christian jurisdictions.

This important delegation was welcomed and greeted by a strong MPP presence, including the leader of the official opposition, the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, Orthodox Christian and other MPPs and, of course, you, Madam Speaker.

The inaugural Orthodox Christian Week in Ontario was a resounding success, but it has only begun. With the help of Orthodox Christians across our great province, this special week will continue to grow in prominence, and its future is truly bright.

Thank you to all who celebrated and helped make this important annual recognition a part of the future of Ontario.

Charles Davis

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I rise today to honour a true Canadian hero, Charles Davis, a beloved member of the Windsor community and a decorated veteran of the Second World War.

Charlie was born in Port Dover, and he enlisted in the Royal Canadian Artillery in 1941. Just three months later, he was in the United Kingdom, training for the Allied liberation of Europe. While stationed there, he met the love of his life, Doris, in London’s East End.

On June 10, 1944, four days after D-Day, Charlie landed in Normandy. He drove an ammunition truck from Juno Beach to the front lines, resupplying Canadian troops under constant threat. He took

part in the liberation of France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and advanced into Germany with his comrades.

In 1994, Charlie returned to Juno Beach for the 50th anniversary of D-Day. He made that pilgrimage every five years; his last visit was just last year.

His courage, humility and dedication to country have left us a lasting legacy.

Charles Davis passed away on April 10 of this year, at the age of 102. His presence will be deeply missed in Windsor, especially among his many friends at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 255 in Riverside.

To his children, Terri, Jacqueline, Patricia and Sandra, and all who loved him—and there are so many in the community who did: Thank you for sharing Charlie with us. Canada is forever in his debt, and we’ll miss him dearly.

Doctors’ Day

MPP Bill Rosenberg: Today is Doctors’ Day in Ontario, a chance to recognize the tremendous contributions of physicians across our province. From urban centres to remote, rural communities like mine, Ontario doctors are there when we need them most. They are the backbone of our health care system—from family doctors, who are the first point of contact, to specialists who provide expert care and help patients through some of the most complex moments of their lives.

Throughout April and May, MPPs are meeting with local physicians to learn more about the incredible work they do.

Recently, I had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Dannica Switzer to discuss solutions to some of the challenges facing northern Ontario, including the need for better access to care and stronger supports for the physician workforce. I look forward to continuing this important dialogue during an upcoming meeting with another dedicated local physician.

Doctors are on the front lines every day, diagnosing, treating and advocating—often going above and beyond to ensure that patients get the care they need.

I want to thank the Ontario Medical Association for helping to facilitate these productive conversations and for being a strong voice for doctors.

Tonight, landmarks across Ontario, including the CN Tower and Niagara Falls, will be lit blue in honour of Doctors’ Day.

To Ontario’s doctors: Thank you. Your dedication and compassion do not go unnoticed. Happy Doctors’ Day.

Kate Nixon

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I rise with a heavy heart today to recognize a young person from Guelph who dedicated her life to helping those in need. Kate Nixon was a founder of Your Downtown Guelph Friends, a trusted and vital source of support for people experiencing hunger and homelessness. Tragically, Kate passed away on December 29, 2024, after a short illness. She was 23 years old.

Kate had a special gift of being able to help people by meeting them where they are. Her empathy, compassion and creativity were evident in all that she did—whether providing people with food and clothing, or volunteering with the Guelph Humane Society, Hope House or Bracelet of Hope.

Kate was a tireless advocate. Just before her passing, she delegated to city council, calling for the need to preserve the charter rights of unhoused people. In her delegation, as in her life, Kate reminded us that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity.

Kate is deeply missed by the people in downtown Guelph who experienced her kindness and empathy.

Since her passing, the community has raised $12,000 to support Your Downtown Guelph Friends.

Personally, Kate inspired me to be a voice for people in need in our community.

I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to Kate’s family and her many friends in Guelph.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’d like to welcome Cecelia LaRose and Nureesa LaRose from my riding. They’re my constituents.

Welcome to the Legislature. I hope we’re well behaved for you today.

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: I rise today to wish a very special happy fourth birthday to my twin daughters, Riley and Everly. Girls, I love you very much. I hope you have a great day. Please make sure you give Mom a big hug and a big thank you, because all that birthday magic doesn’t happen on its own. I can’t wait to see you and celebrate with you this weekend. Happy birthday.

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens: Today I’d like to welcome to our House Marianne Tiwa Nkōmbou. She is the sister of the page from St. Catharines.

I want to say a special thank you to all of our pages, but especially to my page from St. Catharines, Kylian Antonin Tiwa. He’s representing his peers from a school in downtown St. Catharines—Immaculate Conception.

Thank you for all you’ve done, Kylian.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: I’d like to acknowledge Finn Walsh from my riding of Don Valley West, who is serving as page captain today, and also welcome his parents and grandma, who are here today in support. I had lunch with Finn yesterday, and he’s an amazing young man.

Thank you to all the pages; in particular, Finn.

Thank you, Finn.

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: I’d to welcome Vic, our MSW placement student, and Courtney. They make our office a welcoming place for every single member of our community, especially the most vulnerable.

Thanks for the hard work you do.

MPP Chris Scott: I want to take a moment to recognize Daniel Giroux, the president of Collège Boréal, a great northern school. He’s in town today. He’s an absolute champion for Franco-Ontarians. I’m happy to have him here.

MPP Andrea Hazell: I’d like to welcome Lalin Hasanova and the Azerbaijan Art and Culture Centre to Queen’s Park. Congratulations on your 10th anniversary. Welcome to your House.

Everyone is invited to visit the reception in rooms 227 and 228 at 12 p.m.

Welcome to your House.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I’d like to welcome the Canadian Parents for French Ontario chapter. They hosted a lovely breakfast reception. I look forward to our meeting this afternoon.

And a very special welcome to all the trustees and educators here. And a very special welcome to my friend TDSB trustee Dee Williams.

Hon. Zee Hamid: I’d like to welcome a remarkable young man, Krish Agarwal, from my riding, who is finishing his page duty today. He is joined by his parents, Nidhi and Amit Agarwal.

Welcome to the House, and thank you.

Mr. Billy Pang: It’s my pleasure to welcome Waleed Malik from Markham–Unionville to Queen’s Park today. Waleed is the proud father of today’s page captain Haajrah Malik.

Thank you for joining us. I can’t wait to meet your parents, Mr. and Mrs. Malik, later today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue au président du Collège Boréal, Daniel Giroux, qui est ici avec le groupe Canadian Parents for French. Bienvenue.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I’d like to give a shout-out to my page from Richmond Hill, Leah Wong, and her proud mother.

Welcome to Queen’s Park, Sachi Shen. I look forward to having lunch with you after question period.

Ms. Laura Smith: I’d like to thank everyone who is here for the 77th anniversary of Israel’s Independence Day and for the flag-raising that’s happening just after the proceedings.

Question Period

Automotive industry

Ms. Marit Stiles: The government’s financial watchdog warned yesterday that we’re heading for a recession—growth cut in half, jobs on the line. And what was the Premier’s response? It was, “Well, let’s just see what happens.” That’s what he said, Speaker. He said, “Let’s see what happens.”

Well, we’ve seen what happens when the response is to wait around. More than 12,000 auto workers in Windsor are already off the job thanks to closures at Stellantis—temporary closures, but closures nonetheless.

I have to ask, does the Premier understand what’s at stake for Ontario workers right now?

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

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: This government absolutely knows what’s at stake. In fact, we ran a campaign just a few months ago—a campaign to protect jobs, to protect the economy, to protect communities, to protect families across this great province.

And one thing is very clear: The status quo is no longer an option.

We are going to do what it takes to support the hard-working men and women of this great province.

Some of the actions that we’ve taken to date include $11 billion of relief for businesses and workers in this province. Do you know why we’re able to do that? Because we have a fiscal framework and a balance sheet that has never been stronger in the last couple of decades, because of our fiscal prudence, respecting taxpayer money, and making sure that we can support those families and hard-working—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, I’m going to go back to the Premier.

We have seen this before. In 2018, when tariffs were hitting our steel and aluminum industries, GM announced it was shutting down the Oshawa plant. And do you remember what the Premier said? He told workers, “The ship has already left the dock.” But it was workers, unions and New Democrats who refused to give up, and we kept good jobs in Oshawa.

It’s the same old story once again. Workers in Windsor are literally standing in front of trucks as the company is putting their equipment on those trucks. They’re seeing their jobs and their futures are being shipped south—

Interjections.

Ms. Marit Stiles: And they may think it’s a laughing matter, but I guarantee you, the workers of Windsor do not.

Will the Premier finally learn from his own mistakes and stop this laissez-faire approach? Fight like hell to save these jobs.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: When those jobs were lost in Oshawa, do you know who went to Oshawa that night? This Premier. I was with this Premier. He met with the workers. He met with the businesses. Do you know what happened? On the drive back to Queen’s Park, he was on the phone taking call after call after call from those affected workers in that plant. He cared.

And do you know what this Premier has done? He has brought back a million jobs into this province since we got elected.

Madam Speaker, while the NDP and the Liberals slept, 300,000 left this province, went south of the border and across the land—and so what did we do? We put the conditions in place to bring back those jobs—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Well, I wouldn’t be bragging so much when you’ve got 7.5% unemployment already and your own financial watchdog says we’re heading towards that recession.

We are seeing mixed messages from this Premier, and we’re used to that, right? But what people need right now is a clear message.

In 2018, Trump slapped tariffs on Ontario steel; the Premier backed down. In 2020, Trump threatened again, and this Premier still said he was 100% happy when Trump won last year. We remember. Ontarians remember. And now he’s saying he will protect Ontario. Speaker, which is it?

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: There’s a lot of chirping on this side of the House that’s coming from the Premier.

Madam Speaker, do you know what leadership looks like? Do you know what setting the conditions for job growth and GDP growth looks like? Boosting the economy? Canadian free trade—lowering the interprovincial trade barriers. Under this Premier, the leadership of Doug Ford—he stood up and said, “We are going to lower the barriers in Ontario. We’re going to bring free trade to Canada.” He took a leadership role, along with the Premier of Nova Scotia. That’s what true leadership looks like. When that comes for a vote, I hope the Leader of the Opposition and the parties over there, including the Liberals, join us for free trade and the jobs in Ontario.

Supportive housing

Ms. Marit Stiles: I heard the Premier said he wants to answer the question. If only he was in charge, right? If only he was in charge.

Speaker, I want to talk about supportive housing. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing commissioned their own report from KPMG that showed that every one dollar spent on supportive housing saves the province up to $2 million. The government had the numbers in hand, and yet they did nothing. Since then, the waiting list for that supportive housing has grown from 14,000 to 36,000. Now we see the consequences in our parks, in our shelters, in our emergency rooms.

When the Premier sees this crisis growing in plain sight, does he still believe that the cost of inaction is worth it?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Rob Flack: As you know, our government is focused on building Ontario’s housing supply—all types of housing. When you take a look at the bill we introduced yesterday, we’re going to continue to support all people and all needs in all parts of this province. We know the solution to making housing attainable is to make more homes. That is what we’re going to do. Speed is important. The cost of building is important.

Under this Premier, Ontario is working with our federal and municipal partners to support the construction of all types of homes. It’s working. We’re getting the job done. Take a look at the results. We’re seeing our rental starts up 10% year over year and up 18,000 last year.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Let me be very clear: The solution to people sleeping outside is housing. That is the solution, and you know that.

But this Premier, this government, buried the report. They buried that report, and they also ignored the Housing Affordability Task Force.

After seven years of inaction, of failing to build a single house, a single supportive housing unit, we are seeing encampments in every community.

Supportive housing isn’t just smart; it is urgent. The housing and homelessness crisis is getting worse. As I said, experts—their own experts—say we need 36,000 new supportive housing units right now. But what has the government promised? Just 560. You think that’s going to make a dent in the problem?

Does the Premier really think that 560 units will clear a wait-list of 36,000, or is he just hoping that Ontarians won’t notice the math?

Hon. Rob Flack: Well, if you take a look at the legislation that we introduced yesterday, our government has listened to the people. This was part of our mandate, our election platform in the last election. We want safer municipalities throughout this province.

Remember one thing: Encampments are not a solution to homelessness. We want to make sure, in our whole housing continuum—everybody wants to enjoy public parks and spaces. They are meant to be fun, not to be feared. That is why we are clearing out encampments. That is why we are going to support, through our HART hubs throughout this province, to ensure that people have safe and affordable wraparound services.

The job is getting done. I don’t find her approach to this is helping—because, ultimately, it’s about investment and getting home builders involved. We are doing that. We’re listening, we’re learning, and we’re investing in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: We know what works, right? What they’re doing does not work. It hasn’t produced results. We hear words after words and empty promise after empty promise. It isn’t getting it done.

You close, you kick people out of an encampment, they go to another park, because there is no housing.

More importantly, there is no supportive housing. We know supportive housing saves lives, and it also saves money.

Under this Premier, I want to be clear—and I would love to hear the Premier actually answer this question. Under his watch, the wait-list has more than doubled. That is his legacy. It is people in encampments. It is more pressure on our emergency rooms. It is more strain on our hospitals and our jails. And it is more stress on our main streets.

If the Premier won’t invest in supportive housing because it’s the right thing to do, will he at least do it because it is the cost-effective thing to do?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Premier of Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon. Doug Ford: Thank you for that standing ovation. I greatly appreciate it.

Well, just to refresh the Leader of the Opposition’s memory: We led the charge on removing the HST on purpose-built rentals. But guess what? You voted against that. We eliminated the municipal fees on affordable non-profit housing that you talk about. But why did you vote against it? We introduced over $3 billion in new funding for municipalities to help build a housing-enabling fund. Why did you vote against it? Both of you voted against it. This includes $1.2 billion for those who met or exceeded their housing targets. Again, you talk about it, but you voted against it—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Doug Ford: We expanded by giving $120 million to small and northern rural communities, but all of you voted against it again.

You vote against everything. Yes, you talk a lot, but you do absolutely nothing, and that is why you lost for the third time in a row.

Justice system

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Premier.

But before I get started, Premier, I saw your picture on Twitter yesterday. I love your shirt. I always knew that deep down you wanted to be just like me.

Yesterday, the Premier had a lot of things to say—a lot. He was quite chatty, I would say. Here is a quote: “Last time I checked there hasn’t been any judges elected. Maybe that’s the problem—we should do what the US does. Let’s start electing our judges, holding them accountable....”

My question to the Premier is, did he mean this, or was he just trying to distract from the fact that he gave a foreign company $2.2 billion in taxpayers’ money and a 95-year lease—a company that had literally no money and no experience?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: Our government was given a very strong mandate, just recently, earlier in February.

The current bail system is not working the way that it should be. We are after the feds to do their part, but we’re not waiting for them; we’re doing what we can to tighten up that system. People are frustrated with not feeling safe in their homes, not feeling safe in their driveways, not feeling safe at work, and on the way in between. We have to do something for the victims of justice—we are doing something; you will hear more about it later today.

We are making investments—everything from training spaces for police to hiring police to doing bail review to adding prosecutors, specialized teams, guns and gangs, adding judges.

We are doing things across the system. All I hear from the Liberals is, “Don’t do anything any time soon, and we just want to talk about things that nobody wants to hear about.”

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

Mr. John Fraser: Speaker, the Attorney General would know that the reason that we have an independent judiciary is to hold all of us, including the Premier, accountable. That’s a pillar of democracy.

Here’s another gem: “I have an idea ... why don’t we have the next election the PC Party, the Liberal Party, the NDP party, the Green Party and the judges’ party, because they like to overturn everything, like bike lanes.”

So my question to the Premier is, why are you so hell-bent on bringing US-style courts to our province?

Hon. Doug Downey: One of two things is true, Madam Speaker: Either the Liberals aren’t hearing what we’re hearing from the Ontarians who contact us—and I suspect that may be the truth because that is reflected in the results of the last election—or it’s that they’re hearing it and they just don’t care.

We will not put up with that. We are making investments in our system from toe to top. We’re making sure that the judges, the prosecutors, the police, the victim service workers, the navigators and all of the players in the justice system have the resources that they need to bring justice quickly so that people have the ability to have their matters heard, and so that we can protect victims and give the supports that they need—everything from pre-crime, where we’re dealing with HART hubs and wraparound support services, to justice centres, when people enter the space, to fast hearings.

We are doing everything across the board, and the Liberals are saying, “Do you know what? Just don’t worry about that. We want to talk about nonsense.”

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: I don’t think we sent the Premier to Washington so he could import the US judicial system. I don’t think that’s the purpose.

Where I come from, if you say something out loud, a whole bunch of things out loud, you have to at least have the cojones to stand up and respond to it.

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: I withdraw.

Interjection.

Mr. John Fraser: You’re exactly right. It was worth it.

Here’s another gem, guys: “These judges that are bleeding hearts, I can’t wait until they retire. Matter of fact, I’ll pay them to retire earlier. I’ll pay you out for two, three, four years. Just get out of the system....”

Is there a reason that the Premier wants to undermine confidence in our judges and our judicial system in this province? Does he want to discredit the courts the way that Donald Trump does? Is he watching that? Is that what he’s doing? Is he mimicking and imitating him?

Hon. Doug Downey: Madam Speaker, the level of frustration that we hear from the public when crime is happening in their communities, the crime that people are experiencing, their neighbours—there are communities that have had to hire their own private security, they feel so unsafe in their own yard. This needs to stop.

We are putting resources in, from hiring police to having hearings to creating wraparound services. We’ve increased the threshold for income eligibility for individuals in the system through legal aid. We are doing things in every part of the system.

What the Liberals are telling us is, “We hear the community, but we don’t believe you, and we don’t care.”

Justice system

Mr. John Fraser: That’s the problem. They don’t care. That’s the problem.

Speaker, back to the Premier: This is the same Premier who tried to hire one of his closest friends as the commissioner of the OPP, the biggest police force in Ontario, until a retired judge, an Integrity Commissioner, wrote a 108-page report.

So it sounds to me like the Premier wants to have both ends of the system. He wants to be the arbiter of who’s guilty, of who gets charged, and he says this too—“The system is broken and there’s a lot of terrible, terrible, bleeding-heart judges.” Does the Premier really believe this, or is he just performing for the cameras?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: There you have it, Madam Speaker: The Liberals are saying the system is working fine. Well, the system isn’t working fine. The system needs help.

That’s why, last year, we made a commitment of $29 million, to add a minimum of 25 new judges to the system. Now, when we add a judge to the system, it’s not just a judge; it’s a prosecutor, it’s a clerk, it’s a victim support worker—it’s about seven members of the administration for each judge. We added 25 last year, but more needs to be done. That’s why I said on Monday that we’re adding 17 more. That’s 42 new judges and wraparound supports for the system. This is not just historic; this is seismic. This will change the speed and the ability to have people have a fair and impartial hearing, faster.

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

Mr. John Fraser: Not if the Premier is doing that hearing.

Here’s another quote—but this one is not from the Premier. This is from the Attorney General, who has got a great quote this morning—that he doesn’t care. I will add this—and he says this in reference to the Premier: “You should see what he says in private.” We all kind of know what he says in private, because we’ve got the greenbelt, we’ve got MZOs, we’ve got Therme—so it’s about what he says in public that concerns me most.

A couple of years ago, a young father, Umar Zameer, was charged with a terrible, terrible, terrible crime. He had a young family. And the Premier spoke publicly, literally within 24 hours, presuming the guilt of that man. Publicly, the Premier, the top political office in this province, said that. He was later found not guilty.

Would the Premier like to apologize to Umar and his family today?

Hon. Doug Downey: I don’t know how that connects to anything that we were just talking about. But I’m happy to address the great work of those in our system.

We have the gold standard of judges in this province. The system we use to appoint them is superior to the federal system. I’m very proud of the work that we do. And the Chief Justices we have in this province are the best in the country—all three of them.

I can tell you that the working relationship our government has with the courts as we move forward through MAG and through other parts of government is second to none.

I am very proud of the work we are doing to improve the system, whether it be for individuals who are encountering it for the first time, or whether they’re going through tough times in family law, or whether they’re going through civil litigation. We are changing the system, because we are fixing the system. We are not content to let it sit by and be an apologist, as the Liberals are.

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

Mr. John Fraser: I’m just going to take that as, “There is no need to apologize.”

The government has appointed their own people—actually, former staffers—to the JAAC, and even one who was a gun lobbyist at the time. So I don’t know what the problem is with appointing judges here. Maybe somebody can talk to the Attorney General.

Our courts have to be independent and fair. It’s not good for any of us to talk like Donald Trump and call into question the judgment of the people we put on the bench, just because we don’t like what we see, just because we don’t want to be held accountable, just because we want to say, “I, the Premier, am the top voice of morality and judgment and law in this province.” It’s not his job.

Speaker, I’m going to ask one more time: Will the Premier apologize to Umar and his family?

Hon. Doug Downey: We received a very clear mandate from the people of Ontario to fix the system, to fix the bail system, to make sure that the resources are there so that the system can work. We are frustrated beyond belief that the federal government has not done its part yet, but we will be on them. As the Premier says, he’ll be on them like an 800-pound gorilla, because we have to fix this. But we’re not waiting for them. We’re doing our part first. You’re going to hear more about it this afternoon. We are putting the resources in, we’re changing structural pieces, and we’re going to make the system move faster.

There is nothing that the Liberals have to offer, that they are saying, that is constructive. It’s all throwing mud on the way by, but I hope they up their game during the debates.

Justice system

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: My question is back to the Attorney General.

Yesterday, the Premier proposed abolishing judicial independence in Ontario by electing judges, as they do in the United States. This is because one independent judge approved a temporary injunction to pause the removal of Toronto bike lanes so that he could prepare his final ruling.

Can the Attorney General name even one single legal organization in Canada that supports the Premier’s plan to eliminate our independent judiciary?

Hon. Doug Downey: It’s unfortunate the House leader of the Liberals’ lead question stole half of that question—because it’s the same answer: We were elected to fix the system. We were elected to fix the bail system.

Here’s what we are doing about bail. The Solicitor General has done an awesome job of making sure that we have bail compliance teams, that we have police officers checking in with people to make sure that they are doing—and that they are where they’re supposed to be. That wasn’t happening before—not in the volume that it should. So we added resources to these ROPE teams, and they’re out there. But we’re doing more, because we are putting in place specialized prosecutors so that when individuals aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do in the places where they’re supposed to be, there are consequences.

The public expects there to be a consequence for actions, and we are making that happen.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Speaker, please note that the Attorney General failed to answer that question, which is why he’s getting another one.

During a time when Canadians are standing proud in the fight against Donald Trump’s attack on our sovereignty, this Premier wants to throw open the back doors for him by Americanizing our independent court system. It’s a shame that the Premier doesn’t understand that judges don’t work for him or any other politicians, nor should they.

When will the Premier stop acting like Trump and start acting on the recommendations of the Law Society of Ontario to fix the horrific court backlogs?

Hon. Doug Downey: I talk to all legal organizations, I talk to the law society—I talk to all of them, and they appreciate the resources that we’re putting into the system. When we added 42 new judges, they understand what that means. When we put in guns and gangs specialized prosecution teams to deal with illegal firearms coming across our border and keep our community safe, they understand what that means. When we’re doing the Civil Rules Review—the Rules of Civil Procedure have not been reviewed in a comprehensive way in over 40 years—they are excited about that.

So I will take no lessons from the NDP about what’s good for the system. I will continue to move forward to revitalize the system, change it, make it more relevant, and meet the expectations of the people of Ontario.

Justice system

Mr. Stephen Blais: My question is for the Premier.

What the Premier is proposing by electing judges isn’t just reckless; it’s exactly what we’ve come to expect from this government: cash-for-access decision-making, political overreach—and now, an open invitation to influence our courts. This has been a long time coming. Remember, the Premier appointed his former deputy, a gun lobbyist, to chair the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee.

We don’t need American-style chaos in the system. We don’t need a justice system that looks like Donald Trump’s, where loyalty matters more than the rule of law. The Premier said he would stand up to Donald Trump, not become a maple syrup version of him.

Will the Premier admit it isn’t just a rant; that it is a road map, and that he’s willing to trade judicial independence for political control over our courts?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The leader of the third party will come to order.

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

For those who weren’t here before 2018 or who weren’t necessarily involved in politics—I cannot believe that the Liberals even say the words “cash for access.” That is unbelievable.

In the supplementary, I expect to hear about gas plants—but it could be upside-down bridges. It could be any number of things.

Let’s go back to basics. We were elected to put boots on the ground; to have consequences for actions; to make sure that when people are on bail, they do what they’re supposed to do in the places they’re supposed to be, and that when somebody uses a gun in a crime, they are held to account.

But we’re going beyond that. We’re setting up—it’s already set up—a specialized prosecution team for cyber crime, a first in Canada.

We are doing so many things to combat crime, and I wish the opposition would stand with us.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Before we continue—I do not want to hear the term “cash for access” in this chamber.

I recognize the member for Orléans.

Mr. Stephen Blais: They were elected to put Ontario first, not to transform into maple MAGAs right in front of us.

This isn’t just a bad week for the Premier; it’s a pattern. First, he stacked the appointments committee with his political allies. Now, he’s floating American-style judicial elections—the kind of elections that turn courtrooms into campaign stops and judges into fundraisers.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t reform. It is a power grab.

If the Premier thinks that he can quietly politicize our courts while Ontarians aren’t watching, he’s desperately mistaken.

We don’t elect judges in Canada for a reason: because justice should be blind, not driven by political ideology or campaign donations.

Will the Premier come clean and just tell this House whether he still believes in judicial independence or not?

Hon. Doug Downey: Members of their caucus want to defund the police. That’s a non-starter for us. And now they don’t want criminals behind bars. So it’s very difficult to have a rational conversation when their premise is wrong.

Mr. Stephen Blais: Say that outside. See how it goes for you.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): The member for Orléans will come to order.

Hon. Doug Downey: Clearly, pushed a button, Madam Speaker.

They want us to name things and one thing of this and one thing of that. I would challenge the member opposite to name one judge we have appointed who he thinks is not right.

Public safety

Mr. Andrew Dowie: My question is for the Attorney General.

Speaker, the people of Windsor–Tecumseh and across Ontario are concerned about the growing threat of rising crime. They want to feel safe in their homes, on their streets and in their communities. They want a justice system that is fast and fair and that puts victims first, not criminals. They want real change, not more excuses from NDP and Liberal governments. This was vocalized very clearly on Monday. This is also why our government made a clear promise during the last election: We’ll crack down on crime, protect families and make Ontario safer.

Our government must keep acting to strengthen our courts, make bail tougher, and work with police to stop serious crime.

Can the Attorney General please tell the House more about the new measures that we are taking to protect Ontario and keep people safe?

Hon. Doug Downey: I really appreciate the question from the member for Windsor–Tecumseh. He’s so dedicated in his community. I was talking to a radio show down there about what a great mayor you have down in your space. And the police chief out of Windsor is fantastic.

The legislation we’re talking about is about public safety and protecting our communities. It is a top priority for us. We moved very quickly after the last election. We’re working with law enforcement, the justice sector. We’re expanding measures to crack down on serious crime—and not just violent firearm crime, but auto theft, as you’ve heard from us before, and cyber attacks, which I just mentioned a moment ago.

The proposed measures would strengthen Ontario’s court and correctional systems by improving the administration of bail, streamlining the process for judicial appointments, and expanding justice centres across the province. We are proposing stronger measures to improve the efficiency and efficacy of our courts.

I’ll have more to say in the second question.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: Speaker, we know that crime is changing. Whether it’s auto theft, drug crime or online attacks, the people of Ontario want a justice system that can keep up. They want action. They want to know that the courts, the police and our laws are working together to keep them safe. That’s why our government must keep moving forward.

It’s encouraging to see real action—like tougher bail rules, more judges, and stronger laws to fight crime. These efforts show that our government is serious about protecting victims and making sure that those who break the law face real consequences.

Speaker, can the Attorney General explain how these new measures will give our justice system the tools that it needs to better protect Ontario families and communities like mine?

Hon. Doug Downey: Thank you for the question. It is true: We’re not just focused on the criminals—although we are very focused on the criminals. But we’re also focused on the victims. And with the new legislation, we’re targeting action to keep the people of Ontario safe in their communities by increasing the tools that address serious crime.

If passed, the legislation is going to increase tools to address intimate partner violence by amending the Family Law Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act to make family law restraining orders against abusers more accessible.

We’re improving bail collection, and we’re starting a process to comprehensively review that bail system, and we will be after the federal government to do their part.

We’re exploring legislative options to crack down on illicit drug production and trafficking.

We’re continuing our auto theft efforts with our major prosecution teams.

And we’re making the justice system more effective by adding 17 more judges, for a total of 42, to the complement.

These proposals will strengthen our system and ensure that everybody has the tools they need to combat crime.

Ontario economy

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: My question is for the Premier.

In a time of harmful tariffs and threatening talk of annexation, Canadians want to do the right thing and support Canadian jobs and businesses. So let’s give Ontarians the information they want and need.

Yesterday, we in the official opposition tabled a motion to make big box stores clearly label goods and foods made in Ontario and Canada, or imported from the United States, so we can easily buy Ontario and buy Canada with our hard-earned money. They voted no.

How could you vote against that?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): I recognize the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery and Procurement.

Hon. Stephen Crawford: The member opposite talks about supporting Ontario. This is the government that brought in signs, as you cross the border into Ontario from Manitoba, from New York, from Quebec—it says, “Open for business.” This government is committed to supporting Ontario businesses throughout the province.

Many businesses right here in the province have voluntarily put signs up highlighting products that are made in Ontario, made in Canada.

Speaker, consumers are speaking. They’re going to Ontario-made and Canadian-made products.

But what we don’t want to do is put more burden, more regulation on the small businesses of Ontario.

We’ve talked to them. I suggest you talk to them and get their input.

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

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: Big grocers are raking in record profits, colluding to fix the price of bread, and punishing Ontario families with sky-high, gouging food costs.

If big grocery chains can stick a label on a product when it goes on sale, they can certainly stick on a label to show us when they hike the price of that same product.

Our motion yesterday demanded that big box stores and large grocery stores clearly label it when they hike prices. But this government disagreed.

Why does this government keep calling consumer protection and transparency “red tape”?

Hon. Stephen Crawford: Again, I would caution the member opposite to actually go out and talk to businesses, talk to consumers.

We believe in free enterprise. We don’t believe in controlling prices. That just doesn’t make sense.

Let me say that I do agree with the member opposite on one thing: Ontarians do deserve to make informed choices, especially when it comes to spending their hard-earned money. That’s why we’re taking real action to both protect Ontario consumers and support the businesses that drive our economy.

But let’s be clear: We are not going to burden the hard-working small businesses with unnecessary red tape. This is only going to confuse customers, confuse businesses. We have a minister of red tape right here. We have the most regulations of any subnational government in Canada—380,000. Our goal is to make it easier for consumers—not with more regulation, more red tape.

We’ll continue supporting consumers in the province of Ontario.

Justice system

M me Lucille Collard: The Premier’s recent comments attacking members of Ontario’s judiciary, calling them “bleeding hearts,” suggesting they should be paid to retire, and even proposing we elect judges like in the United States, are not just inflammatory; they are deeply dangerous. Judicial independence is not a luxury. It is a pillar of our democracy, and when the Premier dismisses that independence because he doesn’t like a ruling, he isn’t just criticizing a decision; he’s undermining confidence in the rule of law itself—and the three Ontario Chief Justices just agreed with that, as they publicly stated.

My question is to the Attorney General. Will he stand in this House today and unequivocally affirm the independence of Ontario’s judiciary and reject the Premier’s Trump-inspired suggestion that judges should be elected or removed based on ideology?

Hon. Doug Downey: The Liberals across cling to quotes and cling to this and cling—they’re not even paying attention to the victims. We’re talking about a frustration that is boiling over in this province. It is the expression of frustration that the system is not working properly for the people of Ontario. When we knocked on tens of thousands of doors, we heard it at the doors—we hear it from our constituents. They want this province to do better.

We are committed to fixing this. This is why we got elected. We’re putting the resources in, we’re putting the people in—we are making the system work better. We welcome the federal government to come join us to make it work as best as it can. But we’re not going to stand and throw quotes back and forth, back and forth.

Their premise is wrong. Their inability to say that we should even be hiring police makes it very difficult to follow their path.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Back to the member from Ottawa–Vanier.

M me Lucille Collard: Speaker, what we heard from the Premier is not leadership. It is a reckless attack on the very foundation of our justice system. When judges are pressured to rule in favour of political interests or face threats of public dismissal, it undermines the rule of law.

The Attorney General’s silence in the face of these comments is also troubling. His role is not to cheer-lead for the Premier but to defend the integrity of our legal system.

I will ask again: Will the Attorney General clearly denounce the Premier’s remarks, commit to protecting judicial independence, and assure Ontarians that decisions in our courts will be based on law, not political pressure?

Hon. Doug Downey: This is the problem with pre-printed questions—she says my “silence”? I’ve gone through more water today than I have in the last week.

This is about the victims. This is about the people, our constituents, who we hear from, who are afraid in their own homes. People are breaking into homes to get keys, to take cars, with guns, with gangs. This is not acceptable in our province. We will not put up with it, and we will fix it.

Government accountability

Mr. Mike Schreiner: My question is for the Premier.

The special economic zones in Bill 5 will give cabinet unprecedented powers to allow them to hand-pick any corporation that won’t have to obey any law—including labour, health and safety standards, environmental rules, and provincial and local planning laws. These zones will have zero legislative oversight, zero rules and zero consultation with everyday people and First Nations.

I want to be clear: I’ll work across party lines to fight Trump, but not for a bill that is a race to the bottom. Bill 5 is the kind of power grab and end-run around legislative democracy that caused the Premier of BC to backtrack last month.

My question for the Premier: Will he also backtrack on Bill 5, put forward a bill that will build—

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Response? I recognize the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We are in an economic war. We just returned from Germany, Japan and South Korea, and businesses are grappling on how to deal with this unprecedented amount of uncertainty. It’s affecting the entire global economy. Businesses are looking for stability—a reliable partner that can give them that certainty, that predictability, and we’ve told them that Ontario is that partner. They want to know that their projects won’t be held up in red tape, bureaucracy and lengthy permitting processes. The competition to land these investments is going to be greater than ever before, and we need to show them that Ontario is the place to be for their new investments.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Speaker, we are in an economic war, and that’s exactly why we need to respect democracy, respect legislative rights, and respect First Nations—our duty to consult.

Let’s be clear: Trampling on First Nations rights will actually slow—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Stop the clock.

I apologize to the member for Guelph. Please continue.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Trampling on the constitutional duty to consult will actually slow down development. Removing labour standards, environmental protections and consultation with people will actually undermine public confidence and the social licence to build.

Let’s fight Trump not with Trump-style policies but by respecting the will of this Legislature and the rules it makes.

So I want to say to the minister: Will you work with us to build faster while respecting democracy and First Nations rights?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, there is a chill on business investment across the world right now. Companies can’t make their investment decisions if they don’t have a clear understanding of what the political, the economic and the regulatory environment is going to be. And that uncertainty comes from the Trump tariffs.

While this presents a very, very serious challenge to Ontario and other jurisdictions around the globe, it also opens a window of opportunity. That pause of investment decisions is leaving a glut of capital that is building up. Eventually, that glut of capital will need somewhere to land. That’s why we’re moving forward with actions right now to ensure that Ontario is the destination of choice for that glut of capital.

Join us in supporting the strategic economic zone bill.

Transportation infrastructure

MPP Bill Rosenberg: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation.

Families and businesses across Ontario are counting on strong roads and highways to stay connected and prosper.

For too long, northern Ontario was left behind by the previous Liberal government. They said no to investing in new roads and bridges. They ignored the needs of our families, workers and job creators.

But under the leadership of Premier, things are changing.

We know that the Ontario population is growing fast. We also know global risks like US tariffs are putting new pressure on our economy.

Building better highways and roads is not a choice; it’s a must.

Madam Speaker, can the minister please share what our government is doing to build strong roads, highways and transit across Ontario, especially in the north?

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

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: Thank you to the hard-working member from Algoma–Manitoulin for that great question.

Speaker, the people of Ontario re-elected our government to a third majority because they trust our Premier’s leadership and they see real results.

Shovels are in the ground, and we’re building the infrastructure Ontario needs. We’re delivering on historic investments in highways, roads, bridges and public transit from Timmins to Thunder Bay, from Windsor to Ottawa. Nearly $100 billion is being invested to keep Ontario moving and to support the next generation of growth.

Whether it’s addressing explosive population growth or years of neglect from previous governments, or preparing for the threats of President Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs—we know the key to protecting Ontario’s economy is building a stronger and more modern transportation network.

While the Liberals and NDP continue to vote against critical transit and highway projects, we’re focused in investing in our communities and delivering results for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

MPP Bill Rosenberg: It is clear that our government is getting it done.

For too long, Liberal and NDP governments talked big but never built. Northern Ontario was left waiting for new roads, new highways and better transit.

Families, workers and businesses need strong transportation networks to stay connected and grow.

Under the Premier’s leadership, we are finally seeing action. We are seeing real investments made in the north and across Ontario. Whether it’s the Ontario Line, Highway 413 or twinned highways in the north, our government is building a strong future.

Speaker, can the minister share more about how these projects will help our communities create good jobs and keep Ontario’s economy strong for generations to come?

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal: In the last election, the people of Ontario overwhelmingly endorsed our PC government’s plan to build Ontario.

After decades of Liberal inaction, the people remembered their record. They built nothing.

But under the bold leadership of this Premier, we’re getting it done. We’re building the Ontario Line, the Yonge North subway, the Eglinton West extension, twinned highways in northern Ontario, new GO trains, Highway 413, the Bradford Bypass, the Hazel McCallion Line, the 401 tunnel. And, yes, we’re bringing back the Northlander. I wish I had more time, because this list is just the beginning.

These historic investments will drive growth, strengthen our economy, and benefit Ontario families for generations to come.

Labour dispute

MPP Lisa Gretzky: To the Premier: 206 CUPE Local 2073 workers at Canadian Hearing Services are on strike after their wages have fallen 16% behind inflation over the past decade. These workers provide support to thousands of deaf and hard-of-hearing Ontarians. Many of these workers are deaf or hard-of-hearing themselves. Once 500 workers strong, their numbers have dwindled to just over 200, partly due to wage suppression under the unconstitutional Bill 12, amid an affordability crisis, which forced these workers out of their jobs.

Will the Premier stand up for these workers and ensure they are adequately paid for their essential work?

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

Interjections.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: I saw Bob Bailey stand up, and I thought maybe he’s taking it, but no.

I appreciate the question.

I think what we all acknowledge is that we can’t have the relationship with our very reliable US trading partner that we’ve had in the past. What we thought was an unshakable relationship has caused us to rethink how we’re going to move forward with our economy.

That is why this government campaigned on a “protect Ontario” platform—that we would do what it takes to protect people, to protect jobs, to protect businesses in this province. That’s why we launched the platform of creating an environment of free trade in Canada. Think about that. People have said that’s going to go up to $250 billion of GDP—economic prosperity in this province.

Those are some of the things that we’re doing to protect workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Question?

MPP Lisa Gretzky: It goes to show the utter lack of respect and understanding for deaf and hard-of-hearing people in this community. I asked about workers in the deaf and hard-of-hearing community and the fact that under unconstitutional Bill 124 and pay cuts under this government, we have lost workers who support deaf and hard-of-hearing people in this province. And that’s the answer that the minister gives? It’s absolutely shameful—after laughing at the beginning of the answer.

With staffing cut by more than half, each worker is now doing the job of two, and deaf and hard-of-hearing Ontarians are left with only a fraction of their services.

Will the Premier stop shortchanging these workers and commit to fair pay so that deaf and hard-of-hearing Ontarians aren’t denied the vital services that they rely on?

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Response? I recognize the member for York South–Weston.

MPP Mohamed Firin: We will do whatever it takes to protect Ontario businesses and workers who are affected by the situation that the member mentioned. We have various programs, including our Skills Development Fund, that we use to train workers, and we’ll do our best to protect workers.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Donna Skelly): Please come to order. Both sides will come to order.

Continue.

MPP Mohamed Firin: Madam Speaker, as I said, as we navigate a shifting economic landscape, including tariffs on Canadian goods, our government remains focused on supporting key sectors, particularly in the high-risk industries like manufacturing, construction, and other industries.

Our priority is keeping businesses open for this province and our people.

As I said, we will continue to do whatever it takes to protect Ontario workers.

School boards

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

Minister, your government recently began investigating the TDSB, citing financial concerns. While I agree that fiscal responsibility matters, we also can’t ignore the real challenges facing the students across the TDSB and in my riding of Don Valley North due to chronic underfunding. In fact, since 2019, per-student funding has dropped by nearly $1,500, leading to larger class sizes and less support for students.

My question to the minister: Will this ministry’s investigation include a full review of these urgent needs, and will your government commit to properly funding the solutions?

Hon. Paul Calandra: I appreciate the question from the member opposite.

Let’s put this into perspective. The Toronto District School Board has been running multi-year deficits. What they’re being asked to do is find savings of less than 2% in an over $3-billion budget.

They did exactly what I expected them to do. Last night, they attacked students, parents and teachers, as opposed to finding savings by reducing, let’s say, the number of superintendents they have or by going after the $35 million of paid leave that they have. What did they do? They attacked students. They attacked teachers. That is what that school board does—and that is why I’m sending an investigator into that school to put it back on the right track.

Let me be very clear to the member opposite and to the members of the Toronto District School Board, the trustees: Do the right things for students. Do the right things for teachers. If you don’t, I’ll take you over and I’ll put the board back on track.

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

Mr. Jonathan Tsao: Minister, the fact is that when funding goes down, students feel it—and so does the quality of their education.

Parents and teachers in my riding are deeply—deeply—concerned about the impact of the inaction of this government over the past seven years, especially on special education, IT programs, and opportunities in music, drama, sports and the arts. On top of that, aging infrastructure only adds to these pressures.

If your government will not fill the $1,500 per-student shortfall, will your ministry’s investigation, at the very least, show how the TDSB is expected to pay for these essential programs and maintenance?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Yes, absolutely. That’s exactly what we’re going to do—because, as I said, colleagues, the Toronto District School Board did exactly what I expected last night. What did they say? “Oh, we’re going to close all our pools. We’re going to fire our music teachers.”

What they didn’t say is, “We’re going to look at the record number of superintendents who are littered all over the sunshine list”—the